I currently reside and vote in Charlottesville, Virginia. On Tuesday, we had our turn at the already enchanting Democratic and Republican primary elections. The elections had been pretty topsy-turvy so far, with Obama (unexpectedly) coming out slightly ahead in delegates after "Super Tuesday" on February 5th. Obama had made up for losses in big states like New York and California with CRUSHING wins in traditionally swing or Republican states such as North Dakota, Georgia, Alaska, and Idaho (where he took an astounding 80% of the vote.)
The rest of February looked good for Obama, and most primaries and caucuses were in states with favorable demographics to the primary coalition of African-Americans, Independents, moderate Democrats, young voters, and upper-income Democrats that Obama had been successful with in Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia and elsewhere. The Clinton coalition relies more heavily on seniors (65+), Latinos, and blue-collar workers. (I think its worth noting that this is an oversimplification on both candidate's behalf.)
After substantial weekend losses in Washington State and Maine, and with upcoming primaries in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, the Clinton campaign was looking at my state of Virginia as a kind of "firewall" state, which she had to do well in. Obama was favored to do well in DC because of its highly African-American population, as well as Maryland which, to my knowledge, has the highest percentage of affluent African-Americans of any state in the country.
We were NOT sure about Virginia however. Virginia has an open primary, which means that you can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries (but not both.) Some states have a closed primary, which means that you can only vote in the Democratic primary if you are a Democrat, and only vote in the Republican primary if you are a Republican. Other states, such as North Carolina, have a primary system in which Democrats and Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries, but registered Independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary.
The demographics across the Commonwealth of Virginia are remarkably mixed.
There are lots of DC commuters in NoVA who lean Democratic but are still unpredictable in a primary because the area is growing so fast.
You have highly African-American Richmond.
You have farming, "piedmont-like" terrain and population in Central Virginia.
You have heavily military coastal areas in Norfolk and Virginia Beach.
You have large schools such as UVA (~20,000) and Virginia Tech (~27,000), not to mention University of Richmond, Radford, George Mason, William and Mary, and a slew of other institutions of higher learning.
You also have heavily Appalachian SWVA, which is all contained in the 9th Congressional district. Being an Appalachian political nut, VA-09 is a district I took great interest in watching the returns from.
The campaigns had both had to cancel events in SWVA in the days leading up to the February 12th contests, due to devastating winds and wildfires, which shut down much of I-81 South leading up to the primary. Obama has traditionally outperformed his poll numbers in areas where he is able to campaign and raise his name recognition and profile. Clinton, on the other hand, seems to have the opposite reaction. For instance, for some reason, Hillary Clinton was in Charlottesville on Monday. However, on Tuesday, she only garnered 24% of the vote in Charlottesville city. So, in areas where there is no campaigning done, Clinton would be favored because of her name recognition, and close ties (understatement?) to Bill Clinton - still very popular with blue collar workers in the Appalachian part of Virginia.
Well...its no secret primary day in Virginia was a blow-out win for Obama, who took the state by nearly 30 points - 64%-35%.
Virginia allocates a large number of its delegates proportionately, and Obama took each Congressional district by the following margins.
CD-01: Obama-66 Clinton- 34 (Obama +32)
CD-02: Obama-65 Clinton-34 (Obama +31)
CD-03: Obama-80 Clinton-19 (Obama +61)
CD-04: Obama-73 Clinton-27 (Obama +46)
CD-05: Obama-65 Clinton-34 (Obama +31)
CD-06: Obama-54 Clinton-45 (Obama +9)
CD-07: Obama-66 Clinton-33 (Obama +33)
CD-08: Obama-62 Clinton-37 (Obama +25)
CD-09: Obama-33 Clinton-65 (Clinton +32)
CD-10: Obama-60 Clinton-40 (Obama +20)
CD-11: Obama-60 Clinton-40 (Obama +20)
(CD=Congressional District)
The Appalachian 9th district showed a HUGE 61% difference from Obama's statewide margin. It is a very interesting district, which I think is a great place to dive into the confounding mystery and complex history of Appalachian politics.
...
The 9th is rated by the Cook Political Report of having a PVI of R+7, which means that the district voted 7% more Republican than the rest of the country in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election.
However Democrats like Senator Webb, Governor Kaine, and Governor Warner have recently been able to carry several counties in the 9th, as part of their winning statewide coalitions. The 9th district is also represented in Congress by a moderate Democrat - Rick Boucher, who was just re-elected to his 13th term with 68% of the vote.
Boucher, therefore, should have a powerful grip on the Democratic apparatus in the area. In January, Congressman Boucher endorsed Obama, which should have boded well for Obama's chances in that part of the state. However, in the weeks leading up to the primary, Boucher (to my knowledge) did not make many public appearences or statements on Obama's behalf
While the 9th district is heavily Caucasian (93% according to census data), that can not -by itself - explain why Obama preformed so poorly here. Iowa Caucus-goers, for instance are 98% white. New Hampshire primary voters are over 95% white. Obama also convincingly won states like Idaho, North Dakota, and Alaska.
The 9th district is highly rural, which would slightly favors Clinton, although not by a lot,judging by Iowa voters' preferences. The 9th is also highly blue collar, at 36%. However, that is only slightly higher than the neighboring 5th district (in which blue collar workers make up 32% of the electorate) where Obama took 65% of the vote. The fifth, however, houses the University of Virginia, and is 24% African American, compared to the 9th's 4% African-American population. The other neighboring district - the 6th, has 11% African American population, and is 29% blue collar workers. Obama also under-performed his state average in this district, carrying it by a margin of 9%. This is strong evidence that geography is in play as much as demographics.
The only noted presence (that I've seen) of Obama organization in the 9th district was in Roanoke. In Roanoke City, Obama won with by a respectable 57-42 margin. Obama, therefore seems to benefit disproportionately over Clinton from two key elements.
1) Direct campaigning
2) On the ground organization
Obama had a similar lack of organization (to my knowledge) in the 6th as in the 9th, with slightly more favorable demographics.
So, Clinton had several things going for her in the 9th district.
1) The Caucasian and blue-collar heavy demographics of the 9th district should have boded well for her.
2) The fact that there was no direct campaigning by either candidate (although Bill Clinton did visit SWVA) benefits Hillary Clinton, who has a higher profile.
3) There was little on-the-ground campaign or GOTV organization in those districts, which should favor Clinton.
However, none of these differences - singularly or together - should presuppose the giant 61% difference in results on behalf of Clinton.
I do however, think that the strongest thing you can pull from all this political data is this fact: It is more than simple demographics that sets Appalachia apart from the lowland south. The Appalachian political system is a distinct one. It is more complex than that of the "solid" south, and entirely more unique (and mysterious) than it is given credit for.
I will be very interested to see how the breakdowns are in Appalachian Kentucky(5-20), Appalachian Ohio (3/04), and West Virginia (5-13). Ohio, in particular, will be interesting, as both candidates will campaign heavily there. Also, the race will probably be more or less decided by the time it reaches Kentucky and West Virginia. I will also be analyzing the returns from East Tennessee, which had its primary on February 5th, assuming I can find the results.
peace,
JW
