Fascinating? Blindingly obvious, you mean. Look at the county maps that show Clinton's >60% or >65%. The entire Appalachian valley is colored for her. Also keep in mind her results in Appalachian-like states (Arkansas, Oklahoma) in the western part of the South.

As for why, I think there is a simpler reason. In regions where most white people are racist to some significant degree, most white people have been voting against Obama. The pattern holds in Appalachia, the South, border states, wherever. Now in some states the enormous African-American population is more than enough to counteract this effect, but the fact remains. In places where white people don't like black people, the white people aren't voting for Obama. In places like the Upper Midwest and West where there really isn't any sense of acute racism, probably because of settlement patterns (Scandinavians in the Upper Midwest and young, educated seculars in the West) and probably because there aren't a lot of African-Americans to provoke hostility, he does very well.

This primary election really has become a battle of coaltions -- his educated white voters and African-Americans versus her older white women and Appalachian racists. Glad I'm on the side I am.

An excellent diary with map at dKos from Monday by DHinMI (a regular there): White Voters, Obama and Appalachia .

some highlights:

- In the 1960's, one out of three people in Appalachia lived poverty, per capita income was 23% lower than the national average, and the region was rapidly losing population.

- The ethnic and cultural character of this part of the country has been more static since the 19th century than anyplace in America.

- most of the people in Appalachia trace their heritage back to immigrants from the borderlands of Northern Britain who began settling the region over 200 years ago. Outside of the Northern part of Appalachia—Pennsylvania in particular—relatively few Eastern or Southern Europeans from the great waves of immigration that started in the 1880's have moved in to the area. It's the most homogeneous region in America. The region is home to few Catholics, and is heavily Baptist and Methodist.

- Clinton, like Obama, has posted solid wins (55% and up) in many different parts of the country. But her biggest wins--the places where she beat Obama by margins of 2 to 1 or better--have come almost exclusively in Appalachia or in areas originally settled by Appalachian migrants that remain relatively homogeneous compared to the rest of the country.

- Obama doesn't appear to have much of a problem with white voters. But it seems quite likely Appalachia has a bit of an Obama problem.

READ the Diary Comments (460), too!

I thought the primary immigrant group that settled Appalachia was the Scots-Irish? This term doesn't mean "Scottish or Irish" -- it means the Protestant Northern Irish (who usually had only been in Ireland for a few generations) who moved on to the colonies when life in Belfast and Londonderry turned out to be as crappy as it was in Manchester or Dundee.

Yeah, those dkos maps are pretty striking. As Douthat opines, it's a fairly strong case for an Obama/Webb ticket.

Except the problem here is "Obama has a working-class whites problem" is BS.

DEMOCRATS have a working-class whites problem, as the latest poll shows McCain beats BOTH Clinton and Obama in that demographic by almost the exact same margin.

Hillary is beating Obama along that demographic in the primary. Both of them will lose it to McCain.

Josh is completely wrong and is ignoring the obvious and that is that since his wins with white voters in states like Iowa, we've learned much more about Mr. Obama....and none of it was good.

How about his problem with white voters in RI and MA, just for two examples off the top of my head? Kinda throws a decent wrench into this theory, no?

Josh is completely wrong and is ignoring the obvious and that is that since his wins with white voters in states like Iowa, we've learned much more about Mr. Obama....and none of it was good.

Which is why if a heavily white state like Nebraska was going to have its primary, say, yesterday, it certainly wouldn't vote for Obama at all... oh, wait.

Well, I'm sure the heavily-white state of Oregon doesn't have Obama winning by 12 points or anyth- oh, nuts again.

"since his wins with white voters in states like Iowa, we've learned much more about Mr. Obama"

What crap. If "much more" means Wright and bittergate, there have been precisely four primaries since we've learned about it. Two have been in very Clinton-friendly demographic states (she won one big, and one by a significant-but-modest spread), one has been in a pro-Obama demographic state (he won big), and one has been in a neutral state (she won by one percent with evidence of massive Limbaugh strategic voting almost certainly skewing the results).

"How about his problem with white voters in RI and MA, just for two examples off the top of my head? Kinda throws a decent wrench into this theory, no?"

But not my theory -- in states where white people generally do not like black people, white people generally do not vote for Obama.

That would explain Connecticut, Maine and Vermont as well, huh?

Wait, Joe, are you saying there's some substantial difference in how white people feel about black people between RI and Maine? Cuz that's just weird.

Sorry, but I can't believe you're suggesting "white people generally do not like black people" in MA and RI and NH, but in VT, Maine, and CT there is no such issue. It's crazy enough to generalize the first part of that -- that white people don't like black in three New England states; but then to propose there's actually a markable difference between some of those northern, liberal states from the others, in terms of racial tolerance/affection, makes NO sense to this lifelong New Englander.

"Wait, Joe, are you saying there's some substantial difference in how white people feel about black people between RI and Maine? Cuz that's just weird."

Yes. The largest ethnic group in Rhode Island is Italian-Americans. The largest ethnic group in Maine is English-Americans. Ethnic whites (Italian, Irish, Portuguese in this case) or Hispanics make up 57% of the population of Rhode Island. The corresponding percentage for Maine is 15%.

Basically, Maine is much more like Vermont, and Rhode Island is much more like Massachusetts.

The analysis of the demographics by Ezra and the history lesson by Josh ring true. Works for me. So now what?

See, this is a nice piece as long as we're still focused on Obama vs. Clinton. But that's over. The issue now becomes one of two: how can Obama win over this section of the country to beat McCain in November; or does he even need to?

Ezra?

Josh?

It would be nice if this particular analysis -- which really was pushed early by DHinMI at Kos -- could make its way into the mainstream media, which, for the moment, is wrongly characterizing the situation as "all non-rich whites hate Obama".

WV, it turns out, was Clinton's richest trove of her demographic (this Appalachian strain) of the entire election season. If, say, Obama were in her no-hope-of-winning position, but the DC primary had been held yesterday, he'd have had a similar blowout win, and it would have been just as irrelevant to the nomination outcome.

I never said anything about NH.

I did say that the white populations of Massachusetts and Rhode Island are relatively more racist than those of Maine and Vermont. Demographically, that makes perfect sense -- Massachusetts and Rhode Island are much more ethnic white/Hispanic. Have you never heard the saying about being a black man in Boston? And Providence is even worse, I'd imagine.

By the way, just to flesh out the numbers, the "ethnic white/hispanic numbers" for the remaining New England states:

Vermont: 23%
Massachusetts: 46%
Connecticut: 65%*

* Connecticut is an admitted outlier. I think that it can be explained by the following: (1) it is the wealthiest and most educated state in the US; (2) it has by far the biggest African-American population in New England; and (3) Obama only won it by a point or two.

How about his problem with white voters in RI and MA, just for two examples off the top of my head? Kinda throws a decent wrench into this theory, no?

That is assuming that is indicative of a problem. Here is how it can very, very easily not be: those white Democrat have a ranking that goes Clinton, Obama, McCain. That Obama loses out to Clinton is nice for her, but meaningless in a context between Obama and McCain. Now, this is built upon a presumption that there is such a ranking. I think it's a pretty safe one though.

Obama's big loss in Massachusetts is pretty much a product of machine politics, not the racism of voters. We do, after all, have a black governor who won a competitive primary against a better known Irish guy.

But in that primary, Deval Patrick had the strength of Mayor Menino's Boston people and Rep. Jim McGovern's organization in Worcester/Central Mass, both formiddable, behind him. But even though Patrick supported and campaigned for Obama in NH and some other places, Menino and McGovern both backed Clinton.

Besides that, both Sen. Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Obama, but neither did much campaigning or organizing in the state for him. And with us voting on Super Tuesday and bigger prizes like California up for grabs, Obama pretty much left it for Clinton.

My guess is that's what accounts for his lack of success in Rhode Island as well.

I think the candidate needs to emphasize his Irish heritage and start calling himself Barry O'Bama.

"Obama's big loss in Massachusetts is pretty much a product of machine politics, not the racism of voters."

I stand corrected, then. Though I am absolutely correct that Vermont and Maine have strikingly different ethnic makeups than do Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

O noez! El Viajero crazy right winger feels bad about Barack Obama! Kwik! Git more Demkrats to lissn to rite wing! This wil hep! Yay!

I'm from Appalachia, albeit the weird, ethnically diverse Western PA part, and I'll say that the upside for Obama is that there just aren't that there just aren't that many people in Appalachia to begin with, a fair few of them wouldn't vote for a D in any case, and they are divided among a lot of different states, most of which haven't gone D or looked like they might go D in some while anyway. PA is a problem but he can win without the rest.

Joe, I just don't think that race or ethnic background had anything to do with the primary results in any of the New England states. Or much impact anywhere, really, outside of states with large black populations and, apparently, WV.

MA and RI certainly still do have some lingering racial tensions in many areas, but it's not anything that's going to keep those states from voting for the black man in November. If you want to play the Demographics Game, you might notice that we're well-educated and rich so, despite the presence of black people, are certainly in the tank for Obama.

"Joe, I just don't think that race or ethnic background had anything to do with the primary results in any of the New England states. Or much impact anywhere, really, outside of states with large black populations and, apparently, WV."

Really? I really disagree with this. I think that race and ethnicity has had a huge impact on virtually every primary outside of the upper Midwest and those western states without significant Latino populations. Now, sometimes race and ethnicity pull in opposite directions in a state (Texas, California), but it is a huge driving factor in the ultimate result, along with age, income, and education.

I'll put it this way. Tell me how much of a state is (1) African-American, (2) Latino, (3) Catholic (generally a good proxy for white ethnics), (4) well-educated (college degree plus), (5) affluent (more than $50,000/year), and (6) over 60, and I bet I can predict the winner 95% of the time.

MA and RI certainly still do have some lingering racial tensions in many areas, but it's not anything that's going to keep those states from voting for the black man in November.

My dad, or even tens-of-thousands of my dad -- lifelong Democrat, union member, white ethnic Catholic, 70's, a first-tier suburbanite whose childhood neighborhood is now the heart of a ghetto -- and a stone bigot -- could spare the Commonwealth the scourge of a Deval Patrick administration.

Obama's problem is with class, of course.

Post-Wisconisn, he's been getting about 30% of the non-AA working class vote in all regions.

And given Obama's let 'em eat arugula responshoe to universal healthcare and Social Security, I'd say those voters are making the correct choice.

Josh Marshall and Ezra Klein may think working class folks are shit, but then again, they've never been known for their honesty, compassion, or political acumen. Like many "professional Democrats", they'd rather protect their own asses than worry about winning elections.

The northeastern states Clinton carried show signs of being pro-Hillary votes--notably: very high female turnout. Very large gender gap. (I think Obama won white men in some of those states, though narrowly--see this Mass. exit poll.). I don't think white women are more likely to vote against Obama for racial reasons than white men in November; if anything the opposite. But I also don't think they're more likely to think he's elitist & out of touch or whatever crap. I think they just like Clinton better.

And anecdotally, I know a lot of people in those regions & demographics who really, really like Hillary Clinton. I was unaware of rural Appalachia being a bastion of support for her.

Obama has problems with several demographics, including the highly educated, and highly successful - both of whom see through his fake, arrogant persona the same way that working class folks do. Only the wanna-be and not so successful hopiums are drawn to Obama. That's why he's losing the popular vote among registered Democrats, and why at this point there's no way he holds on to a popular vote lead among voters over the next 3 weeks. At this point, it's basically impossible for Obama to win the popular vote with the remaining states in play - yet he's been crowned king already by the pundits, and anyone that doesn't vote for him is called a 'racist'. How pathetic... What a ridiculous frame!

Should we also say Ezra is Sexist because he attacks the voters, instead of congratulates Hillary for her decisive win? What about North Carolina - why not say that there's a problem with the racist BLACK voters there?

Wow, the hopium heads sure an annoying bunch of whiny hypocrites!

At this point, it's basically impossible for Obama to win the popular vote with the remaining states in play

It's also impossible for him to beat Randy Orton in a steel-cage death match.

Or Hikaru Nakamura, even if Hikaru plays black, and Obama's spotted rook odds.

Which devices, coincidentally, are also not used to determine the party's nominee.

Yeah, petey. If you exclude black people from 'the lower class', Obama has a huge class problem. Of course, if you do that, you've got some serious issues and need to explain why black people don't count.

WTF, yeah... Obama does poorly among the educated people... and he's terribly behind in the popular vote...

I thought you were just being snarky for about half the post, then it hit me that you're just insane.

wtf, I should note that while it is true that the most well-paid of my acquaintences here in DC who is a Democrat is supporting Hillary, it is because he is also the most plugged in to the party establishment and fundraising apparatus. As we have seen over the past several years, proximity to the establishment strategists and big-money fundraisers is not a guaranteed formula for electoral success. 2002 and 2004 were great demonstrations of that principle. Heck, so was 1984 and 1988.

Yeah, all those damn racist black voters everywhere, always refusing to vote for white candidates. Thats why Bill Clinton kost decisively in 92 after his 8-point loss in the white vote. erm, was defeated soundly by Bob Dole due to his 5 point loss. Damn, okay, but thats why Al gore lost the popular vote after losing the white vote by double digits.

Oh, what the hell. You're just a moron. Black people have been willing to vote for white people for a good long time, and by margins of 70-80% even over black republican opponents.

In the recent Quinnipiac poll: among working-class white voters, McCain is leading Obama by seven (46% to 39%), and also leading Clinton by seven (48% to 41%).

So we're not fighting over which candidate is going to take the white, working-class vote.

We're not even fighting over which candidate will lose the white, working class vote by the largest margin.

We're fighting over which candidate will lose the white, working class vote with the greatest flair.

Or something.

maybe hillary and bill clinton and john edwards will show just how much the good of the party and the country means to them, and they will campaign their hearts out to help obama and unite the party in the areas where she had overflowing support.
i am sure they could help, if they really wanted to. that would be very redemptive and gracious, and certainly, the right thing to do.

"At this point, it's basically impossible for Obama to win the popular vote with the remaining states in play"

Only if you count the results of Michigan, where Hillary beat Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Dodd combined by over 300,000 votes.

Course that was because they all removed their names from the ballot, and the only reason Hillary didn't (as she explicitly stated) was because everyone knew it wasn't going to count.

Anyone who argues counting Michigan in the popular vote is either a lunatic or a liar. Which is it?

I'll put it this way. Tell me how much of a state is (1) African-American, (2) Latino, (3) Catholic (generally a good proxy for white ethnics), (4) well-educated (college degree plus), (5) affluent (more than $50,000/year), and (6) over 60, and I bet I can predict the winner 95% of the time. - Joe

Fellow stat-types help me out here. Is it so impressive to be able to predict a binary random variable 48 out of only 50 times from 6 predictors?

It seems like your model might be a bit overfit to me.

I meant to post this here, but posted it downstairs by accident. But I'll duplicate it here, where I intended it to be:

Yeah, petey. If you exclude black people from 'the lower class', Obama has a huge class problem. Of course, if you do that, you've got some serious issues and need to explain why black people don't count. - Soullite

There are some very good reasons not to count black people as lower class when it comes to election-predicting demographics.

Not only has competition among the lower rungs served to divide whites and blacks (c.f. many fine speeches by MLK on the subject), but many of the cultural arguments appealing to lower class whites simply don't work on African-Americans.

It's hard to demogogue a candidate as being an intellectual who talks like an effete rich person when your target audience, as poor as they are, talks more like the rich whites than the poor ones (e.g. the famous non-rhoticity of Ebonics aligns more with the English of the Southern gentry than poor Southern whites) and goes to a church where the pastor is as educated as your typical professor.

How many working class whites listen to sermons every week given by holders of doctoral degrees? How many working class whites (especially in Appalachia) talk like Scarlet O'Hara or Rhett Butler? How many working class Blacks?

Blacks may be poorer than Southern whites, but in many ways they "act" richer (even the so-called "pathologies of the black lower class" are not too different than those of the hard drinking, bling-buying, dueling plantation owners that were the first contact point between African-Americans and American culture).

And it wouldn't surprise me if, to borrow from MLK, part of feeding Southern Whites Jim Crow instead of food was getting them resentful of some of these cultural markers (which Obama very much possesses) -- I know similar dynamics existed in the maintainance of anti-Semitic attitudes among peasants in Europe, so why not in the maintainance of racism in this country?

It really is an east of the Mississippi problem

Obama lost the non-college educated in VT and CT even though he won those states.
Even in WI and VA where he won a majority of the white vote he lost white Democrats.

Umm, is DAS kidding? I mean, have you ever met any real black people, or do you just watch too much BET and think all black people act like DMX?

Seriously, most of the black folks I know can't even afford 'bling', they do not speak in 'ebonics' and they do not 'act rich'. but hey, who needs to know real black people when you can watch MTV Cribs. I'm sure it's the same thing, amirite?

I mean, have you ever met any real black people - Soullite

Yes ... if you know me, you'd know how ridiculous of a question that is.

I was somewhat being facious about the "bling" comment to illustrate that much of what professional concern trolls of the Moynihan ilk complain about in terms of "pathologies of the underlcass Black community", to the extent that they exist, reflect not an underclass culture but an overclass culture.

As to Ebonics, many African-American people I know, especially of older generations, do speak in African-American vernacular English (sometimes, I can barely understand what my mother in law says). And Ebonics (or AAVE if you prefer) is very much like the dialect of rich Southrons and unlike the dialect of poor Southrons.

What I don't know is many poor, white Southerners, but I imagine that AAVE speakers would sound to them exactly like fancy-pants rich white folk do. It's probably easy to paint Obama, e.g., as an out of touch, rich elitist (even if he's the poorest of the 3 current main candidates) when he, picking up the speech patterns of his church, sounds like a rich, out of touch elitist to Appalachian folk. OTOH, it's hard to paint him as sounding rich to people that drop their 'r's etc, just like rich folk do.

Similarly, it's easy to bash someone for being pointy-headed when you simply don't know even many college graduates. It's hard to bash someone as pointy headed when you hear someone with a Ph.D. (or at least a D.Div.) preach every Sunday.

There are some long lasting cultural legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. African-American culture is far more similar to rich southern culture in many ways than to poor, white southern culture -- for very understandable reasons. And I reckon that this very much has something to do with any perception that might exist amongst white voters in Appalachia (that doesn't exist amongst white voters in, e.g., NE) that Obama sounds like an effete, out of touch, pointy-headed rich person.

But DAS--

Obama does not speak AAVE. His accent is very much what you would expect from a Kansan (even one who was raised abroad) who was educated on the East Coast and then lived the majority of his adult life in an academic community in Chicago.

The reason that poor white Southerners would see Obama as an effete elitist is that he speaks "whiter" than African-Americans in that region do, and (as you point out), "whiter" than they do themselves. It's really not hard to see what is going on: these poor white Southerners see a well-educated, upper middle class African-American who speaks with a generic Midwestern accent. They think one thing, and it rhymes with Suppity Tigger.

Petey's cherry-picking contests and votes, of course, because he's a complete fucking hack.

(He still won't tell us where Hillary's healthcare-passing Senate majority would come from. Because to address that question would show he's just talking shite.)

It really is an east of the Mississippi problem

Yeppity, and it's something that the clustering of late primaries have thrown up. Last time I checked, though, the border is a little further west. And Obama's election map is different too.

A bunch of uneducated hillbillies don't want to vote for the black guy. I'm not sure why this requires analysis, or why pundits seem to find it so fascinating.

(Speaking here as a direct descendant of Appalachians on both sides of my family, BTW.)

Racism is disappointing, but not surprising. I'm tired of seeing Obama's losses explained away by racism when come GE time it's STILL going to be a problem regardless of how many of you hector your imaginary coalition of Southern/Appalachian/white bubbas about their racism. The real problem is: how is Obama going to get past it? His campaign has done away with a lot of barriers so far, but his campaign's duties aren't over until Nov.

I say the same thing to HRC's supporters re the sexism of the campaign, because it's equally her campaign's responsibility to deal with these things.

They're not kids, people. They know what they're up against. They haven't come this far without understanding how their respective identities are going to handicap them in national politics. The one who wins is the one who was best able to neutralize those threats -- but they will never be eradicated as long as we still have a history that favors white males for these offices.

Happily, the big blog brains like Sullivan, Kos, Huffington and Stoller etc have told us that the only reason people would vote for Clinton is that they're dumb-ass racist hicks and they live in states that nobody should a rat's ass about.

Now that is the way to unify.

If Obama loses big in a GE, you can look no further to the keyboard elites for why. They're bullies and anti-democratic. If Clinton is to lose, she is to lose, this petulant rush to crown Obama king is turning off voters -- and while that dim bulb Kos can smugly say "good riddance," the country can't afford to.

Maybe, just maybe, some women are tired of male bullies in charge?

"the only reason people would vote for Clinton is that they're dumb-ass racist hicks"

Link? I don't ever recall winning that.

I do recall reading (and saying myself) that if Clinton wins this through appeals to dumb-ass racist hicks or by touting her appeal to dumb-ass racist hicks, she is herself an intolerable racist and should be run from the party.

Unless you're totally fine with a Democratic candidate winning because s/he convinced racists to vote for him/her, or because s/he brags about the fact that they voted for him/her?

This is basically the same old analysis in a new dress - faced with the fact that calling Clinton supporters essentially racists hasn't helped, we now get to hear about the problem with "Appalachia", ignoring the fact that Obama's poor draw among people with lower incomes and less education can be traced across the country to nearly every contest (Wisconsin, a state with a set of fairly unique parameters related to timing, being the most oft cited outlier). Where Obama has drawn better on lower income votes and less educated votes, you can pretty much draw a line across the South where black populations are poorer and less educated, and this, given Obama's 90% or so African American voter totals, usually accounts for variations in state after state.

The point is that Obama's problems with working class appeals is a real problem that needs a serious solution. I don't say this because I want him to fail, but because I think he will be the nominee, and more than anyone, working class voters - me included - need him to succeed. Blaming Appalachia, or racism, or Clinton is beside the point, ultimately; none of that explains how he plans to solve the problem, and much of it suggests a determined effort not to take the problem seriously.

Rather than, as Marshall does (and has done, repeatedly in his Obama cheerleading coverage), soending so much time trying to explain away an issue... why not dive into it? What's not working, and why? Why did Obama get only single digit totals in some WV counties? Why have his GOTV operations failed to succeed? What in his advertising is failing to connect? These are key questions no one seems to like to ask, or to have answered. This isn't just racial; Obama has shown, even I'd admit, some ability to transcend these expectations, and he's certainly done better than any previous black candidate in appealing to at least some segment of white voters. Time and again, too, these voters talk about not connecting with Obama's messages or his themes, not his race.

I appreciate that this is complex and frustrating stuff, and that our nation's complicated dynamics around race are painful to confront and discuss. But solving this needs more than excuses dressed up as "deep analysis." The question isn't what, it's why, and what to do about it. And on that, I think, no one's really come up with a good answer or a great solution. And without more thinking and problem solving on this (and less finger pointing), I do think the fall will be a tough run and even winning may not be enough to put the Democratic coalition back together. And no, that does not mean we've got some "new form of politics". Just the old politics... with the furniture rearranged.

I do believe that race and religion was a factor in Obama's shellacing. When people are repeating the Muslim slur despite the evidence, then you know that it is a cover for something else. But Obama should have made more an effort to campaign there. I don't know if things would have improved but it would have shown that he put some effort.

Joe, here's RJ Eskow, Kos-hack, saying exactly that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/even-the-racists-are-dese_b_101623.html

And not everybody buys into your blog-mandated framing. My cousins are flaming libs who want Clinton. They don't like Obama because they find his bullying supporters "creepy."

I despise Clinton's policies and her campaign. But just as people are going to vote in Obama because they'd like to see a black man win, some would just as likely want to see a woman win. No wonk needed to figure this out.

We can get into the "complications" but let's not complicate it too much. This is about race. In no other region are we seeing such large differences in outcomes. Elsewhere, we can see small wins by Clinton when she's won, but come on- how else do you explain WV?

Personally, I think that "flaming libs" who are put off by Obama's supporters are just a jealous about the fact that when they were creepy, idealistic supporters of Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas, their candidates failed in a big way, while the young enthusiastic supporters of Obama got lucky enough to end up riding a historical wave to victory.

I, myself, feel a bit sorry for Obama's supporters that they're going to miss out on the important experience of joining a scrappy, insurgent campaign that gets lots of enthusiasm and then crashes and burns before the establishment candidate. However, I don't project this mildly cynical-for-amusement-value feeling into disdain for the candidate and his supporters, who are doing the right thing and only getting to do what I wish I had been able to do when I got behind an insurgent candidate with a dedicated following.

The question isn't what, it's why, and what to do about it

What to do? Look at the 40% of those eligible to vote, who don't vote.

It also needs saying: would you want to work for a campaign where your rented office gets bricks put through windows? There are parts of the US that are insular enough to balk at volunteers from out of town, let alone out of state, and where it's just plain hard to build a ground operation with local input.

"However, I don't project this mildly cynical-for-amusement-value feeling into disdain for the candidate and his supporters"

Are you talking about Kos, Stoller, Huffington, Sullivan or who?

Obama hasn't rode to victory yet. And that's why the Obama supporters are seen as bullies and zealots. They've seen the light, now they want to FORCE everybody to...or else.

christian--

What on earth does that post prove? Setting aside it is not written by the big bloggers that you referenced, it just talks about the racists who up until recently had been supporting Hillary. How on earth does this equate to "the only reason people would vote for Clinton is that they're dumb-ass racist hicks"?

Or do you deny that Clinton has, in fact, been drawing the racist vote, just as Obama has (no doubt) been drawing the sexist vote? This isn't to say that the racist/sexist vote makes up a majority or even substantial minority of Clinton's/Obama's voters (though I would posit that it did for Clinton in West Virginia), just that those with the mindset vote for the respective candidates.

My big problem is when one candidate consciously appeals to that disfavored voting block to win primaries -- and I think Clinton has done this throughout the primaries, first implicitly and then increasingly explicitly. My second problem is when one candidate argues that the fact that s/he has been getting this disfavored voting block is reason to give him/her the nomination. Touting your support among racists (or sexists) IS racist (or sexist).

christian, it's not "bullying" to point out that one candidate has won and the other hasn't. Look, the facts are that your "flaming lib" cousins don't like Obama supporters because they're jealous. This was supposed to be your cousins' time in the sun where they got to support a winning, establishment candidate like Hillary instead of the "flaming lib" insurgents that they normally supported who would go down in flames. Just this time, Obama was the one who managed to read the electorate better and built a winning movement that even Hillary's establishment support couldn't beat. I'm sure they were just as insufferable when they were young activist libs, too. It's no reason to lash out at Obama's supporters for simply being successful.

If Hillary wanted to win, she should have gotten more votes, and I'm sorry she considered herself "too good" to compete in caucuses or properly compete for votes in Virginia and Maryland. Not really my fault or my problem, nor should anyone lash out at Obama's supporters for it for the sin of helping their candidate get more votes.

Is Petey still here? Or has his head exploded?

In the early primaries, through super Tuesday, people voted for Barack for two reasons:

He was black.

He wasn't Hillary

Now they have gone beyond those and had a chance to judge the content of his character and found him to be a con man.

As Reverend Wright made pretty darn clear. Obama is just saying what he's saying because he's a politician; not because he actually believes it.

Anonymous6:12: you have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary Clinton is performing just as well or slightly worse among the groups she has always done well with. It's just that those groups are highly concentrated in West Virginia and Kentucky. In fact, Hillary performed WORSE in west virginia counties in the primary than she performed in adjacent Ohio counties during their primary. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, but then again, you're too stupid to figure out how to use a pseudonym, so clearly thinking isn't a strong point.

Clinton can get some nice "last hurrah" victories so she can bow out with dignity, and then Obama will win Oregon, and the contest will be over.

Barack Obama figured out how to run a better capmaign than Hillary, and he had a better read of the electorate and had better judgment. So he won. If Hillary wanted to win, she should have thought about not being a mindless Iraq-war supporter, hiring people who knew how the primary process worked, and maybe run a campaign about the 21st century, not the 1990s.

I'm not an expert, but I think that Appalachians have a very strong sense of identity, and it is very fundamentally informed by their awareness of a legacy of poverty in the region over the course of a long period of time, of exploitation at the hands of capital, and literacy issues--for a lot of young people in that region just the fact that they managed to *get* an education is something seriously monumental.

And yet, to hear the-- here it comes-- elites talk, there are no poor whites in America today and affirmative action in education is all about race. Yeah, I bet that can get annoying.

I would expect Obama to do a bit better in Kentucky.

Josh Marshall and others:

Why don't you just use the "Redneck" or "Racist" instead of "Appalachia"? It would more accurately describe your thinking. Thinking that is wrong.

In fact, Senator Clinton does well in these counties because she offers more policy solutions, more concrete programs and ideas for the kinds of problems people there are dealing with. Obama offers process, promises of change and reform of Washington that aren't that appealing to people on the knife edge of economic disaster three months out of every twelve.

These counties are full of struggling, working-class folks. The local economies are pretty static. Social mobiity is limited. And out-migration, though it happens, is counter-balanced by a lot of folks staying put, not moving out of this hard-scrabble geography.

People in these kinds of situations vote for politicians they think will represent their basic economic interests. They don't take lots of chances in politics or anything else that could affect their very survival. That's a conservative approach, maybe risk-averse, but it's typical of most people who can't afford risky choices. Obama is an undefined quantity and therefore a risk.

Lastly, the Clintons have delivered for people in West Virginia. They have ties to local politicians there. So Senator Clinton is perceived, at least, as a better-known quantity.

So don't blame these folks or call them racists when you have so little evidence for that. Far more plentiful is evidence that points simply to an electorate choosing known quantities and concrete problem-solvers like the Hillary Clinton.

dana b, then why is it that Clinton performs much better among this particular cultural and geographical demographic than she does among those in an economic situation similar to theirs?

We're comfortable with speaking of Latinos, African-Americans, single urbanites, and Catholics as separate demographics to explain voting patterns. It is equally fair to discuss Appalachia in the same way.

Tyro,

On point of fact: I think Clinton does perform very well with working class people of all ethnicities who are located in counties or regions with fairly stagnant economies (like those in West Virginia but not limited to Appalachia).

The one difference in this pattern this year seems to be with black working class voters in similarly desperate situations. Obama is a really appealing candidate for the latter. That doesn't make these kind of black voters racist or unaware of the concrete versus more abstract change, just proud and hoping for an historic candidacy with something else that's very concrete for them -- a black president. The transformational message of Obama works for these voters but doesn't work for any other ethnic group in the same economic circumstances, be the latter white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever.

As to your second point that "We're comfortable speaking of Latinos, African Americans, single urbanites, and Catholics as separate demographics": Yes, we are, but those are less-coded identities.

When people talk "Appalachia", I think it's more a code, a way to pigeon hole these folks as uneducated, racist, white, working class or poor hicks.

I think it would simply be more accurate to name them as white working class voters in economically depressed, rural counties. That way, the patterns of "Appalachia" voters could be seen more clearly in pockets and regions throughout the U.S.

To my mind, "Appalachia" voters obfuscates by drawing the distinction as one of geography rather than long-term economic conditions.

An example of why we should avoid using "Applachia" and falsely regionalizing this phenomeon comes not from electoral politics but from a recent national health study. It found life expectancy growing for neaarly all Americans but falling for women in specific counties -- in Wyoming and the West, the Deep South, Appalachia, all over the place. The common factors were that these women were living in poverty in rural settings with inadequate education, lack of jobs. They were smokers and overweight. The troubles of these women were not determined by Scotch-Irish descent, living in the hollows of Appalachia. Their troubles were clearly cross-regional; they were class-based and related to rural settings.

Americans of all class backgrounds have a heck of a time talking about class. I think there are a lot of historical and contemporary reasons for this -- enough to fill books. So I won't go there. But I'd like to stop inventing categories of voters that don't illuminate but rather obscure what motivates people to vote as they do.

Tyro,
I mistakenly left my last comment to you as "Anonymous". I meant to sign off as 'dana b'.

DAS, I'm sorry but your experience with black folks contradicts everything I experienced growing up in an multi-ethnic environment, and too strongly resembles a rap video for me to believe it.

I don't know any black people with big gold chains and diamond rings. I know 2 guys who have rims, but one of them is white and they are both part of the car-crew that hangs out at pizza hut every weekend to show off their rides.

I'd suggest you learn what being 'rich' means. It really doesn't have shit to do with what kind of random crap you have, it has everything to do with how much money you make a year. You can pretend that 'class' means something else, but if you aren't rich, and your daddy isn't rich, you're not rich. I'd suggest you buy into those 'cultural resentments' a bit too much and deny reality.

Dana B, you're really very wrong. I live on the border of what is generally called 'Appalachia' in NY. Well, around here we tend to call them 'Mountain folk' or 'Mountain people'. We ARE talking about a distinct cultural group. Hell, some of them still cling to their old clans, around here the Allens and the Palmatiers are the largest. Hell, we have a whole section of the local area we refer to as 'Allentown' and everyone knows full well you do not enter it unless you're armed and you're looking for trouble. The cops don't even go in there unless they have 3-4 cars and police dogs with them. These are the people that still operate stills, brew moonshine, and 'keep to their own', if you get my meaning.

You can sit there and pretend that they aren't distinct, but most of the people where I live are pretty poor and THEY still differentiate between themselves and mountain folk. This isn't a fake region.

Soullite,

What you wrote was really interesting. I do know of mountain folk. My mom lived in Asheville, NC. One day we drove into the Smokey Mountains. We encountered a woman in her yard who couldn't conjugate verbs except in the third person singular form. There were, of course, the incidents of glowering looks and children who looked kind of inbred. And we did feel we shouldn't be in some places after dark. So I know what you mean about distinct mountain folk and mountain communities that are only loosely connected to the national or even state scene.

I do wonder how many of these mountain folk vote in state elections, how similar their votes are to those of their small town neighbors, etc. I don't think these mountain folk make up a large portion of the populace in West Virginia. Do you remember poor Private Jessica Lynch, raped and injured while lying in a Najaf hospital, supposedly saved by U.S. troops? Wasn't she from small-town, little-opportunity West Virginia? Wasn't she eloquent and brave in her testimony before Congress repudiating the lies told about her rescue? It is to this great majority of pretty regular folks in the Appalachian region that I'm referring.

I don't see their hopes and dreams as distinctive from those of other working class, rural Americans, especially those in economically depressed areas. I would still argue that there is no meaningful difference between the voting patterns of Appalachia and those of similarly situated economic communities in the United States.

"We're comfortable with speaking of Latinos, African-Americans, single urbanites, and Catholics as separate demographics to explain voting patterns. It is equally fair to discuss Appalachia in the same way."

Unless you're Clinton, of course. If you're Clinton or one of her supporters and you talk this way, you're a racist.

AZ, CA, NJ, NM, NV, MA, RI and TX are all states where Clinton beat Obama in both the 'No College Education' and 'Earn Less than 50K' categories.

Obama doesn't win downscale voters who are not African-American regardless of which state/region they are in. According to Ron Brownstein, Obama has won the white non college voting bloc (e.g., white blue collar voters) in Wisconsin -- 52% -- and lost them everywhere else, even in Illinois...'

Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.

Like war, which is too important to leave to the Generals, national and international policy is too important to leave to the economists. Viva la revolucion!

セックスがしたいと思い、出会い系サイトのセフレ募集のサイトをみていたら風俗よりもアダルトエロコミュニティサイトがおすすめと書いていて、半信半疑ながらも試してみたらなんと運がいい事でしょう、エロ目的の女の子と出会い、SEXすることができました。アダルト出会い系サイトなんて全部やらせだと思っていたけど案外いいかもしれない。風俗にいって高いお金を払ってセックスするよりも、人妻と不倫するよりも、一人淋しくビデオを借りてオナニーするよりも、案外こうゆう出会いサイトの方がエロくていいかもよ♪無料で登録できるしどこかに行く手間もはぶけるしいつでもどこでもエッチできるセフレとおまんこができるよ