Hillary "I Rejoice In My Racist Supporters" should really adopt the Appalachians as her new carpetbagging home.

Who would be the strongest VP pick for Obama to appeal to these voters?

Possibilities: John Murtha, John Edwards, Robert Byrd or "Jay" Rockefeller?

I'm for Obama, but I want to play devil's advocate for a second:

If you're running against an African-American, aren't you the racists' candidate by default? Aren't they going to support you just to stop him? It seems a little unfair to blame Hillary for this.

I grew up in Appalachia; it wasn't just anti-slave, it was anti-anyone who provided cheap labor.

Initial waves of Catholic labor were resisted as well (ie, Italians, Poles, etc) since they undercut prevailing wages.

She owns the hillbilly vote!

---
Possibilities: John Murtha, John Edwards, Robert Byrd or "Jay" Rockefeller?
---

I was an Edwards supporter for this exact reason.

My god! Why do election wonks go through such contortions to avoid saying the obvious - a good number people in these regions of the country, even those who call themselves Democrats (not to be confused with liberal) are racists.

Use the same mapping technique substituting a poll of all voters, and the purple becomes nearly red, and spreads throughout most of the rural areas of the country and covers most of the Deep South.

Ignorance is bliss...and the folks in these areas wonder why nothing changes generation after generation...like poverty, ignorance has vicious generational component.

I think one important point to note about the region is that Appalachia is also primarily white; meaning these folks just haven't had a great deal of contact with African-Americans and what they know about black America comes from pop culture and stereotypes.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty much what the rest of American seems to "know" about Appalachia.

I'm a political scientist and history teacher and I'm inclined to think that once Obama secures the nomination, he'll need to do some work in these areas, especially those that have been traditional Democratic strongholds. But the honest truth is that major party nominees always have a strong base of support and then must work harder to build that base. So Obama's task is no different from any other major party nominee.

She owns the hillbilly vote!

We prefer the term 'hillwilliam'.

Josh Marshall is correct. The topography of Appalachia precluded cotton and rice plantations. The lowlands of South Carolina etc. required slaves to make these plantations economically viable.
The resulting disparity in wealth made for a deep devision. West Virginia seceded from Virginia over this issue. Hence the hate of slave owners AND slaves.
Read Freehling et al for a fresh view of the "South" It is not homogenous.

From these maps I'd say it's obvious that Obama's campaign actually moved votes. I am not so sure that Clinton's campaigning did that to any great degree.

HRC would have gotten 65 percent merely from getting "clinton" printed on the ballot in these counties. Obama had to organize and campaign to introduce himself and to win on the areas he won.

Yet, the funny thing is, in the General Election, the "hillbillies" will be a small minority of the total vote.

I'd like to see an equivalent map for Obama. Is it mostly the south? I think there would be some mountain west states too, and HI.

Of course this isn't really about Hon. Sen. Clinton as much as it is the reason that the GOP has had success. She herself raises the point, albeit obliquely, as an electability argument.

The tendency to attribute all the votes in the region to racism is perhaps a little bit short-sighted. How many self-identifying Democrats are dyed-in-the-wool racists? That type of hate usually goes in Republican party or with weird libertarians. People vote for Hillary Clinton for a lot of reasons, calling those who voted for low-education voters or claiming that they lack the complexity of thought of other voters is malignant and kills the Democratic party in elections. That everyone who votes for the other guy is either stupid or ignorant of their own best interests.

SP, if you click on the DHinMI link in the post, you go DHinMI's post, which has maps highlighting where Obama won 55% and 65% of the vote.

How in the hell did Hillary get better than 65% in the Rio Grande Valley?

That's a very interesting map.

But it also needs to be recognized that there is an intervening variable not displayed. Those are the results of people voting in the Democratic Primary. It shows the actions of a sub-population of each county, nothing else. Those results - both black and purple counties - show nothing about how the Republicans and Independents in the same counties will vote. So while it appears that Hillary has a loyal following in Appalachia and other counties, those results cannot be generalized to the general election.

Also, the purple counties in Texas cannot be caused by the same factors that apply in Appalachia. Those in South Texas are counties with high percentage of Hispanic population. There is simply no common history with that of Appalachia.

Since a principle reason for the Texas Revolution against Mexico was a reaction against Mexico's effort to outlaw slavery in the state of Texas and since Mexico actively provided sanctuary for escaped slaves from the time of the Texas Revolution until after the American Civil War, the apparent causes of any reaction against Obama in South Texas can't have the same causes as in appaliachia.

I'd guess that the vote for Hillary in Texas reflects her contacts there beginning when she was organizing in Texas for the McGovern campaign. The purple in Arkansas and nearby probably have similar origins going back to Bill's governorship. So the effect of Appalachia, if any, is a lot less extensive than suggested by that raw, unexplained map.

I grew up in Appalachia; it wasn't just anti-slave, it was anti-anyone who provided cheap labor.

Initial waves of Catholic labor were resisted as well (ie, Italians, Poles, etc) since they undercut prevailing wages. - eightnine at 12:48 p.m.

Thank you, eightnine, for this insightful post about the history of Appalachia. I wonder if Obama’s supporters will listen to you and learn anything, instead of posting their usual attacks of racism and stupidity against anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama.

It is pretty obvious that many people in Appalachia live in poverty and have real needs. What does Obama do in West Virginia? Instead of addressing their real concerns, he makes a token appearance and plays pool with a smirk. He probably thought his supporters in the rest of the country would enjoy the joke and approve of his flippant behavior. I guess we’ll find out in November.

Let me just say that I sure am glad the media is gone and WV will no longer be treated like a freak show. This last week has been almost unbearable for some of us here in WV.

At any rate, race and history play prominent roles, but there are a lot more things that impacted why Hillary did so well in WV:

1.) A general contrarian attitude in the state. Look at the votes Edwards, Huckabee, and Paul got yesterday.

2.) Name recognition- things were good when Clinton was President. Folks remember that.

3.) Familiarity- West Virginians are suspicious of, well, "outsiders." Obama was and is new, Hillary is a known quantity.

4.) West Virginians are always supportive of fighters and underdogs.

5.) These are the types of voters that have trended towards Hillary all year. There is a reason Poblano is so good at what he does at 538.

And on and on. WV was tailor made for Hillary. Having said all that, I think it goes to McCain regardless who the candidate is in the fall. I think people forget how good a job the GOP did in 2000 over the gun issue.

It is pretty obvious that many people in Appalachia live in poverty and have real needs. What does Obama do in West Virginia? Instead of addressing their real concerns, he makes a token appearance and plays pool with a smirk. He probably thought his supporters in the rest of the country would enjoy the joke and approve of his flippant behavior. I guess we’ll find out in November.

Exactly! What we rubes in WV need is someone to come feel our pain and lie to us about a gas tax. That will fix us right up!

There is nothing he could do to change the outcome yesterday, and spending time and resources would have not only been a waste, it would have been counter-productive, as the Clinton campaign would have said stuff like "Obama spent x number of millions and x days campaigning here and still lost."

Do I need to remind people that Obama has won this race, and that he really does not need to take advice from the losing candidate and her supporters?

Look... These people are hardly racist. They are culturally conservative. I am not white or black, but brown. Hillary is winning the rural vote. Check Missouri. She lost only 3 counties, which were in major cities. If all the primaries were held post Rev. Wright, Obama would be loosing big in a lot of these states. His big delegate margins were in caucus states and his popular vote lead is all from Cook County, Illinois. That's just the way it is. I am from Georgia and he won big, thanks to the AA vote. No one called them racist because they would not vote for the white guys or woman. They called it AA pride. People root for someone who they are comfortable with. Barack Obama outspent her 2 to 1 in WV, he had Rockerfeller and Rahal on his side and still got clobbered. Deal with it.. The general is coming up soon..Things are going to get rough.

I agree with Jeff. The bottom line is that this is a combination of racism and ignorance. This is obvious to most everyone in the media/blogospheres, but folks are being too politically correct to honestly describe what's actually going on.

I agree with John Cole.

Hillary has lost. She didn't lose by some weird voodoo magic. She lost by votes. More people voted for Obama than voted for Hillary. Welcome to Democracy.

It's interesting that Appalachian people (who account for more than half of my relatives) went for her in the primary. I suspect it is more complicated than strictly racism, but I also suspect (because I hear it from my relatives) that it definitely includes some racism. It's flatly wrong to try to pretend that Appalachia is some great homeland of American homogeneity.

It may shock some of the sanctimonious WV's on here to hear it, but listen up guys: You have racists in your state. A lot of them. I am related to them, and I love them, and they are racists. Shocking but true.

Did I also mention that Hillary lost?

Hillary lost.

Let's move on.

SP: "I'd like to see an equivalent map for Obama. Is it mostly the south? I think there would be some mountain west states too, and HI."

Me: Go to the link! Your question will be answered. What surprised me is that Obama has a lot of appeal among the Democrats in the West, which isn't likely to be based on the huge black Harvard-educated lawyer/rancher demographic in Idaho. But I'm certain it will later be revealed that everyone in the West is a he-man woman-hatin' cowboy-hat-wearin' bastard who spits his tobacky at pollsters.

I'm left wondering what is so magical about the 65% threshold? Does it have any special meaning other than if another number was chosen (say 63%), then the map would look different and someone's cool new theory wouldn't look as good?

emmarose says (re: WVians disliking those who bring down wages) "I wonder if Obama’s supporters will listen to you and learn anything, instead of posting their usual attacks of racism and stupidity against anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama."

Ummm, hating on those who compete with you for jobs is understandable. Translating that hatred to an entire racial group and not voting for a candidate because of merely because he is a member of that racial group is racism. Sorry, it just is.

Leaving aside the racism angle, lets assume black democratic primary voters go for Obama with a high ratio. These purple areas may just not have any blacks to speak of...

If Hillary and Obama had about a 50/50 split among ALL Dem voters, a strong advantage in a relatively small demographic could produce regional differences by such a margin.

Blacks are 12% of the population, but vote ~95% for the Democratic party, so they have some pull in concentrated areas. (Depends on their turnout).

So the purple areas could just be showing the absence of black voters. Not that there isn't racism there (or everywhere, actually).

What about the pockets of purple in southern California, and the Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas? Heavily, almost completely Hispanic areas. Dunno if they're racist, but few blacks live there. Also, northern Michigan - rural, very white.

Alternatively, the purple areas also probably strongly overlap with areas of low formal education. Since Obama polls strong among the higher-educated "elites", he's lower, Hillary's higher.

Ia bitter git up de holler to be avoting for de white lady, said Clem as he proceded to keep his community free from outsiders. -Kevo

This is what the results look like Barack Obama since the Rev. Wright appeared:

West Virginia -147,410
Indiana -14,411
North Carolina +227,224
Guam +7
Pennsylvania -214,115
Mississippi +106,281
Wyoming +2,067
Texas -100,258
Ohio -203,851
Rhode Island -33,633
Vermont +32,095

Bury your heads a little deeper, why don't you..

Let's see here; Appalachia=old-poor-uneducated-racist and probably (undoubtedly)fundamentalist Christians as well.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't want that demographic associated with me in any way, shape or form. I'd just tie a ribbon around the whole mess and send it over to McCain where they truly belong.
If the election turns on that vote, the United States is in a seriously sorry situation, which you might argue it already is for not bringing these folks into McCain's century, never mind modern times.

Flubber has made the only really insightful comment on this thread.

The purple areas are areas where there are few blacks living- period. In the mountain west and the plains states, I would be very careful about drawing hasty conclusions- they were often caucuses, not primaries. One should actually look at the exit polling data from the primaries that have been held- Clinton regularly took a high percentage of the white and hispanic votes in states that Obama actually won, except for the outlier of Illinois.

Unless Obama can make a connection with those Clinton voters, he will lose the election this fall in a season where any Democrat should win easily.

I will play my one card: Appalachia is disproportionately older than much of the rest of the country. It has been losing population for decades, much like the Rust Belt. This is yet another demographic that loves Clinton -- because of the better times they remember from the 90s, their distrust of the "newfangled" Obama, and because the elderly are more likely to be female (esp. in Appalachia, with its punishing manual labor economy). I am sure racism broadly defined played a role, as I grew up not far from West Virginia, and it would be foolish to believe that race did not play a part (as many voters apparently conceded when asked -- more than 20%, in fact, with 80% of those voting for Clinton).

I think one important point to note about the region is that Appalachia is also primarily white; meaning these folks just haven't had a great deal of contact with African-Americans and what they know about black America comes from pop culture and stereotypes.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty much what the rest of American seems to "know" about Appalachia.

I largely concur; for example, for many years during the era of the "solid South," eastern Tennessee -- which had relatively few blacks -- trended Republican. There wasn't that much racial fear stoked up among whites in that part of the state.

You could compare it to some parts of Minnesota, where if racism did exist, it wasn't so much against blacks (who were few in number) as against Native Americans (a more numerous and thus more visible threat).

Wow, Moina, that's about 345,000 less votes out of the total of over 30 million since this whole thing started! Why, that proves... nothing, since Clinton still trails in the measure of support needed to get the nomination: delegates.

Google various agencies or research shops that enumerate behaviors in people. The CDC and others will tell you on a wide variety of negative, destructive personal habits the purple areas of this map lead the nation. Alcoholism, smoking, dropping out of high school, STDs, out of wedlock births, domestic violence and drug abuse are prevalent in these areas to a greater degree than elsewhere with some minor variances. Those rushing to defend or explain this often point to poverty and what it causes people to turn to or do because of it. Yet there are many poor people all over the nation not turning to drugs and alcohol and violence to salve their psyches. Surely few people willfully decide to abuse themselves, their property or their families. Yet here is entire swath of the nation populated by people doing a great many destructive things, to a greater degree than everyone else, and wallowing in some mind set of "Oh, why can't we prosper and get ahead? The big, mean corporations have raped us for years, my lungs are shot, I can't find work, my wife is on my ass, oh my God what am I going to do?" Followed by a few smokes, a few beers, an OXY and watching a couple episodes of Jerry Springer (where they may very well see their sister and the three gas station cashiers wrestling on stage for the right to raise her child by Jethro at the mill). Here's a novel path to follow: Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, stay in school, keep your pants zipped and keep your hands off other people during disagreements. Works wonders. And these are steps to take that everyone already knows about. Just do it.

We have had KY and WV voters openly saying they won't vote for a black guy. One explaining that the latter just wouldn't be fair to white people, of course. That doesn't mean it's immutable though. The 50-state strategy doesn't seem to be shutting down soon, and desensitization seems like a possibility. Maybe not this year though.

In many respects Appalachia is like a developing nation with an extraction resource economy: all the investment goes to extracting the resource as efficiently as possible, and not much goes to the betterment of those who take it out of the ground. And once a mine dies, people don't leave.

And as for the slavery connection -- many of these people purposefully settled in this mountainous area precisely because it did not have slaves. It's not that they didn't have slaves because it was economically infeasible. They really were anti-slavery. Historically, perhaps it would serve to remember that Abraham Lincoln was born into this particular cultural milieu -- but before the take over of the mining industry. His father moved from Kentucky to Illinois so as not to live in a slave state.

Of our current politicians, the only one I know of that empathizes with this demographic is Jim Webb.

Let's see here; Appalachia=old-poor-uneducated-racist and probably (undoubtedly)fundamentalist Christians as well.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't want that demographic associated with me in any way, shape or form. I'd just tie a ribbon around the whole mess and send it over to McCain where they truly belong.

We in Appalachia really appreciate your endorsement of the 50 state strategy.

Seriously, I am pleased to find a more intelligent discussion here of why Clinton does so well in Appalachia than on many blogs, where it seems to come down to "bigots and trailer trash."

Having spent most of my life in Tennessee (some years in Appalachia; some years not) I wouldn't pretend to understand the complexities of Mountain States politics without spending a good deal of time studying them. Yet people who've never set foot in Appalachia, or who've read a few posts about it, are suddenly experts in Appalachian politics.

Bah.

Jerry Springer

I was clicking through the cable channels Sat. night and saw a promo on Boomerang that had the hillbilly bear family on a Springer-like program. Typical family dysfunction was resolved when Paw fired his shotgun at the wall above the audience, spelling out 'I love u ma.'

We've discussed this curious American demographic before, maybe for the 2004 election. IIRC, a number of us recommended David Hackett Fischer's 1989 Albion's Seed. The Wiki entry is pretty good:

The book's descriptions of the four folkways grounding American society is one of the most comprehensive, almost encyclopedic, guide to the origins of colonial American culture. According to Fischer, the foundation of American culture was formed from four mass emigrations from four different regions of Britain by four different socio-religious groups. New England's constitutional period occurred between 1629 and 1640 when Puritans, most from East Anglia, settled there. The next mass migration was of southern English cavaliers and their servants to the Chesapeake Bay region between 1640 and 1675. Then, between 1675 and 1725 thousands of Quakers, led by William Penn settled the Delaware Valley. Finally Scots-Irish settlers from the borderlands of Britain and Northern Ireland migrated to Appalachia between 1717 and 1775. Each of these migrations produced a distinct regional culture which can still be seen in America today. The four migrations are discussed in the four main chapters of the book . . . .

It might be most helpful, this important election year, to refrain from name-calling. Better perhaps to characterize the Borderers and Ulster Scots (who largely settled Appalachia (and Texas) and who were generally the first to extend America's frontiers) as clannish, not racist. If you look like them and sound like them. Or they know your uncle, well, you're good.

This is one excellent argument for Jim Webb as VP. He'd neutralize McCain. They're both from this same stock of so-called Scots-Irish. But Webb is for real, and he's angrier about the war and is way smarter than McCain.

Finally, it'd also be wise not to condescend to these proud Americans as ignorant racists. It just makes them mad. They are our fellow citizens and they've been used and neglected by their country. They've produced most of the country's presidents and most of its distinguished warriors (think Andrew Jackson).

Puritan scion George W. Bush aped their folkways (swagger, bellicosity, contempt for learnin' and fancy speech) and won their support in 2000 and 2004. And then he sent their sons and daughters to a misbegotten war. Perhaps in 2008 the grudge-holding Mountaineers might hold this against the party of Bush.

I will go out on a limb and suggest that a lot of the pathology in Appalachia is concentrated in areas with a robust or formerly robust mining industry. I noted with some satisfaction that the sitting WV chief justice was defeated in a primary election because he had vacationed with the CEO of one of the largest mining concerns in the state. Doesn't the expression "company town" mean something to you? Well, KY and WV are like company states (especially the latter -- KY is more diversified).

Feel free to speculate in comments.

Not a lot of outsiders make it up into them thar hills?

But actually, chalk me up as a little skeptical that this graphic is rendered 100% accurately. It's surprising how contiguously the ultra-pro-Hillary counties are located.

Maybe I'm just ignorant about Appalachia, but I'm surprised that all of it from east to west would have such a uniform culture that they would vote so similarly on this, with hardly an exception anywhere in any area one might call Appalachia. It's almost a little cartoonish.

This is all very interesting, but I have to ask. Are we, all of us, going to let the ugliest of Appalachia's historic artifacts dominate life in the 21st century? Sorry, I don't give a damn if a few hillbillies won't vote for the most qualified candidate just because he is black. It is time for the hillbillies to grow up or get out of the way.

To the extent Hillary is promoting the idea that we should all be slaves to Appalachia's racist past, she demonstrates that she unqualified to lead.

The working theory here, of course, isn't that Appalachians love Hillary so much, but that Appalachians are uniquely uncomfortable voting for a black guy.

Oh please. This is the sort of crap that gets Democrats and so-called liberals into trouble in those parts; and they richly deserve this trouble.

This is an economically underdeveloped region that can and will respond positively to pragmatic policies that yield tangible benefits to them. Robert Byrd is paradigmatic of how to be a successful Democrat in those parts. Want their votes? Study him.

Don't want their votes? Are you too good for them? Then look forward to President McCain.

And thanks.

Gemini, the last time I looked, "old" is not an insult. It's a condition that happens to the luckiest of us. But I stand by my comment that Appalachian residents are disproportionately old, relative to the rest of the nation. Just as Pennsylvania is, due mostly to out-migration. And this explains, at least partly, the overwhelming support for Clinton, just as it did in Pennsylvania.

"...it'd also be wise not to condescend to these proud Americans"

"...George W. Bush aped their folkways (swagger, bellicosity, contempt for learnin'..."
Posted by: paxr55
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Folkways? I suppose swagger is an OK attribute if it implies confidence. But how in the hell is contempt for education some defensible, charming "folkways"? Where I was raised those thumbing their nose at the most culturally acceptable, realistic path to success were condescended to. And like it or not that path involved getting an education. Persons bucking that tried and true approach were generally losers when the dust settled.

If you're running against an African-American, aren't you the racists' candidate by default?

Yes, which is why when McCain and Lieberman roll out the "Obama is the candidate of Hamas" meme, he should respond by calling McCain the "candidate of the KKK" because they would no doubt prefer him over Obama...He should do this not because he believes McCain shares anything in common with the KKK, but because it shows how ridiculous McLieberman's Hamas talk is. You can't control who supports your campaign or what their motives are for doing so....

I promise this is my last post. Liberals love these people -- when it comes to their incredibly rich musical heritage. Ever hear of the Carter family? or Jean Richie? If I had to use one word to describe them, it would be insular, partly by nature, and partly by exploitation. Many Scots Irish moved on from Appalachia and live everywhere else in the nation. Those who stayed and maintained the distinctive culture happen to live in places where concentrated economic forces did not invest in schools or libraries or anything else that would lead people to be less willing to work in a coal mine.

Barack's strategy (if he had a reason to suspect this problem) should have been to have a bunch of cool black people- hand-picked friends of the campaign- go through Appalachia, starting months beforehand, and just talk to white people. Go on the pretext of being your way somewhere for vacation, or to visit relatives, and then just chat with white people who sit down on the same bench as you at the mall or at a bar, and just be cool- friendly and relatable. Don't necessarily talk about politics and don't seem like you want anything. If 120-150 people did this for one to five months, and talked to 5 to 20 white people a day, it would have had an effect on Appalachia. A lot of people who never usually talked to a black person before they had to decide on Barack would have met a cool black person. Those people in turn would have talked differently about black people to their friends and family afterwards. Keep an extra-tight lid on the plan, and it will lead to benefits in the general election, and the future beyond.

Robert Byrd is paradigmatic of how to be a successful Democrat in those parts. Want their votes? Study him.
Don't want their votes? Are you too good for them? Then look forward to President McCain.
And thanks.
Posted by: Duncan Kinder on May 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Um, wouldn't Robert Byrd be a questionable example of how to gain the allegiance of Appalachians? I think his paradigm, as you call it, it to ladle as many bills as possible with pork. Bringing home the bacon?

Just to give a little more of an example to back up my last comment- if you were a Nazi or something, and you wanted liberal law professors to be less interested in what they were doing, you would have some rough-looking young black guy act crazy and thuggish when the professor was waiting out in public, like at a train station or some place. Some liberals might think that all liberals would be too smart or too good to fall for something like this, but the reality is, many liberals if they kept seeing the stereotype again and again would tend to think that the fight for equality was not as worth-while, or at least it would subconsciously undermine their resolve.

Finger-pointing and saying that the vices of poverty are actually the fault of the people, not the poverty (see Steve Duncan, "Alcoholism, smoking, dropping out of high school, STDs, out of wedlock births, domestic violence and drug abuse are prevalent in these areas to a greater degree than elsewhere with some minor variances") reads just like a Ronald Reagan "welfare queen" primer -- but that's okay because people from Appalachia are white. That's tremendously useful... Poverty is a real, entrenched problem in the United States. Poor people are not beknighted and incorrigible ... THEY'RE POOR.

Let's see here; Appalachia=old-poor-uneducated-racist and probably (undoubtedly)fundamentalist Christians as well.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't want that demographic associated with me in any way, shape or form. I'd just tie a ribbon around the whole mess and send it over to McCain where they truly belong. - kamajii

So kamajii, let's just dump all those folks who vote 65% or more for Hillary in the primary. Let's see, who else should we throw under the bus?
- men and women over 65
- white women over 45
- hispanics and asians

Yup, that strategy will sure get us dems into the WhiteHouse this fall.

Oh, and should we also eliminate folks who have never bought arugula at Whole Foods too?

1. Marshall's been hacking full speed for 6 months now, he's unreliable.
2.Take away caucuses, and one can make similar observations about the racial makeup and voting preference of Obama's +65% counties. Interesting only one side is trumpeting the map.

ps- obviously DHinMI is an ass and exactly the problem with the Obama campaign. Marshall's playing along I get, he's a hack. Shame on you, Kevin.

Josh has a point.

The confederacy is the reason that West Virginia exists. Before secession in 1861, WV was part of Virginia. When Virginia went, WV broke off with the blessings of Lincoln. Next door in east Tennessee, unionists carried out guerrilla attacks against the Confederacy(Knoxville was a vital rail center).

But one mustn't confuse hating slavery with racial equality. In fact, some abolitionists were against slavery for racist reasons: they didn't want blacks here under any circumstances.

Steve,

Thanks for the reaaction. I used the term folkways not to suggest that clannishness, for example, or contempt for learning is charming but to suggest to the good posters here that Appalachia has a distinct regional culture that we Democrats would do well to understand in historical context--going back to the centuries-long political betrayals and ensuing border warfare between England and Scotland. They come by their clannishness honestly and tragically.

Folkways is a technical term. Fischer uses it in his subtitle. Here's another snippet from the Wiki entry:

Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (ISBN 0195069056) is a 1989 book by David Hackett Fischer that utilizes an approach developed by the French school of the Annales begun by Georges Dumezil and developed further by Fernand Braudel that concentrates on both continuity and change over long periods of time. The book's focus is on the details of the folkways of four groups of British people that settled and moved from distinct regions of the United Kingdom to its colonies in America. The argument is that the culture of each of the groups persisted, providing the basis for the modern United States.

It really is a fascinating account of regional American differences and I recommend it, again, highly.

So how did Clinton win in California and fail to have any purple blobs there?

This is only part of the picture. Show the areas where Obama won 65% or more.

The Obama campaign seems to employ 3 main prongs:
1. Call Hillary a liar
2. Call Hillary a racist
3. Make excuses

I'm not sure how well this will work in the GE.

Ah yes, Appalachia.

So many folks, so few last names...

---
I'm surprised that all of it from east to west would have such a uniform culture that they would vote so similarly on this, with hardly an exception anywhere in any area one might call Appalachia. It's almost a little cartoonish.
---

You've obviously not spent much time there.

---
Those who stayed and maintained the distinctive culture happen to live in places where concentrated economic forces did not invest in schools or libraries
---

Not exactly; the college-educated tend to leave for more lucrative environs, leaving the less-educated (which is not a 1-to-1 mapping to the less-intelligent) behind.

So the culture stays relatively unchanged since few outsiders move into the area.

David,

Hillary has lost. Get over it.

Read Confederates in the Attic. It describes the culture where I grew up. Places that were once anti-confederate turning into stars-and-bars locations and yes, racist places.

Why? For the same reason they were anti-confederate in the first place: it's the poor white's way to say a big "fuck you" to the man.

Building our Appalachian prisons, which we then fill up with black folks, doesn't help much with the racism, either.

Then it turns into a self-selecting culture. Who in the hell would want to be around the fuck you culture when you can get out? Not me.

So the culture gets more extreme as you drain away the people who don't curse.

Hillary vs. McCain--who gets the racist vote?

It gotta be McCain. Old time working class, Klan inspired, racists, hate Indians, then women, then blacks in that order. How do I know? the Bible told me so. As well as our sordid history of race/sex relations.

As much as Hillary is using "Black Fear" as a campaign issue, she is giving votes to McCain.

Point goes to Obama for running a dignified campaign. He will take that dignity all the way to the White House.

Whether he is the "Great Black Hope" for ending the war, improving the lot of the poor and working class, I tend to doubt. Wall Street/Pentagon is a tough crowd to beat.

I grew up in Appalachia; it wasn't just anti-slave, it was anti-anyone who provided cheap labor.

Initial waves of Catholic labor were resisted as well (ie, Italians, Poles, etc) since they undercut prevailing wages. eightnine

Hunter Thompson has an interesting passage in "Hell's Angels" (1966) where he goes into the history of poor whites immigrating to America as indentured servants that is noteworthy:

"...After a period of hard labor and wretchedness he would then be free to seize whatever he might in a land of seemingly infinite natural wealth. Thousands of bonded servants came over, but by the time they earned their freedom the coastal strip was already settled. The unclaimed land was west, across the Alleghenies. So they drived into the new states-Kentucky and Tennesse; their sons drifted on to Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. ...Their world was a violent, boozing limbo between the pits of despair and the Big Rock Candy Mountain. ...Some stayed behind and their lineal descendants are still there-in the Carolinas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennesee. There were dropouts all along the way: hillbillies, Okies, Arkies-they're all the same people. Texas is a living monument to the breed. So is southern California."

It's not that they won't vote for a black guy. They won't vote for a black guy that openly, overtly insulted their culture (much to the delight of so many on the left, unfortunately) and the sporting goods they enjoy.

This isn't hard and frankly I can't fathom why people are struggling to understand this or wasting time with elaborate theories about race, ageism, etc.

Don't expect to win the votes of people you openly deride and belittle. Duh.

Confederate in the Attics. Good recommendation.

Heck, how about the 2004 book by potential Dem VP Jim Webb, called Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America?

Tom Wolfe, novelist and gonzo journalist, also has a doctorate in American studies from Yale. In his review Wolfe wrote:

Born Fighting is a bombshell or else the most brilliant battle flare ever launched by a book. James Webb reveals the all-but-invisible ethnic group that has created the core beliefs of democracy American-style: our rights come from God, not the Government; all of us are born equal, and "born aristocrats" don't exist; and tread on either of those two truths, and we'll fight you down to the last unbroken hyoid bone.

The Scots-Irish, for such is their name, have fought all our wars for us, including Vietnam. James Webb was there, and he can count. He has written not only an engrossing story but also an important work of sociological history in the tradition of the great James Graham Leyburn.

In short, you want these people on your side. You don't insult them.

Sebastian-PGP, care to fill us in?

Anyway, I think the cynical types give too much weight to theories like yours. Despite the efforts and the beliefs of the cynical, I think most voters actually stay a little detached from the hoopla and make something like an informed decision, OR, they let a heavily-entrenched prejudice like racism get the better of them- but they don't really throw their vote one way or the other because of something like the Barack-Obama- wanted-orange-juice thing.

Sebastian-PGP

Exactly when did Obama deride hillbilly culture?

Yesterday I heard one woman say she wouldn't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. When it was pointed out to her that he "claims" to be a Christian, she said, "I know, but I don't believe him."

Drum asks for comments to speculate on his post.

Commenters decide to make condesending snarks filled with hate, stereotypes, and ignorant generalizations about how other people are filled with hate, stereotypes and ignorant generalizations.

That is, care to tell us what sport Barack derided? I didn't hear that one.

And I didn't hear that when anyone was interviewed about their vote, they offered that explanation. Instead I saw quotes that people wouldn't vote for him because of "who he is."

Puritan scion George W. Bush aped their folkways (swagger, bellicosity, contempt for learnin' and fancy speech) and won their support in 2000 and 2004. And then he sent their sons and daughters to a misbegotten war. Perhaps in 2008 the grudge-holding Mountaineers might hold this against the party of Bush.

Absolutely. A lot of us here online seem to forget that most voters this year couldn't give a shit about the "culture war" stuff that won 2004 for the Republicans. Their jobs are going away. Their kids are coming home missing limbs if they're lucky, and in boxes if they aren't. That pickup truck that keeps their farm going is getting more and more expensive to fill, and they're starting to wonder how they're going to manage to keep the house heated next winter if fuel prices keep going up.

When you have Democrats winning in the reddest districts of Mississippi by 54%, trust me, these "hillbillies" are going to be voting Obama in the general, not McCain.

Sorry. Forgot the link to Born Fighting from the Random House catalog.

The idea that that many Appalachians are that defensive about some hillbilly sport that it resulted in so many of them actually throwing their votes against Obama is pretty far out.

"trust me, these "hillbillies" are going to be voting Obama in the general, not McCain"

You'll have to forgive me if I don't "trust you".

paxr55,

I know the breed we are talking about. They are my relatives. Scots-Irish culture embodies both good and bad, noble and obscene. Despite every noble trait you and Jim Webb mention, I refuse to be a captive of their ugly side. Yes, I will continue to go to the family reunions. I love the good in their souls.

Given that there were reports back in 2005 that support for the Iraq war was wavering in small-town West Virginia, again, I seriously doubt that people are going to vote for "100 More Years in Iraq" McCain no matter how glasses of orange juice Obama drinks.

He's talking about guns, Swan.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't "trust you".

Well, you can lay down and cry because your first choice didn't win and convince yourself that McCain is invincible, or you can go with the candidate we have and try to pound McCain into the dirt where he belongs.

I know which one I choose.

I believe Sen Clinton is a superior candidate who will make a better president. I'll continue to support her effort, thanks. I fully expect she will be our candidate. I hope you will support her.

Sebastian-PGP,

I understand that Obama deeply regrets his lapse in generalizing "bitter, clinging" back-country types in Pennsylvania (I recall he may also have been describing other, older white ethnic Americans, the ones who took jobs away from the Scots-Irish). He was acting the anthropologist (his mother's vocation)--a mistake he is not likely to repeat.

I'm reading his biography now, Dreams from My Father. Obama writes very affectingly about the hardscrabble Indonesians with whom he grew up. (No International School Jakarta for Barack.) It's not too difficult, I expect, for the likely Dem nominee to make the imaginative leap from underserved, conscripted backcountry folks he knew in Indonesia to those of Appalachia.

By the way, is it absolutely necessary you be an asshole about it?

paxr55, isn't it funny how much capacity for understanding we reserve for those we support?

Isnt it interesting how all thses problems Obama has in "Appalachia" came after "Bittergate" and Rev Wright? My guess is it has much more to do with them than it does with that area of the country.

If Iowa or Missouri would have voted last after Bittergate and Rev Wright, Ill bet he'd be having a problem with those voters now too.

Uh oh, looks like we are getting into pie throwing mode. So kiddies, today's flavor is blueberry crumble.

david,

Not sure I take your meaning about the capacity to understand, but think you may be characterizing (with some sarcasm) my effort to explain (and kinda justify) Obama's "bitter" lapse at that SF fundraiser.

I don't support Hillary Clinton, it's true. But it's not because I lack the capacity for understanding her. The same is true for John McCain. I have the capacity for understanding him too.

I believe I understand most of the candidates, from Edwards to Kucinich to Huckabee to -- ok, I don't understand Romney. I understand them all pretty well and simply prefer some over others and eventually settled on Obama for a host of reasons.

Jonesy since both "bittergate" and Rev. Wright were invented and promoted by both the Clintons and the media, wouldn't it be fair to say that voters became concerned about Obama after Hillary and the media spent about a month trying to tar Obama by association and willfully misconstruing his comments. Of course, he seems to have survived having the "kitchen sink" thrown at him. Bully for him.

"Take away caucuses, and one can make similar observations about the racial makeup and voting preference of Obama's +65% counties."

Well, no, actually you can't, which is why nobody has done this.

"I fully expect she will be our candidate."

I fully expect that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real. Our expectations are equally likely to be met.

"By the way, is it absolutely necessary you be an asshole about it?"

ROFL.... Oh, the irony, coming from someone who appears to have thought that this was a reasonable post:

The Obama campaign seems to employ 3 main prongs: 1. Call Hillary a liar 2. Call Hillary a racist 3. Make excuses

You posted inflammatory bullshit and then are "surprised" that you got flamed? Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

Hillary just unveiled her new campaign slogan:

"A squirrel in every pot and a jalopy in every garage."

You know, for whites! with Retsin.

Attitudes about slavery in Appalachia before and during the Civil War cannot so easily be characterized as "fierce opposition." Kentuckians owned 226,000 slaves--20% of the population, and more than Mississipians or Alabamans. Slaveowners in the Virginia counties that seceded from that state owned almost fifty thousand human beings. To the extent that Appalachians opposed slavery, they often did so on economic--opposition to cheap labor--more than moral grounds. Appalachia did not teem with abolitionists.

It is also not clear that Appalachians backed their opposition to slavery by serving in greater numbers for the Union than for the Confederacy. States like West Virginia and Kentucky supplied soldiers to both sides, and in roughly equal numbers. Of the estimated 100K Kentuckians who fought during the Civil War, about forty five thousand fought for the South. Recent research suggests that West Virginians fought in equal numbers for both sides--about 22-25K each.

Political expression in 1860 also fails to show "fierce opposition" to slavery. Kentucky preferred Tennesee slaveowner John Bell to native son Breckinridge 45% to 36% (Lincoln got 1364 votes out of over 146,000, or less than 1%. The counties that later left the Old Dominion to form West Virginia split pretty evenly between Bell and Breckinridge. Lincoln carried only one of these counties.

Whatever their reasons for preferring Clinton to Obama in 2008, these regions were not really "fiercely opposed" to slavery in 1860.

"...both "bittergate" and Rev. Wright were invented and promoted by both the Clintons and the media,..." Yes, wasn't it awful how Hillary used ventriloquism to put those words in Obama's mouth, and how she cleverly said nothing about Wright when the controversy erupted, therby giving the impression that she was saying nothing about it? And the way she misconstrued Wright's comments about white people giving black people AIDS to make it seem like he said white people give black people AIDS? And how she forced Obama to first lie about his relationship with Wright, and not dissasociate himself from the guy until Wright called Obama a "politician"? It's amazing that Obama's ahead, what with the way Hillary is able to control his every action.

Come and listen to my story bout a gal named Hill
Losin' fair and square and her chances they was nil
Then one day she gets talkin WHITE to folks
Up from the dirt come a bubblin votes

ChrisO

As to "bittergate" the actual words Obama uttered were not in any way inflammatory. The unfair spin was completely unfair and bogus. I don't recall much of a debate about what was actually said in the Clinton spun media.

As to Rev. Wright, I am glad nobody tars me with all of the ideas of my pastor. She is a real grump. That anyone would expect us to pay attention to a few out of context quotes (15-20 seconds tops out of a life long career) is spinning of the first order. Among Democrats only Team Hillary's top spinners like Howard Wolfson can sell that kind of snake oil and then only to a receptive media.

Both bittergate and Rev. Wright were unfair and made up, nearly out of whole cloth. That is par for the course in the current world dominated by herd media and ethics free candidates.

Check out this map of the Massachusetts primary town by town. There are plenty of towns in SE Massachusetts that voted for Clinton in numbers greater than 65%.

I wouldn't be surprised if those who voted for Hillary because of their discomfort with Obama's race were more than outvoted by the racists who supported Obama BECAUSE of his race.

It's often been noted that if Obama were a white dude that he wouldn't have created a religious following like we see today which draws in elitist racists who support a candidate who has accomplished nothing of note apart from inspiring a cult of personality built on a foundation of racism.

Alright already, Ron Byers, we get it already, Obama's shit don't stink, he's perfect and the most qualified bla bla bla...

From one Scot-Irish punk to another, you sound like a child that retains more information than his peers and loves to annoy everyone around them by spouting out useless facts. I have one of those at home, he love to tell everyone he meets how far every planet is from the sun.

Just a week or so ago, comments here were complaining that MSM described Obama as elitist. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. But most of the comments above are blatantly elitist. If I lived in the South or in any rural area in this country, I would have an aversion to being in the same party with most of you. As it is, many of the comments are just embarrassingly small and mean-spirited.

Hey elmo, your girl lost.

I was an Edwards guy until he lost. I got over it. I would suggest you get over Hillary. It is time to move on. NARAL did just this morning. There is a useless fact for you to chew.

Ron, your shit eating grin doesn't bother me, and I aint the one who needs to get over anything.

Your boy hasn't won yet, realize it...

Elmo, I forgot to mention that everybody's shit stinks including Obama's. How about another useless fact, John Edwards is going to endorse Obama tonight.

A lot of you have failed to note that Obama was doing poorly in Appalchian areas which voted long before any of the Wright/bittergate stuff came out. That's what makes the map so interesting: it's consistent across states and across primary dates.

But reading about a lot of the psychoses of various American ethnic tensions between groups that have been here in the US for hundreds of years has made a very convincing case for me to remain in and marry within my own immigrant community. Seriously, I don't want to inherit any of these centuries-old tensions. My own ethnic group has enough of its own.

Elmo sounds like Francie Brady going on about the Nugent boy and all his amazin facts. Watch out.
I have nothing against Scotch-Irishness. I'm a Shaw on mom's side. (Her Dutch side was the Okies though.) I love good scotch and all that. I just find this proxy glorification of violence no more impressive for the ethnic veneer. Substitute blackness and what would Tom Wolfe think of it then?

sniflheim,

You're right that artists Tom Wolfe (and Mel Gibson, too, in his Patriot and Braveheart films) have fallen hard for the romance of American and Scots frontier violence. The glorification makes the despair and squalor a little easier to write about, I guess.

My point was that, like it or not, like them or not, this intimidating voting bloc is an electoral reality. John Edwards knew it and knows it, and his endorsement of Obama today is most welcome.

And until we elect a Dem devoted to serving (educating, employing, feeding, inspiring) all Americans--the poor and disenfranchised of Appalachia included--we'll never be able lift up the entire country.

CNN This afternoon:

"Ticker: Hillary Clinton chokes up in CNN interview "

Too funny... she's gotta be thinkin':
"Well, it worked a couple times before"

I'm getting so tired of the reflex liberal charge of "racism" and "ignorant" against those that don't agree with us. One of the reasons I am now an Obama supporter is because I think he is trying to move American's past this kind of impotent name-calling.

In any case, this is a fascinating map, and I'll second the recommendation upthread of Albion's Seed. Cultures are a deep thing.

Maybe Appalachia is going 65% for Clinton because she seems like a scrappy warrior type. Maybe the name, "Clinton," sounds more Scots-Irish than Obama, and they are just loyal to the clan. Groups that feel oppressed survive by watching out for one another.

Good work "duh".

Wendy, interesting map of the MA primary. Wonder why the author of the 65% Clinton county map doesn't show the MA counties in the graphic? There are plenty of them over 65 and even into the 70s%.

I am a hillbilly myself, and my speculation on Arkansas at least is that people still like the Clintons there.

Can't explain West Virginia or Texas.

I believe Sen Clinton is a superior candidate who will make a better president. I'll continue to support her effort, thanks. I fully expect she will be our candidate. I hope you will support her.

If she pulls it out at the last minute, I'll be happy to support her. I'm assuming you'll make the same promise if Obama wins rather than defecting to McCain as so many Hillary supporters have been claiming they'll do.

Read The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips and you'll understand what's going on and what's has driven Presidential politics since the founding of the Republic. Democracy is inherently identarian i.e. people vote as to who they are and bind themselves to a candidate who looks, talks and feels most like them. It's just a natural human reaction.

I'm getting so tired of the reflex liberal charge of "racism" and "ignorant" against those that don't agree with us. One of the reasons I am now an Obama supporter is because I think he is trying to move American's past this kind of impotent name-calling.

Exactly. Which is why I cringe when I hear Obama supporters dissing Appalachia.

I live in Knoxville. I have 2 master's degrees. I'm a liberal. But my roots are firmly in the East Tennessee mountains, for about 8 generations back.

The fastest way to ensure the Obama doesn't get the Appalachian vote is to look down on the people who live there - and that means either nastily or in the "we're going to help you adjust your attitudes" way. They (we) can spot condescension a mile away.

Take the time to listen, let them get to know you, speak straight. In other words, show a little respect.

I know it's hard for some of you to understand, but folks you are different from you are not necessarily inferior.

I think PTate in MN @ 6:13PM probably has it summed up best. I would like to add that the only thing that seems to have been omitted was that possibly those voters maybe actually, you know, think Sen. Clinton is the better candidate?

miora: If all the primaries were held post Rev. Wright, Obama would be loosing big in a lot of these states.

Not true. If polls are to believed, he'd win California by 6% were the primary to be held today.

PTate: Maybe Appalachia is going 65% for Clinton because she seems like a scrappy warrior type. Maybe the name, "Clinton," sounds more Scots-Irish than Obama, and they are just loyal to the clan.

Race was claimed as a factor by only about 20% of Hillary's WV voters. I think you're right. For the most part it's just that Hillary is more culturally akin.

Just as Obama is more culturally akin to voters in other regions such as the midwest and the mountain states.

Elmo sounds like Francie Brady...

Nice try, I've been on my own since age sixteen. Served in the infantry for four year during Gulf War I. Ran my own business and have a successful marriage of thirteen years. I asure you I'm no psyco. I think...

Now, I don't have one of those sheets of rice paper saying I'm educated from a higher institution, although I attended for five semesters after the Army(GPA: 3.somthing). But I did get myself edumacateded.

I hope this will be the last comment on this thread.
First, I suppose I have to insulate myself by saying that I am descended from Appalachians on both sides: maternally, from Pennsylvania coal miners via southern Illinois; paternally, from North Carolina via Kentucky (Dan'l Boone was an uncle). That said, I have no problems with the stereotypes flung ag'in' these poor folk; they are, alas, richly deserved. My ancestors got out of that godforsaken area, bringing much of their prejudices with them (one grandpa joined the Klan in the '20s). They were good Christian men and women when it came to matters of, say, sexuality, but maybe lacking in good Christian empathy in matters trans-racial. I question whether, partisan politics aside, any of them would vote for Obama if they were around today. Too bad. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen-- over fifty years since Brown v. Board of Education. The people of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky might sometimes be miners, but they are not living in ca