The Sophisticates: I Told You So?

A reader writes:

You know, I know that educated coastal liberals are not supposed to condescend to "working-class Americans" and I have been very critical of condescension I have perceived at [an Ivy League School], in [Northeastern city] etc. against the military, Republicans, Christians, etc. That said, in reading today's Washington Post article about racism against Obama, and reading all the man-on-the-street interviews with West Virginia racists, I am sort of exasperated, to put it mildly.

Did race drive yesterday's vote in West Virginia?

What do you think?

Comments

Yes. Next question.

Posted by Ron | May 14, 2008 9:13 AM

Yes.

Posted by Ann | May 14, 2008 9:16 AM

Racism is just a symptom. The people of Appalachia, to a greater degree than people in other parts of the country, are simply not well educated. They are suspicious of outsiders. They are poor. The historical root of the problems in that region go back to before the Civil War. So there is racism there, sure, but look how many people voted for Edwards. Sexism is a big problem, too. Every kind of ism. It stems from a lack of understanding of the rest of the country and the world, and that seems to be how the people there would like it to remain.

Posted by Craig | May 14, 2008 9:21 AM

not that i think it drove the entire vote, but it would be considerably naive to think that it didn't play a larger role than in other states. just look at the exit poll results about 20% of whites voting bc of race, 50% thinking obama shared views with rev. wright and somehow making obama the unbelievable "secret muslim with a crazy pastor."

we can beat around the bush all we want with "low information voters," but it's clear that by exploiting these racial fears, the clintons have appealed to the worst in ppl. it's disheartening to know that even in 2008 such racial resentments exist, specifically in appalachia. and we wonder why george bush was elected to two terms.

Posted by justin | May 14, 2008 9:22 AM

Yes, of course. But also sexism. The majority of the vote was older which also had a part to play...possibly more than race.

Posted by Ed S | May 14, 2008 9:23 AM

Um, yes...

Posted by Abe | May 14, 2008 9:24 AM

West Virginian psychology in two sentences:

The idea that rich people might willingly screw poor people makes them bitter.

The idea that white women might willingly screw black men makes them freak the hell out.

Posted by zacksback | May 14, 2008 9:24 AM

I think race played a part, but maybe there was also a fear and uncertainty about someone with Obama's unusual background (unusual for American politicians, that is).

For better or for worse, Clinton is a brand name, like Pepsi, and you pretty much know what you're going to get with that brand. Note that Byrd and Rockefeller have been around for a long time.

Posted by chipfat | May 14, 2008 9:28 AM

Yes, I think race played a part. I think that this is a year they may have gone beyond that, however the Muslim lie has stuck and I think if you are predisposed to not like Obama you won't believe the truth.

So, yeah, I don't think he will carry WV or KY. However, he does have a solid chance on Pennsylvania with Rendell's machine behind him, and I think he has a solid shot at Ohio with the gov. and union support behind him. One of the front pagers at dailykos put it best: if Appalachia dominated the country Obama would have touble but the region is cut up in various states and therefore the impact is dilluted to a degree that he may over come it.

Posted by Rhoda | May 14, 2008 9:32 AM

I agree with kos, and appreciated the reminder, that if we intend to pursue a 50-state strategy then it is advisable not to bash any one state.

All 50 states are important to the democratic party and in time, West Virginia will come to love Obama too!

Besides we all know that race is going to be a part of this election and a part of the Obama presidency. No reason to pretend otherwise. As supporters we are going to have to face racial bias, intolerance, and hatred whether we like it or not.

This is an opportunity for our country and I am thrilled that we seem to be embracing it rather than running from it.

Posted by heather | May 14, 2008 9:33 AM

I'd say yes it was a problem with race, unfamilarity, his appearing to be somewhat "foreign" along with their preference for "brand" names that made it impossible for Obama to win in West Virginia.

Posted by C.B. Todd | May 14, 2008 9:36 AM

Race ABSOLUTELY played a part in WV.

The demographic in WV is nearly identical to the demo in my birth county in PA - predominantly white, poor, uneducated. My county went 75-25 for Clinton, and many coworkers, neighbors and friends my parents were very explicit that they wouldn't vote for a "black man with a Muslim name." Though it makes me grit my teeth with disgust, this is reality in certain parts of the country.

Posted by Brian | May 14, 2008 9:38 AM

At some point Hillary's usefulness to the general election campaign this year may be seriously compromised by the fact that she did not renounce or denounce the beliefs of the many idiots and racists who flocked to her. If she had any class, she would've told these people that she didn't want their votes, that their beliefs are ludicrous and hateful and moronic. Instead, she courted them and implied that their beliefs are a-okay with her.

Despicable.

Posted by tinisoli | May 14, 2008 9:44 AM

I wish the press would take the time to point out that Obama doesn't really have a white, blue-collar problem as much as he does a regional problem in Appalachia.

They completely forgot his dominating wins in WI, MN, IA, ID, ND, CO, UT, WA (and an upcoming one in OR).

And to answer your question: yes.

Posted by Dan | May 14, 2008 9:47 AM

Yes.

It sure did here in Western North Carolina, where my 12 year old and his friend had racial epitaphs and the F*** word shouted at them multiple times for the sin of standing on a street corner holding up an Obama sign.

Posted by Mark | May 14, 2008 9:47 AM

Race definitely played a role.

I have been phonebanking for Obama since before February 5th including calls to many states in the deep South.

Over the days before the WV primary, I was on the receiving end of a shocking number of racial slurs. The "hang that darky from a tree" comment that the Washington Post reported yesterday would have ranked among the less racially offensive comments I received.

Appalachia is rough for Obama. I know the general election is coming up but I wish he would have campaigned there harder in the primary for this particular reason.

Posted by John B. | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM

I'll admit, I'm one of those bizarre freaks of nature: A West Virginian. I can't speak for all my fellows in the state, but I do think the racial ID issue did play a role.

Then again, would it be wrong to suggest that racial ID played a role whenever Obama won 90-plus percent of the African American vote in all other states?

Frankly, I think a larger problem for Obama in a place like WV, which he would never be able to escape here in the boonies, is that he's too citified. Folks out here can relate much better to someone who seems more like another bumpkin -- a Bubba or a Dubya, say -- than someone from a major urban hub of liberalism.

WV is overwhelmingly Democrat in state and local politics. But our Dems are typically of the gun-totin', Bible-thumpin', pro-life variety. They don't generally have much in common with their urban liberal nattering-class brethren.

Posted by MarkG | May 14, 2008 9:55 AM

Are you running out of story ideas to ask such a ridiculously obvious question? 20% of the voters admitted that race was a factor.

Why don't you ask the few African Americans who live in West Virginia what life is like. Hillary Clinton has been citing 1916, which is appropriate b/c racial attitudes in the state have not much improved much since 1916. White folks kill me with not wanting to acknowledge that pervasive racism still exists in this country and would rather attribute Obam's "blue collar white problem" to anything other than racial attitudes of those people. Not even Colin Powell would fair well in West Virginia.

Why is it Obama's onus to cure the racism of West Virginia which has only 5 electoral votes rather than redraw the electoral map in states that have more progressive attitudes?

Why is the MSM (white) media expecting an African American to run a traditional electoral map campaign when an African American running as a viable candidate for president in and of itself is the most untraditional thing in American history?

Posted by Dawn | May 14, 2008 10:04 AM

Then again, would it be wrong to suggest that racial ID played a role whenever Obama won 90-plus percent of the African American vote in all other states?

I think the difference between Obama winning stunning majorities of AA populations and Clinton winning stunning majorities of poorly educated whites in Appalachia is that Clinton was actually doing pretty well with AAs until her campaign started doing dirty stuff that came across as racially charged and dog-whistling. Hillary and Bubba and Mark Penn read the polls and realized that their best chance at beating the upstart Obama was to reject the black vote in order to get the uneducated, xenphobic, racist white vote. They've been quite obvious about it, starting with Penn dropping the word "cocaine" on MSNBC, Johnson talking about what Barack was "doin' in the neighbrohood," and then culminating in Hillary's metamorphosis into a pick-up riding populist proudly bragging about her ability to win white votes.

In other words, it's one thing to vote for someone out of ethnic identification or solidarity or the rejection of the candidate who seems to have betrayed you; it's quite another to vote for someone out of racism or the fear that the dark candidate is a closet Muslim who's "half breed" blood will compel him to destroy America.

Posted by tinisoli | May 14, 2008 10:06 AM

it seems that some of these redneck voters would rather kill their first born before they vote for obama... and if mccain wins do they honestly believe their lives would improve?

Posted by kai | May 14, 2008 10:08 AM

It helped Hillary Clinton but it also indicates that Barack Obama will have to be very careful and considerate in his choice of VP and I don't think it should be the divisive Hillary Clinton.

We have come so far and yet not far enough. The man on the street responses from the voters of West Virginia were illuminated by Hillary Clinton preaching to her choir.

Posted by Julia | May 14, 2008 10:10 AM

I'm with Mark G: Yes, race played a role, but not a determinative one. Let's say he lost by 42, instead of by 32. (And frankly I think that's overstating the effect.) And again, why isn't it problematic that Obama takes 90% of the AA vote?

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I've gotta tell you that those who are would be better off if they spent some time seriously considering why it might be that he loses these voters, instead of just blaming the voter, assuming it's race, and giving up trying to win their votes. If there are real substantive reasons, then maybe he could change them and improve his performance; if you just keep saying West Virginians are all racists from now till Nov, you are not going to win WV (or PN, or KY, or whatever other states you approach with this charming attitude).

The other problem with assuming that opposition to Obama is always racially based -- the principled problem, as opposed to the strategic one -- is that by saying that his race is the only electorally relevant thing about him, you have basically just reduced him to his race. He's no longer Barack Obama, with a lot of positions and personality traits that might put off some people and attract others; he's the Black Candidate. That some of Obama's *supporters* do apparently view him this way (cf John "Because he's African-American" Kerry) is unfortunate but demonstrable. They shouldn't assume all his non-supporters are driven by the same concerns.

Posted by Derannimer | May 14, 2008 10:11 AM

Yes, definitely. And West Virginia looks like the most racist state in the nation today. I live in a nice town in western New Jersey and there is one house with a Confederate flag on it and I pass it on my way to and from Main Street and always think what jerks the people in that house must be, proclaiming their racism for the rest of the town. Thats what the West Virginians did yesterday: made themselves look racist and stupid.

Posted by New Jersey voter | May 14, 2008 10:13 AM

Yes, definitely. And West Virginia looks like the most racist state in the nation today. I live in a nice town in western New Jersey and there is one house with a Confederate flag on it and I pass it on my way to and from Main Street and always think what jerks the people in that house must be, proclaiming their racism for the rest of the town. Thats what the West Virginians did yesterday: made themselves look racist and stupid.

Posted by New Jersey voter | May 14, 2008 10:13 AM

MarkG, it would not be wrong to suggest that racial ID played a role in Obama's success with African Americans. What would be wrong is to obscure an important difference between this community and what we may stereotype as Appalachia.

African Americans cannot be accused of being unwilling to vote for non-African Americans. Those in Appalachia apparently lack such flexibility.

Posted by steve | May 14, 2008 10:14 AM

Really though, who cares, it's 28 delegates, of which he'll get ten, it's the arse end of buttfuck nowhere, and it's the racist moron vote.

They'll vote for anyone who is white, so fuck them - a few more years of Iraq and the voting populace there will have dropped considerably.

Posted by James | May 14, 2008 10:15 AM

Hillary would have won this state with PA margins, racism drove it to a landslide.

MarkG,
There is a difference in black turn out for Obama which is largely a vote of affirmation and white voters who vote against a candidate because they are black. Black voters have been voting for white candidates for years without a problem. These voters would never vote for a black man. That's racism.
I hope you understand this.

Mark,
Thanks for allowing comments.

Posted by bjd | May 14, 2008 10:15 AM

Steve, AA voters have consistantly supported white candidates... what's your point?

Posted by TDE | May 14, 2008 10:18 AM

are you kidding?
of course, it did.
do elites condescend when they call racists racists?
then allow me to condescend.

Posted by Peregrine | May 14, 2008 10:19 AM

I'm going to take a contrarian approach here and say that the identity politics (which was on full display last night) is really only relevant here because the two candidates have positioned themselves in the exact same ideological space.

The general election brings an ideological chasm between the two candidates, and will make 75% of the identity politics go away.

Posted by taricha | May 14, 2008 10:21 AM

"It's one thing to vote for someone out of ethnic identification or solidarity or the rejection of the candidate who seems to have betrayed you; it's quite another to vote for someone out of racism."

Well, how do you know Appalachian whites aren't voting for Hillary out of "ethnic identification or solidarity?" Face it: voting for someone to be the most powerful individual in the world based on the color of their skin (or the shape of their genitalia) is a bad idea, no matter which way it cuts, because neither of those attributes is at all relevant to the office.

Posted by Derannimer | May 14, 2008 10:21 AM

Did race drive yesterday's vote in West Virginia?

Geez. Nothing personal Ambinder, I really enjoy the work you do, but is this even a serious question?

Nothing against West Virginians, but Josh Marshall has some great analysis of last night's results up over on TPM. To a higher degree than almost any other state in the union, they're poor, white, and uneducated.

Enough said.

Posted by SDinIA | May 14, 2008 10:23 AM

I wish Obama had tried a different tack in WV, and in Kentucky, as well. He's doing some pandering with clean coal nonsense.
Rather than watch the depressing election coverage last night, I watched a documentary on the Sundance channel about what mountaintop removal coal mining is doing to the water supply and public health in southern West Virginia. Most memorable were the West Virginians fighting back against King Coal. At the end, they make a trip to NYC to speak at the UN. Some moving scenes of these heroic non-elites trying to do a Michael Moore on the CEO of a coal company who lives in the Sherry Netherland Hotel, and shouting out to passersby in Time Square about how West Virginians are being sacrificed to light up the Great White Way.
What if my man Obama had done some truth talking in WV about how these poor folks are being trampled on for the almighty dollar. Instead, the counties of southern WV are where he did the absolute worst in the state.
By the way, I'm a NYC Obama lover whose Daddy was from West Virginia.

Posted by eunice | May 14, 2008 10:26 AM

it's clear now that obama was telling the truth of "bitter, small town america," esp. that line about "antipathy towards ppl who aren't like them."

Posted by justin | May 14, 2008 10:27 AM

The other problem with assuming that opposition to Obama is always racially based

I don't think any serious person is making the claim that opposition to Obama is always racially based. But in WV it was a major issue, in most states it's a minor issue.

Posted by bjd | May 14, 2008 10:27 AM

It's pretty clear that race drove the vote in WV and OH and PA for that matter but I think the impact of this is overrated because it seems more demographic than anything. Obama got the votes of poor whites in Kansas, Iowa, and other states and the pollsters seem to be saying that he gets the same percentage of white votes that Kerry got in 2004. On the other hand, I don't think it matters much. White vote, black vote, blue-collar beer drinkers, elitist arugula eaters, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. None of it matters. Pundits have to earn a paycheck. As David Brinkley said, "The one function that TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were."

This goes for print and blogosphere pundits as well. The fact is that Obama and his the movement he has inspired are rewriting the rules of the game. None of the old rules and assumptions apply. That's why the pundits keep getting it wrong. Joe Klein speaks of telling his wife why Obama's race speech, though well-written would never work because there were no sound bites. It turns out that Obama and his people designed the speech that way and it got a historic number of views on YouTube. Again, bottom line, none of the old analysis really work. Obama's going to win and when he does all of the pundits will come out and analyze the win to death but the consensus will be that he won by breaking all of the old rules and conventions.

Posted by Keith Hood | May 14, 2008 10:32 AM

I'm not going to convince or be able to prove to those of you who believe WV's Hillary victory was based on anything other than race.

I would point out, FYI, that Nigerian-born Charles Minimah ran unopposed in the GOP primary for the WV Sec'y of State's office. He'll be up against Dem nominee Natalie Tennant (not the singer) in November. I'm a GOP-leaner, but I'll probably vote for Tennant, because I think she's better qualified.

Also FYI, I voted for Obama in the primary yesterday, but will vote McCain in November (probably). I took the Dem ticket because most state and local races usually have fewer candidates than openings on the GOP ticket. The Dem primaries here pretty much decide the general election. GOPers are as rare as elephants here in the boonies.

Posted by MarkG | May 14, 2008 10:36 AM

Well, how do you know Appalachian whites aren't voting for Hillary out of "ethnic identification or solidarity?"

Maybe you can point to an article where black Obama supporters state they want to see Clinton hanging from a tree, and then follow that up with a history of black people terrorizing the white community by burning crosses on their lawns and actually hanging them from trees.

Posted by bjd | May 14, 2008 10:38 AM

Racism, yes. But the more fundamental reasons are the twin demons that have been the curse of Appalachia and the Ozarks for generations: poverty and ignorance.

I'm an Obama supporter but I have to give John Edwards great credit for his focus on poverty. Poverty, whether it's in the rural south or the urban north, whether it's the cause or result of ignorance, is the most fertile breeding ground of racism.

Posted by Larry McD | May 14, 2008 10:45 AM

The 90% vote = black racism equation shows how even smart people can be real stupid. For the first time in history, black folk like me can see someone who looks like us (but is obviously more talented and brilliant than nearly all of us) in the driver's seat.

We've been voting for white men since we could vote but now it's racism to flock to this amazing reincarnation of every great American leader since 1950 or so? We seem to have forgotten how he has moved an entire generation of Americans or at least have reduced it to Kool Aid and Moonies.

If Obama was a redhead he's be just as incredible. If he looked like JFK and had his qualities, she would have been history in Texas.

Hillary is a commissioner, not a president. In most times, a tough, smart, dedicated liberal is enough. These are not most times.

P.S. Glad you've opened up the comments and that they've calmed down a bit.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | May 14, 2008 10:46 AM

Did race drive yesterday's vote in West Virginia?

Race has obviously been a huge factor -- arguably "driving" this race -- throughout this primary cycle, and not just in West Virginia.

But I don't think it's mostly the crass, reprehensible racism of the popular imagination.

Rather, it's a case of racial pride (among African-American Obama supporters) and the lack thereof (among working class, white Clinton supporters).

In other words, the biggest calling-card of the Clinton "brand" is economic competence and the ability to drive prosperity for all (and not just the wealthy). Hillary's identification with the economic issue may even be somewhat more heightened than Bill's -- especially during a time of economic woe -- because of her association with a traditional, Hubert Humphrey/LBJ/FDR/Tip O'Neil style of lunch pail Democratic party politics and policies.

So, if you're a working class person facing hard times, the Clinton brand, and the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is very likely to appeal to you.

Now, obviously, plenty of such persons are African-American. And absent the candidacy of Barack Obama, Clinton would most certainly have built a powerful juggernaut of a coalition. But African-American downscale voters understandably are reluctant to pass up a chance to make history (indeed, to change it). This is especially true in light of the fact that there are no really significant domestic policy differences between Clinton and Obama.

This same dynamic simply doesn't apply to downscale whites. The latter have have already had several dozen of their own race in the White House.

So, yes, race has obviously mattered. But not in the pernicious way people suppose when they don't think carefully about what has transpired since Iowa. Hard-pressed working class whites simply haven't had a "special" reason to vote for the new brand over the tried and trusted one.

Posted by Jasper | May 14, 2008 10:55 AM

The reason hillary lost in iowa was backlash against a strong female leader or that she didn't campaign properly there?
In a country where no one is to be presumed guilty until proven this thesis about the racist voters in WV is pretty vile.
Obama gave away the state. He did very little to campaign there. He wrote it off. His campaign people presumed WV wouldn't vote for him.
She worked her ass off to win there. they saw her effort and desire and rewarded it.
The assumption a whole state is wicked racist is very ugly.
my father in law says ugly racist stuff but that doesn't make the whole state of CT racist.

Posted by michael c. | May 14, 2008 10:56 AM

Reginald, just to be clear, I wouldn't claim black racism explains Obama's support in the AA community. But race ID, as in, "I identify with candidate X because s/he's like me" suffices as an explanation.

Using the word "racism" is hyperbole, and it's not a self-proving allegation. "Prejudice," "bias," or "identification" would often suffice and be more generally true. Yet many journalists also succumb to confirmation bias when reporting on why white country folks don't vote for Obama and ask why African Americans do vote for Obama.

Posted by MarkG | May 14, 2008 10:57 AM

Race, yes, but "culture" much more so.

Appalachia is a closed society - it's been that way for a long, long time. Obama's background as a multi-racial, big city, young guy who grew up in places half the country couldn't find on a map doesn't do much to naturally endear him to a culture that has a tendency to be suspicious of outsiders. The fact that he's talking about 'change" is probably a BAD thing for a lot of these folks, who see something new as necessarily something that's geared toward leaving them behind. Hillary, on the other hand, comes across as the equivalent of the woman who's been working down at the post office for the last 30 years - she's been around long enough that they're comfortable with her, even if her education and background DOESN'T quite make her "one of us."

He'll spend time there this summer and fall, and probably not win the state, though he'll be planting seeds that will help him carry it in 2012.

Posted by Marcus | May 14, 2008 11:11 AM

Funny, I expected Petey to be here by now, proclaiming the new dawn of Clintonism. I guess he's still fleeing from the large men who sort out bad Intrade bets.

Posted by yazzel | May 14, 2008 11:14 AM

when people are interviewed and say they are not voting for Obama because he is a "muslim"- and the newspaper interviewer corrects the individual and says "no he is a Christian" - and the individual says "She doesn't believe that"

What can you do when people refuse facts

Posted by alison | May 14, 2008 11:22 AM

Selective use of detail drove the impression, but data says WV whites were no more or less likely to vote Obama than any other states in play.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | May 14, 2008 11:32 AM

I would point out, FYI, that Nigerian-born Charles Minimah ran unopposed in the GOP primary for the WV Sec'y of State's office.

Yes, but I bet Minimah is not biracial. My comment upthread still stands. It's not Roe v Wade or even Brown v Board of Ed that gets their knickers in a knot, it's Loving v Virginia.

Posted by zacksback | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM

It doesn't matter what we think, it seems to be a statistical fact, and quantifiable.

And here's the key excerpt from ABC's analysis:
Racially motivated voting ran somewhat higher than elsewhere: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. Just 32 percent of those voters said they'd support Obama against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question's been asked.

Indeed, as noted, among all West Virginia primary voters, only 51 percent they would support Obama vs. McCain, far fewer than elsewhere and one of many signs of antipathy toward Obama in the state.

Posted by Beth in VA | May 14, 2008 12:07 PM

Alison,
Journalist gets the muslim answer from one voter that helps that one voter's vote, not every hillary vote.
It is wrong and ignorant to generalize that one person's response to 2/3 of the dem electorate in that state.
zacksback,
your excuse for why obama did not connect with the electorate is as ill-informed as any I have ever heard. Remember that Obama spent crazy time and money in Iowa to come in first, spent 4-1 crazy money in PA just to come in distant second and spent crazy money in OH to come in second there. THEN remember he spent neither money nor time in WV and THEN tell me he lost because voters there resent his origins. Have you ever been there? Is you position based on research? Did you do your doctorate on this kind of bias in the electorate there? Or is it just a gut feeling you have about people from the hill country?
is it because you saw showboat? Is it because you saw deliverance?
Marcus, closed society? is it more closed than harvard has traditionally been? More closed than Yale? Columbia? Marcus your suppossition is balanced precariously on the word 'probably' which translated means "I'm taking a wild quess here based on my own closed minded bias".
Marcus don't forget that this has been a topsy turvy see saw like campaign cycle where one person does well and then the the other person comes roaring back AND don't forget marcus that Obama didn't pretend to care about WV at all in the past week or month AND don't forget that clinton and her campaign worked hard to do well there. He lost it because it suited him to lose it. he lost it becasue he decided to lose it. He made no effort to keep the margin down with due diligence.
the effort to label people racist here is destructive.

Posted by Michael C. | May 14, 2008 12:20 PM

So Democrats who vote for Obama are the only ones free of symptoms of a larger pathology. Boy am I glad I passed that psychological diagnostic. I can finally toss out my Prozac and Lithium cocktail. =)

Posted by MarkG | May 14, 2008 12:26 PM

People here want to believe the worst about people. It isn't that these people are rubes. it isn't simple that Clinton is a recognizable brand name like pepsi as chipfat claims above.
That Rockfeller and Byrd are long established names differs not at all from Kennedy and Kerry and Daley and Richardson and Biden being long establashed names where they are based. It isn't ignorant people falling for brand names it is people voting for pols who deliver. All these names deliver the bacon back home and understand constituent services.
You thinking that these folks vote for different reasons than you vote shows your bias not thiers. Trust, credibility, positions. You can cast these as prejoritives if thats the kind of person you are but it is safer to believe they are motivated by the exact same forces as you are inside a voting booth.
When Obama runs up the margins against Hillary in other states we don't start claiming that its her gender.
try having a little class.

Posted by Michael C. | May 14, 2008 12:42 PM

AND don't forget marcus that Obama didn't pretend to care about WV at all in the past week or month

I think that's a strong point. Obama likely could have pulled off an upset or two if he had gone to counties that favored his demographic, such as Monongalia County (home of the state's flagship U), Kanawha County (the state capital), Jefferson County (DC exurb that nearly voted for him even without his attention), and perhaps Cabell County (second university city -- Huntington).

He certainly had the money advantage to contest the state, but he ceded it to Clinton. And the media is now doing the work of denouncing Clinton voters as filthy, bigoted ignoramuses, working on the theory that anyone who votes against Obama should live in shame. All in all, I suppose Obama played it just about right.

Posted by MarkG | May 14, 2008 1:04 PM

Obama spent less time in WV than Bush spent in New Orleans after katrina.
Message: I don't care about you
result: 40 point loss.

Posted by Michael C. | May 14, 2008 1:31 PM

I lived in WV for a year in 05-06, and my dad's family is from there. But I probably count as an 'elite' (UVA grad, lawyer, white male NPR listener, blah blah). I cannot believe, based on my own knowledge of the people in the state, that there was any significant amount of what I would call 'simple' racism here - i.e., I'm not voting for Obama b/c he's black. It's far more likely that some voters took it into account as an indicator of strangeness, outsiderness, otherness: there simply are stunningly few black people in WV, especially outside the cities. To a majority of WV voters, I'd say Obama was the black guy with the funny name from Chicago, of whom they'd never hear before 6 or 8 months ago, and the Clintons are indeed a long-known and powerful brand. And Obama essentially did not contest the state.

Posted by dgj | May 14, 2008 1:32 PM

clearly it couldn't be that obama lost WV because he is an elitist. nah, elitist nut job liberals do ok in WV.

Posted by porteno | May 14, 2008 3:32 PM

Race is going to play a part in this contest, to be sure, and more in some parts of the country than others.

No candidate is going to win 100%, or even 60% of the country's vote. No one candidate will do it for everyone.

Culture plays as big, if not bigger, role in this contest than straight race. Change is a word of hope to some and a word of fear to others.

Age will play an even bigger role than anything else in this contest. Different generations will see each candidate entirely differently.

What's heartening to me is that there are so many differences between the candidates this time around. We aren't stuck with the same old white headed white men to chose from.

As to WV specifically, why would the vote there matter any more than the vote of Alaska or Idaho or Kansas, all of which Obama won overwhelmingly. I would be very surprised to see either Dem win any of those states, including WV against a candidate like McCain.

We need to stop slicing and dicing. Vote your heart and don't worry about what others say. What we'll find out is if there are more of us than there are of them, no matter which perspective you start from.

Posted by G Davis | May 14, 2008 10:08 PM

Frankly, I support paying off the national debt by selling West Virginia residents to upper class foreigners as exotic pets.

Posted by tom c | May 14, 2008 10:26 PM