Why don't those hillbillies like Obama?

[TheresNoMoney]

The real problem is in OH and PA, not WV and Ky.

He will win PA, but will really need to put forth a lot of effort to win in OH.

[Brittain33]

The real problem is in OH and PA, not WV and Ky. Democrats need to win Pennsylvania for sure and the western half of the state is basically appalachian. Obama has some strengths in
Pittsburgh but anywhere around there is going to be ugly. He would need some huge turnout in southeast PA combined with much reduction in margins in exurban central PA.

I feel like if the voters of Appalachia look at the parties and what they've done and promise to do in the future, look at their own priorities, consider current events, and decide that they want a Republican President, that's their decision and we have to respect that.

It seems clear from the commentary that the objection to Obama goes to the very core of his identity, whether it is race or something linked to race, and no amount of campaigning is going to change that, any more than Romney was going to win over some number of Republicans.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'm sick of the media's obsession with WV an KY.  No candidate has huge appeal in every state, and no candidate is going to win every primary. Appalachia is Obama's weakest area of the country.

When Hillary Clinton lost big in places like CO, MN, ND, and UT they didn't say a word. Then Obama loses WV and all your hear is his problem with "working class whites", even though he's won that group in many other states.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I'm sick of the media's obsession with WV an KY.  No candidate has huge appeal in every state, and no candidate is going to win every primary. Appalachia is Obama's weakest area of the country.

When Hillary Clinton lost big in places like CO, MN, ND, and UT they didn't say a word. Then Obama loses WV and all your hear is his problem with "working class whites", even though he's won that group in many other states.

Those were all low-turnout caucuses.

[Sam Spade]

The sworn enemy of the hillbilly is his fellow poor, the black.  This is another sign of how dumb is the hillbilly.

How can someone be a sworn enemy when none of them exist where you live?  There are no blacks in a lot of these areas, mainly because these people never owned slaves.

Because the hillbilly heard of the black, or saw a photogravure of one, or was told about one by his betters, and thence he swore the black was his enemy, and voted that way ever since.  It is true he never met the black, but the important thing is how the voting and general stupidity helps his betters.

The poor white is "only a pawn in their game" as Bob Dylan would say.

You're thinking of a different area of the country, namely south of Appalachia.

[Eleanor Martins]

as a hillbilly and a native of appalchia, i despise generalizations about that area and the people (unless im the one making them)

im not going to get riled up.  but i will say this, obama's supporters arent helping his cause in that part of the country.  people dont liked to be called 'dumb, backwards, racist' by some spoiled little sh**t that is easily inspired by cheap, dumb platitudes.

This whole discussion gets frustrating because it started out with people noticing that Obama was pulling down the single digits and low teens in Appalachian counties in Tennessee months ago, and again in Virginia and Maryland, and it's only when we got to Ohio and Pennsylvania that the media picked up on it. The residents of Appalachia have been quietly voting against Obama for a very long time. It's disingenuous to somehow chalk this up to Obama's somehow insulting them, but more than that, we get these kabuki arguments where Appalachians' unelected representatives go on tv and on the Internet announcing that their people are unhappy with [Democratic leader] but then saying that pretty much ANY conceivable response is patronizing, or tone deaf, or insulting, or "misses the point."

Why would anyone play this game? Obama hasn't insulted Appalachia, aside from one comment made at a fundraiser where he tried to make sense of why people already WEREN'T voting for him and where he diplomatically chose not to even deal with racism, which he can not bring up in any way without being blamed for doing so. And so he doesn't, and we're not supposed to talk about it, and everything is framed in terms of what Obama has done wrong by Appalachia and how he will do wrong by them (mostly by Republicans who assume Democrats are doing wrong by America by default), and is anyone surprised that the upshot is for Obama just to ignore these regions and focus on parts of the country that he has some hope of actually engaging?

I could go on and on about how George W. Bush doesn't "get" Cambridge or its concerns, and people would laugh at me for being self-absorbed and naive for thinking this matters, and they'd be right. If someone talks about how George W. Bush doesn't "get" the people New Orleans, instead of introspection or embarrassed reflection, we'd get defensiveness or counterattacks or comments about the people of New Orleans that would make the defenders of Appalachia blush if applied back to them.

So that's my take on this phony debate. If people want to hang out their shingle on behalf of Appalachians and take offense on their behalf against the Democrats, be my guest. I think Obama's going to give this region a pass much as Bush gives Cambridge and New Orleans a pass, and go on to win without West Virginia and Harlan County.

This is an outstanding post.

[Gustaf]

I'm sick of the media's obsession with WV an KY.  No candidate has huge appeal in every state, and no candidate is going to win every primary. Appalachia is Obama's weakest area of the country.

When Hillary Clinton lost big in places like CO, MN, ND, and UT they didn't say a word. Then Obama loses WV and all your hear is his problem with "working class whites", even though he's won that group in many other states.

I think you may have missed the part where the electorate Obama is failing with decided, well, pretty much every presidential election in recent memory. North Dakota and Utah have not really been crucial states since, well, they never have been.

[JSojourner]

I wish I had seen the hard numbers but from what I overheard on the TV today (I was working in the other room), Obama's problems in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, SE Ohio and the mountains of Virginia, NC, SC and Tennessee amount to one thing:  perceived elitism.  I believe it was Pat Buchanan who was making this point and he was correct.  These folks are Pat Buchanan Democrats (at least in the sense that he took some of them away from George H.W. Bush in 1992).  They are culturally conservative but tend to lean more liberal on matters of labor, welfare and the environment. 

Think about it.  Do they hate Obama because of his skin color?  Surely, some do.  There are bigots everywhere -- and in every political and social milieu.  But many of these same Appalachian folk responded overwhelmingly to, of all people, the Reverend Jesse Jackson in both 1984 and 1988.  In many cases, he was too far out of the running for their votes to warrant going his way -- but early on in the primaries, he made a big issue out of Appalachian poverty and the environmental abuses of companies that employed some rural poor.  He consistently attracted large, interested crowds during an Appalachian tour -- I forget which year. 

These same folks register strong disapproval of Barack Obama.  But not just Barack.  They very much disliked John Kerry and abandoned him for Dubya, who spoke "born again" and "guns".  In 1992 and even in 1988, Appalachian discomfort for George H.W. Bush was palpable.  In 1992, they had two folksy alternatives -- Clinton or Perot. In 1988, they probably held their noses and voted Bush because Dukakis was a Massachusetts liberal.  Yet even then, he won West Virginia.

Appalachian poor hate Harvard and Yale.  They don't like people who sound, look or act "French".  And those who use big words are "putting on airs".  George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama all had/have what Appalachian poor people -- mountain folk, if you prefer -- consider to be an air of arrogance and elitism.  It doesn't matter that their policies and ideas are more likely to benefit them.  It also doesn't matter if Bill Clinton, Ross Perot or Dubya are multi-millionaires or Ivy Leaguers.  What matters is how they sound and if they come off like someone you could go frog giggin' with.

The only think I can't figure out is why they would feel any greater comfort level with Hillary Clinton or John McCain...neither of whom strike me as any more "folksy" or home-spun than Barack Obama.  Even if it comes down in the end to God, guns and gays -- they could only be very marginally comfortable with McCain.  And why they would prefer Hillary to Barack on those issues is unclear to me.  Her liberalism is a matter of record.

Bottom line, Obama is not going to win West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee or Kentucky.  And while he might win Ohio and Pennsylvania, he'll likely have to do it without the votes of these folks.

[Brittain33]

I think you may have missed the part where the electorate Obama is failing with decided, well, pretty much every presidential election in recent memory. North Dakota and Utah have not really been crucial states since, well, they never have been.

Appalachia stood by Mondale and Dukakis. I think Kentucky voted for Adlai Stevenson.

This is a regional white working class issue, not a national one.

[Sam Spade]

JSojourner's post is closer in understanding Appalachia, but we're really not there yet.

The problem with telling off Appalachia in any Presidential election is that you're forced to rely on a completely new strategy of winning Ohio that doesn't have the history of success that the standard one does. (if the election is 50-50 of course)

Or you have to go the "around Ohio" route.  But Virginia and NC become tough to win without Appalachia also.

Maybe it can be done, maybe it can't.  I dunno.

[Kevin]

With this whole affair I personally think racism is overstated as like has been said before that Obama has said things that can be viewed as elitist in addition to the type of Democrat that he is which is more liberal then the traditional Democrat which Hillary is. Also btw in regards to race I think that if a Black Southern Democrat in the mold of someone like Harold Ford was up against Clinton, they would win places like KY, IN, WV and OH.     

[Brittain33]

Or you have to go the "around Ohio" route.  But Virginia and NC become tough to win without Appalachia also.

Isn't CO+NM+NV+IA+NH a successful combination for avoiding Ohio?

I suspect Obama's going to campaign in Ohio, regardless, and that includes Cincinnati, which has a lot of ex-Appalachians and a media market including many Appalachian counties, and also in Youngstown. If people still choose not to vote for him, there is a limit to what he can do.

By my math, the Appalachian parts of Ohio are at most 2, 2.5 congressional districts out of 18 (all of 6, part of 17, less of 2) and so while they are significant, the world doesn't completely revolve around the Ohio River. We'll see this year, I suppose.

[Sbane]

Or you have to go the "around Ohio" route.  But Virginia and NC become tough to win without Appalachia also.

Isn't CO+NM+NV+IA+NH a successful combination for avoiding Ohio?

I suspect Obama's going to campaign in Ohio, regardless, and that includes Cincinnati, which has a lot of ex-Appalachians and a media market including many Appalachian counties, and also in Youngstown. If people still choose not to vote for him, there is a limit to what he can do.

By my math, the Appalachian parts of Ohio are at most 2, 2.5 congressional districts out of 18 (all of 6, part of 17, less of 2) and so while they are significant, the world doesn't completely revolve around the Ohio River. We'll see this year, I suppose.

Yes but look at democratic victories in Ohio. They always include strong victories in the southeast region. The Cincinnati and Colombus suburbs are just too republican. Same with the western part of the state. So then Obama's only strength becomes the northeast and even there he is weak with ethnic democrats. Ohio is not looking good this year. Philly could save PA.

[Nym90]

I still find it amusing that the focus is always on Obama's weakness in this area, not on Clinton's strength.

There's no reason to assume that they must just dislike Obama and not actually be voting for Clinton because they loved her husband and simply like her better than Obama.

Now, that's not to say Obama won't have problems here....I think he will. But the extent of those problems won't be known until the general election results come in; it's dangerous to assume based on primary results since every election is a contest between two candidates.

Just because Appalachia strongly prefers Clinton over Obama does not automatically mean they hate Obama and will refuse to vote for him.

[memphis]

This article so misunderstands Appalachia, it's quite hilarious.

Well that why don't you explain it to us why then?

If Appalachia is one thing above all, its people are not looking for *pity*.  In fact, it probably makes them mad as hell. 

They don't want pity. They want pork. Lots of it.

[Eraserhead]

The sworn enemy of the hillbilly is his fellow poor, the black.  This is another sign of how dumb is the hillbilly.

How can someone be a sworn enemy when none of them exist where you live?  There are no blacks in a lot of these areas, mainly because these people never owned slaves.

Because the hillbilly heard of the black, or saw a photogravure of one, or was told about one by his betters, and thence he swore the black was his enemy, and voted that way ever since.  It is true he never met the black, but the important thing is how the voting and general stupidity helps his betters.

The poor white is "only a pawn in their game" as Bob Dylan would say.

You're thinking of a different area of the country, namely south of Appalachia.

I'm thinking of many parts of this country.

[Gustaf]

I think you may have missed the part where the electorate Obama is failing with decided, well, pretty much every presidential election in recent memory. North Dakota and Utah have not really been crucial states since, well, they never have been.

Appalachia stood by Mondale and Dukakis. I think Kentucky voted for Adlai Stevenson.

This is a regional white working class issue, not a national one.

The second paragraph I'm not quite following, as to how it relates to what I said. Is it directed at someone else?

Anyhow, I'm not sure how Appalachia stood by Mondale and Dukakis. Mondale won almost no counties in those states. Dukakis won West Virginia but nothing else. My point was basically that the vote we're talking about here has been the swing vote in most recent elections. I don't really consider Stevenson recent memory though. Before 1964 the white working class vote was less important. Though it's interesting to note that it has been important even when we go back a century or so.

Theoretically, you can assemble a coalition that ignores this group. Both Kerry and Gore sort of tried this, completely giving up places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Both came close, but neither managed. Obama probably has to go down this alley and has a much better chance at succeeding, given the polling in places like Colorado and Nevada.

I think the basic point still stands. Obama's failing with groups that traditionally make or break Democratic candidates, while Clinton isn't.

[Tender Branson]

Or you have to go the "around Ohio" route.  But Virginia and NC become tough to win without Appalachia also.

Isn't CO+NM+NV+IA+NH a successful combination for avoiding Ohio?

He wouldn´t even need NH to achieve a 269-269 tie and to win.

[Brittain33]

They don't want pity. They want pork. Lots of it.

[nyquil_man]

I think there's been a shift in voter perceptions of both Obama and Clinton since February. Although their issue positions are almost identical, Obama has come to be regarded as the more liberal of the two, especially in the Rust Belt. Incidents like the "bitter" comments and the Wright controversy only add to that perception of Obama as a liberal elitist.

Thus, Clinton is able to present herself to these center or center-right voters as the moderate alternative to Obama. If Clinton were running against a clearly moderate or conservative Democrat in the primary, I doubt she'd be pulling these kinds of margins in WV or KY.

Race is likely a factor, but I don't think it's the major factor. This is classic median voter theory at work; if the majority of voters place themselves at the center or to the right of the ideological spectrum, they will pick the candidate they perceive to be closest to that position.

They most definitely do not perceive Obama as that candidate.

[Beet]

The only think I can't figure out is why they would feel any greater comfort level with Hillary Clinton or John McCain...neither of whom strike me as any more "folksy" or home-spun than Barack Obama.  Even if it comes down in the end to God, guns and gays -- they could only be very marginally comfortable with McCain.  And why they would prefer Hillary to Barack on those issues is unclear to me.  Her liberalism is a matter of record.

Their speaking styles are certainly very different. Obama's message speaks to civic themes: unity, shared values and beliefs, faith and confidence in the virtues and possibilities of America. Does that kind of talk sound folksy and home-spun to you? I sounds kind of academic and pie-in-the-sky to me. I suppose if I had just walked out of civics class it would sound good... as would John F. Kennedy's speeches and Martin Luther King Jr.'s. On the other hand, it wouldn't exactly be something I'd want to hear driving home from work. Incidentally, the Rocky, Plains and Upper Midwest states where Obama did well in the primaries have traditionally had higher turnout (51, 54, 54, 54, 55, 57, 57, 60, 60, 60, 61, 65, 67 in 2000 vs. 46, 51 for WV and KY; and 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 64, 64, 64, 67, 68, 68 in 2004 vs. 53 and 57 for WV and KY) than the states of Appalachia. (Oh and throwing in the rest of the country doesn't muss up the picture too badly either, if you control for race). O/c someone more knowledgeable than me will have to say if that really means anything.

[Brittain33]

snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

[Beet]

snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

In principle, you are right, but right now people are divided. I *might* take this down after Hillary drops out. I hope most Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are thinking along similar lines. I'm sure most are...

[Sbane]

snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

In principle, you are right, but right now people are divided. I *might* take this down after Hillary drops out. I hope most Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are thinking along similar lines. I'm sure most are...

Interestingly that thought never crossed my mind. If Obama was losing just slightly to Clinton right now I would not take that to mean that blacks, young people and professionals are banned from the party. As an Obama supporter I desperately want women, older people and blue collar folks to stay in the party. In the end it is them who are benifited most by democratic policies.

[Beet]

snip

I voted for Hillary in my primary and I find the cartoon in your sig to be deeply lame. Some candidates win, some lose, it doesn't mean the people who voted for the losing side are banned from the party, for cryin' out loud.

In principle, you are right, but right now people are divided. I *might* take this down after Hillary drops out. I hope most Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are thinking along similar lines. I'm sure most are...

Interestingly that thought never crossed my mind. If Obama was losing just slightly to Clinton right now I would not take that to mean that blacks, young people and professionals are banned from the party. As an Obama supporter I desperately want women, older people and blue collar folks to stay in the party. In the end it is them who are benifited most by democratic policies.

That's good to hear. I hope that the spirit of this discussion can carry on throughout the whole party and through the rest of the campaign season, especially after Sen. Clinton has finished the last contests and ended her race.