As expected, Sen. Hillary Clinton crushed Sen. Barack Obama in yesterday's West Virginia primary. This result means very little, of course. Obama still has the most pledged delegates, the most superdelegates, and the most popular votes, and is still firmly on track to capture the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. While not very politically significant, though, the outcome in West Virginia does shed some new light on the kinds of Democratic primary voters who do and do not vote for Obama.
The so-called "race chasm" theory, conceived not long ago, held that Obama prevails wherever African-Americans make up a very small (i.e. less than 6 percent) or very large (i.e. more than 17 percent) share of a state's population. The idea was that very white states lack a legacy of racial discrimination, and are thus receptive to a black man running for president, while the blacks in heavily African-American states are able to overwhelm the less amenable whites who live there. In between, where blacks make up more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent of a state's population, racial polarization reduces Obama's appeal to white voters but African-American voters are not numerous enough to compensate.
This theory had correctly predicted the result in just about every primary to date. Yesterday, though, it misfired spectacularly. West Virginia, a state where blacks make up just 3 percent of the population -- a state that was founded because of opposition to slavery -- went for Clinton by 40 points over Obama. States with similar black/white demographics (e.g. Nebraska, Maine, Washington) had all previously gone for Obama by significant margins. So what on earth happened in West Virginia? Why did the "race chasm" theory fail so dramatically?
Josh Marshall posits an interesting historical answer. Marshall observes that West Virginia is part of Appalachia, a region with a historical, ethnic, and socioeconomic profile distinct from the eastern seaboard, the deep South, or the Midwestern plains. For a variety of reasons, Marshall suggests, Appalachian voters are particularly likely to support Clinton over Obama.
But this explanation is not very satisfying either. Yes, West Virginia went overwhelmingly for Clinton while Southern states like Alabama and Mississippi fell into the Obama column. But white voters in West Virginia were essentially indistinguishable from their peers in the deep South. According to exit poll data, Clinton won West Virginia white voters by a 69-23 margin -- and Alabama and Mississippi white voters by almost identical 72-25 and 70-26 margins, respectively.
What these numbers mean is that Obama doesn't exactly have an "Appalachia problem." After all, if West Virginia had a black population akin to Alabama or Mississippi's, Obama would almost certainly have won the state. And if Alabama and Mississippi had the same black/white demographics as West Virginia, Obama would almost certainly have been trounced. Rather, Obama's greatest difficulty seems to be with white voters both in Appalachia and in certain nearby states. For whatever reason, white voters in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia have all proven extremely reluctant to support Obama, instead preferring Clinton by margins of at least 20 points.
Still, there is hope that Obama can increase his appeal to these states' white voters in the general election. For one thing, whites in some Southern and Midwestern states were surprisingly receptive to Obama. Since Obama lost Georgia whites by only 10 points, there would seem to be no reason why he should lose Alabama and Mississippi whites by 45 points. Similarly, since Obama won Virginia whites by 5 points, there would seem to be no reason why he should lose North Carolina whites by 24 points. A general election is also a very different contest than a Democratic primary, and many of the whites who voted for Clinton over Obama can be expected to support Obama when he becomes the party's nominee.
Finally, and most importantly, Obama seems well aware of his unpopularity with certain white voters, and eager to do his best to improve the situation. It is a very good sign that today's New York Times headline reads: "After Lopsided Loss, Obama Woos Blue-Collar Voters." Wooing may not always work -- but it plainly beats ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.
As a black woman, I take it as given that there are going to be People Who Do Not Like Me - some, because I rub them the wrong way, others because I am a woman, a black person. Okay - that is their right.
Human beings tend to fear and hate what they do not know - there are not a whole lot of black people in places like West Virginia, and as previous posters have commented, there is a history behind much of the way people who live in such places think and feel, just like there is a history behind much of what black people in places like Compton, CA, or North Philadelphia or Harlem, NY think and feel.
I recall seeing a movie about a miners' strike - one of the striking miners was a black man, and was called the N-word. A white woman said to the insulting person, 'That 'N' is a _better_ man than _you'll_ ever be!" in her beautiful accent (I think this may have been in West Virginia)
When I saw this scene, I thought, "You go, girl!"
socioeconomic figures in too-blue or white collar jobs in these states?
Don't criticize the people of West Virginia. Criticize the Democrats in national office who spend all their time soliciting bribes and getting rich, and spend no time working for the people of this country. If the Democrats weren't so corrupt, they would have improved the lives of the people of West Virginia who, after all, were featured in depression-era photos as the poorest people in the country. They still are, and none of the politicians do a damned thing about it.
If the Democrats weren't so corrupt, they would have stopped the coal companies from hacking off the tops of mountains, pouring sludge into the water and into the land and destroying all the water in West Virginia, destroying every form of life that lives in the water, polluting the air and making the people and the children sick, then walking away with their billions in stolen resources and leaving those people with nothing but sickness and an early death.
If the Democrats weren't so currupt, they would have a national anti-racism program, and would ensure that every person in this country got a good education and job, and was able to see through the myths of racism.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Some people who are poor have to feel superior to others. "At least I'm not black." Even though an educated black person will probably make more money in a life time and make definite positive contributions to society, some poor white people will feel superior to them. That's the way they were raised. Living in rural areas isolated from other cultures makes some of these people fearful. They believe Obama is a Muslim and he and the blacks are coming to get them. Those attitudes are not in just West Virginia, but in other states.
Disclaimer: I'm not pro-Obama or pro-Clinton. I'm pro-Democrat, regardless of who ends up as the nominee.
WVA is 86.5% Christian, and 41% of that is "unafiliated"- having no ties to mainstream protestant churches.
These people have been manipulated by the Christian Conservative right, who disseminated pamphlets in 2004 claiming that liberals want to ban bibles, for example.
WVa hasn't even banned snake handling, as you can see in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMP-CQ_bvSM&feature=related
(The snakes come out about halfway through.)
Mainstream identity politics lose their meaning here, as these "blue collar white people" identify with their religious peculiarities way more than race or income.
I will not say there are no bigots or racists in West Virginia, just like I can't say there are none in Washington, Pennsylvania, Indiana or any other state. But let's see if we can wrap our head around this concept: Could West Virginians have voted for Hillary because we felt she was the best candidate? Could it be we voted for Hillary because Obama didn't put a lot of effort in campaigning here, assuming, as you have,that most West Virginians are backward, uneducated bigots and he shouldn't waste his time? Could it possibly be that West Virginians feel that Hillary has more experience in domestic and international affairs and would be more equipped to handle stepping into the White House in the middle of a failed military conflict, a declining economy, and an astronomical national budget deficit?
Instead of attacking West Virginians for not choosing your political candidate, why don't we just agree to disagree?
In fact, if you look at national polls you will see 20 percent is pretty standard across the board nationally. These are the same 20 percent who think George Bush is doing a great job. They are the same 20 percent who think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. They are a NATIONAL 20 percent, not just in WV.
You know, it these people were only in WV, the country wouldn't have a problem, would it/ We could just nuke WV and let the US go on its progressive way.
Stop making WV your whipping boy. You are really succeeding in making us very, very angry. Bigotry is bigotry.
I'm from Indiana, and trust me, there's plenty of those same type of stupid, ignorant, bigoted people here. Frighteningly, that number is turning out to be far greater than I thought it was before this campaign started.
And it's not just media bias, I've seen it first hand. Just hatred for no other reason than a person is different from what they think qualifies as a human being. Denial of this only perpetuates the problem.
Since Virginia (almost identical demographics) Obama lost 24 points among white voters, and only won about 1 in 3 in that state?
Could it be that nothing about the voters changed EXCEPT their perceptions of the candidate?
I know.....its just easier to label everyone as racist.
You're kidding, right? For someone making fun of others, you sound pretty uneducated yourself.
Stop the prejudice against Appalachian people.
===========
Thats only an issue for the FAAAARRR LEEFFFTTT LOOOONS like yourself.
Moderate dems like me realize....80% of the COUNTRY was in favor of the war at the time it started.....no punishment to HRC needed......to Bush & Co...perhaps.
What joy does Hillary take in claiming the uneducated, gun-toting, bible-thumper vote?
Yay, she can fool dummies! (Of course, that's how the ninny currently claiming the mantle of Prezdint got elected, as well.)
=============
How WRONG you are.......AND YOU ARE A SNOB.
In the West Virginia DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY...the education of voters was as follows.....
29% Hold a 2 year college degree
15% Hold a 4 Year college degree
14% Hold a Post Graduate Degree.
Meaning 59% of voters had at least 2 years of college.....K
That's the lowest among all states.
Wikipedia...
"West Virginia has received low marks for reading and math skills at the eighth-grade level and ranked 51st in college education rates."
As for the economy...
"The economy of West Virginia is one of the most fragile of any U.S. state. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, West Virginia is the third lowest in per capita income, ahead of only Arkansas and Mississippi. It also ranks last in median household income."
It isn't snobbery to point out facts. West Virginia has been voting for low taxes and poor education for decades. It has received what it supported.
So 70% did not go to a four-year college. Hmmm...
Do you have numbers on the median incomes of these West Virginian voters compared to other primary states? That would be a telling statistic.