Part 1:
Part 2:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
New Polls from KY
A new SurveyUSA poll from Kentucky shows Hillary Clinton up 2-1 over Barack Obama in the state.
And once again, we see Obama under-performing in the Appalachian Eastern region of the state.
Clinton leads Obama 70%-18%
This is also a good chance to explain what I mean by "under-performing."
Obama is -29% for the state of Kentucky. That is, he trails Hillary Clinton by 29 points (58%HC-29%BO).
Obama is -52% in Appalachian Kentucky. That is, he trails Hillary Clinton by 52 points (70%HC- 18%BO)
So, since he trails by 29% across the state, but 52% in Appalachian Kentucky, I would say that Obama "under-performs" in Appalachian Kentucky by 23%. That is, he trails an additional 23 points in Appalachia compared to his performance across the state.
And once again, we see Obama under-performing in the Appalachian Eastern region of the state.
Clinton leads Obama 70%-18%
This is also a good chance to explain what I mean by "under-performing."
Obama is -29% for the state of Kentucky. That is, he trails Hillary Clinton by 29 points (58%HC-29%BO).
Obama is -52% in Appalachian Kentucky. That is, he trails Hillary Clinton by 52 points (70%HC- 18%BO)
So, since he trails by 29% across the state, but 52% in Appalachian Kentucky, I would say that Obama "under-performs" in Appalachian Kentucky by 23%. That is, he trails an additional 23 points in Appalachia compared to his performance across the state.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Obama, Go There
And I don't mean negative.
Full disclosure: I support, and have given money to Barack Obama, though I'll do my best to make the analysis here as objective as possible.
The key to an Obama victory in the primary and the GE now lies nowhere else but in the misty mountains of Appalachia. So strap on your geek glasses and lets have some fun. We've got work to do.
For Barack Obama to win the primary and general election, there is no doubt that Appalachia is the KEY area. With the Appalachian vote goes the potential swing of WV, OH, VA, NC, PA and potentially KY and TN depending on the numbers come November.
So far, Obama is under-preforming 44% in Appalachian areas. Tennessee hinted at it (-41), Virginia seconded (-61), and SE Ohio (-31) has made it exceedingly clear. But that can be turned around.
Whether you are a 50-state strategist or a 50%+1 - 3 state advocate (OH, FL, PA), Democrats MUST compete in Appalachian areas to win. There is no other way to achieve the Presidency.
...
We'll break this diary into 5 parts:
1) Appalachian Tennessee (TN-01, TN-02, and TN-03)
2) Appalachian Virginia (VA-09)
3) Appalachian Ohio (OH-06, OH-18)
4) Appalachian PA, NC, WV, and KY
5) What the Obama campaign should do if it wants to improve its performance in Appalachia
Note: I selected "Appalachia" based on Congressional District and have focused on areas in the central and southern Appalachian coalfields:
OH-06, OH-18, VA-09, TN-01, TN-02, and TN-03.
This is not scientific, and if you'd like to make a case for additional districts to be included, I'd love to hear it.
I understand that there is a case to be made by going to counties, but again, this is not meant to be a scientific statistical analysis. I will not use the definition the Appalachian Regional Commssion (ARC) uses, and include everything from MS to NY. I believe that Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia all have terribly different dynamics at play, as does downstate NY. I do think it is significant that the ARC map includes almost ALL of Pennsylvania.
...
PART 1: Appalachian Tennessee
Final TN Results (HC +13)
HC:54 BO:41
Appalachian TN Results (HC + 54)
HC:74 BO:24
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Tennessee by 41%
COUNTY BO% HC% # VOTES Margin %
Anderson 2558 (34%) 4886 (66%) 7444 (Clinton+32 )
Bledsoe 195(12%) 1399 (88%) 1594 (Clinton+76 )
Blount 3090 (35%) 5717 (65%) 8807 (Clinton+30 )
Bradley 1625 (28%) 4139 (72%) 5764 (Clinton+44 )
Campbell 326 (10%) 2854 (90%) 3180 (Clinton+80 )
Carter 745 (24%) 2366 (76%) 3111 (Clinton+52 )
Clairborne 276 (11%) 2138 (89%) 2414 (Clinton+78 )
Cocke 440 (19%) 1835 (81%) 2275 (Clinton+62)
Grangier 249 (16%) 1341 (84%) 1590 (Clinton+68 )
Greene 1038 (25%) 3181 (75%) 4219 (Clinton+50 )
Hamblen 1094 (25%) 3302 (75%) 4396 (Clinton+50 )
Hancock 56 (19%) 240 (81%) 296 (Clinton+62 )
Hawkins 650 (20%) 2623 (80%) 3273 (Clinton+60 )
Jefferson 775 (24%) 2470 (76%) 3245 (Clinton+52 )
Johnson 214 (26%) 600 (74%) 814 (Clinton+48 )
Loudon 1027 (29%) 2459 (71%) 3486 (Clinton+24 )
McMinn 897 (25%) 2637 (75%) 3534 (Clinton+50 )
Monroe 719 (21%) 2628 (79%) 3347 (Clinton+58 )
Polk 348 (14%) 2154 (86%) 2502 (Clinton+72 )
Rhea 405 (17%) 2026 (83%) 2431 (Clinton+66 )
Roane 1350 (27%) 3733 (73%) 5083 (Clinton+46 )
Sevier 1245 (26%) 3568 (74%) 4813 (Clinton+48 )
Sullivan 2541 (29%) 6162 (71%) 8703 (Clinton+42 )
Unicoi 205 (22%) 736 (78%) 941 (Clinton+56 )
Union 155 (10%) 1322 (90%) 1477 (Clinton+80 )
Washington 3258 (36%) 5731 (64%) 8989 (Clinton+28 )
TOTAL 25,481 (26%) 72,247 (74%) 97728 Clinton +54
Outliers
Knox 16849 (47%) 19064 (53%) 35913 (Clinton+6 )
Hamilton 19831 (54%) 16562 (46%) 36393 (Obama+8 )
Note – The Percentages only include the Clinton/Obama vote percentages, and does not include Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or any other candidate. This will, in my opinion, be more likely to pad Obama's percentage than Clinton's. I've also removed Hamilton County and Knox County because of their heavy reliance on the urban areas of Chattanooga and Knoxville, respectively. I'm from rural Hamilton County north of CChattanooga, so I know this part of the country.
The only counties where Clinton won by less than 30% are
1) Loudon County - borders Knox County and Knoxville, and includes Lenoir.
2) Washington County - Home to East Tennessee State University and Johnson City.
...
PART 2: Appalachian Virginia
Final VA Results (BO +29)
HC:54 BO:41
Appalachian VA Results (HC + 32)
HC:74 BO:24
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Virginia by 61%
On Feb. 12, we had our turn at the already enchanting Democratic and Republican primary elections. 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.
Virginia has an open primary, which means that you can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries (but not both.)
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, and partially in the 6th. 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. So, in areas where there is no campaigning done, Clinton would be heavily 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 favor 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 in the 6th.
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.
PART 3: Appalachian Ohio
I need some help with this area, as I have almost no experience in this area of the country.
Final OH Results (HC +10)
HC:54 BO:44
Appalachian OH Results (HC +42)
HC:71 BO:29
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Ohio by 31%
Obama performs slightly higher in OH than VA and TN because there was substantial campaigning done in OH.
In OH-06, Hillary took 66% of the vote in, and in OH-18 Hillary took 70% of the vote in. I still don't really understand Ohio as kos says, even on a "gut level." But both of these districts are represented by two Freshmen Democrats who have NOT endorsed a candidate according to the Hill. OH-06 is represented by Charlie Wilson, and OH-18 is represented by Zack Space.
Historically, many of these areas have a strong Democratic presence due to the long history a history of working-class labor battles. I can not imagine that the income brackets favor Republicans either.
If you have more insight into SE Ohio, please share in the comments.
PART 4: Appalachian PA, NC, WV, and KY.
The most pressing state...PA
The Appalachian Regional Commission includes almost all of western and central PA in its definition of "Appalachia."
Recent polls show Obama competitive in PA. All polls taken in the last 2 weeks show him within single digits. However, Hillary has blunted his momentum, will continue to throw the kitchen sink at him. To win this state Barack Obama will need every single vote he can get.
Obama also leads most primary polls in NC, where the population is buoyed by the central and eastern parts of the state. Now, NC has 15 electoral votes - as many as New Jersey. I will be the first to say that Obama can and WILL compete with McCain in North Carolina. Dems control the Governorship, have a majority in the Congressional delegation, and recently expanded our Dem majorities in the State House and State Senate.
In WV, polling from 2 weeks ago shows a commanding 43-22 lead for Hillary Clinton. WV is quintessential Appalachia.
I have not seen any data for Kentucky.
PART 5: What the Obama campaign should do if it wants to improve its performance in Appalachia
I want to first include Ohiobama's quote, the inspiration for this post, in its entirety. Emphasis mine.
My suggestions are as follows:
A) Go There
Go to small towns like Sylvester, Dorothy, Whitesville, and Blair Mountain (site of the biggest labor battle in American History!)
B) Come out with a strong-position against strip-mining and mountaintop removal. Say you'll stop the dumping of coal waste into our water on Day 1.
For those who don't know, over 1 million acres of Appalachia have been recklessly bombed away by coal companies seeking to reduce their labor force. Over 474 mountains have been lost, entire communities destroyed, and economies suffocated as 90% of coal jobs are lost. 1700 miles of headwater streams that feed the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Mississippi River have been buried and poisoned
C) COAL IS OVER. Work with industry and local people to make Appalachia the renewable energy center of the country.
Providing America's power is a source of immense pride to the people in Appalachia. However, we have 10-20 years of coal left in Appalachia, and we need to work to make renewable energy the economic engine of 21st century Appalachia. Help us make wind towers. Incentivise solar, and wind, and biomass, and micro-hydro power.
D) Finish what FDR, JFK, and RFK started
Address endemic Appalachian poverty aggressively. (You might even pick up a few key endorsements).Appalachia has some of the highest poverty rates in the country. A lot of that has to do with the mono-economy of coal. Encourage tourism. Encourage local businesses.
...from iLoveMountains.org
...lifting straight from Ohiobama
E) Issue a position paper on Appalachian regional issues.
Poverty, religion, coal/energy, tourism.
F) Show you're neither afraid to slam the Democratic political machine, nor afraid to take a walk in the woods.
This one will be tough. The Democratic machine in WV is not kind, and is deeply in the pocket of coal. This is exactly why we are so poor.
G) Wear a flag (not just a lapel) :)...and talk smack about George Bush.
DC has done Appalachia NO favors. Bush actually made it easier for coal companies to dump poisonous mine wastes in our streams, 1700+ miles of which have already been buried and polluted by mountaintop removal. The Democratic history with labor and working class issues is strong here.
H) KEEP COMING BACK
You will need at least WV (5 EVs) and PA (21 EVs) to beat McCain. Having OH (20EVs), NC (15 EVs), and VA (13 EVs) while adding TN (11) and KY (8) to the mix will only help get you the 50%+ that Democrats have been working on for so long.
This is where the 50-state strategy brings you.
We look forward to seeing a Presidential candidate who stands with us and not the coal company CEOs.
We look forward to working with you.
And we look forward to helping you to a crushing win in Novermber.
...
BONUS!!!:
Part 6: What Appalachia is and is not
Appalachia is...
The most beautiful place in the world.
Rich in cultural history.
(has...) a deeply divided political history, but one that shows a inner-conflict on race that is at once both progressive and "inexperienced" with racial diversity.
Appalachia is not...
A resource colony for the US.
A national sacrifice zone.
racist.
I 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 Pennsylvania (4-22), and West Virginia (5-13).
I welcome your thoughts, corrections, and suggestions.
UPDATE: If folks think I am over-stating the immensity of destruction from mountainop removal mining in Appalachia, Im not.
Southern WV, Southwest VA, Western KY, and should include north Central TN.
UPDATE 2: Some historical comparison might also do some good. Check out what Kennedy did in 1960 against Humphrey in the WV primary. Tip o' the hat to HollowDweller!
Full disclosure: I support, and have given money to Barack Obama, though I'll do my best to make the analysis here as objective as possible.
The key to an Obama victory in the primary and the GE now lies nowhere else but in the misty mountains of Appalachia. So strap on your geek glasses and lets have some fun. We've got work to do.
For Barack Obama to win the primary and general election, there is no doubt that Appalachia is the KEY area. With the Appalachian vote goes the potential swing of WV, OH, VA, NC, PA and potentially KY and TN depending on the numbers come November.
So far, Obama is under-preforming 44% in Appalachian areas. Tennessee hinted at it (-41), Virginia seconded (-61), and SE Ohio (-31) has made it exceedingly clear. But that can be turned around.
Whether you are a 50-state strategist or a 50%+1 - 3 state advocate (OH, FL, PA), Democrats MUST compete in Appalachian areas to win. There is no other way to achieve the Presidency.
...
We'll break this diary into 5 parts:
1) Appalachian Tennessee (TN-01, TN-02, and TN-03)
2) Appalachian Virginia (VA-09)
3) Appalachian Ohio (OH-06, OH-18)
4) Appalachian PA, NC, WV, and KY
5) What the Obama campaign should do if it wants to improve its performance in Appalachia
Note: I selected "Appalachia" based on Congressional District and have focused on areas in the central and southern Appalachian coalfields:
OH-06, OH-18, VA-09, TN-01, TN-02, and TN-03.
This is not scientific, and if you'd like to make a case for additional districts to be included, I'd love to hear it.
I understand that there is a case to be made by going to counties, but again, this is not meant to be a scientific statistical analysis. I will not use the definition the Appalachian Regional Commssion (ARC) uses, and include everything from MS to NY. I believe that Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia all have terribly different dynamics at play, as does downstate NY. I do think it is significant that the ARC map includes almost ALL of Pennsylvania.
...
PART 1: Appalachian Tennessee
Final TN Results (HC +13)
HC:54 BO:41
Appalachian TN Results (HC + 54)
HC:74 BO:24
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Tennessee by 41%
COUNTY BO% HC% # VOTES Margin %
Anderson 2558 (34%) 4886 (66%) 7444 (Clinton+32 )
Bledsoe 195(12%) 1399 (88%) 1594 (Clinton+76 )
Blount 3090 (35%) 5717 (65%) 8807 (Clinton+30 )
Bradley 1625 (28%) 4139 (72%) 5764 (Clinton+44 )
Campbell 326 (10%) 2854 (90%) 3180 (Clinton+80 )
Carter 745 (24%) 2366 (76%) 3111 (Clinton+52 )
Clairborne 276 (11%) 2138 (89%) 2414 (Clinton+78 )
Cocke 440 (19%) 1835 (81%) 2275 (Clinton+62)
Grangier 249 (16%) 1341 (84%) 1590 (Clinton+68 )
Greene 1038 (25%) 3181 (75%) 4219 (Clinton+50 )
Hamblen 1094 (25%) 3302 (75%) 4396 (Clinton+50 )
Hancock 56 (19%) 240 (81%) 296 (Clinton+62 )
Hawkins 650 (20%) 2623 (80%) 3273 (Clinton+60 )
Jefferson 775 (24%) 2470 (76%) 3245 (Clinton+52 )
Johnson 214 (26%) 600 (74%) 814 (Clinton+48 )
Loudon 1027 (29%) 2459 (71%) 3486 (Clinton+24 )
McMinn 897 (25%) 2637 (75%) 3534 (Clinton+50 )
Monroe 719 (21%) 2628 (79%) 3347 (Clinton+58 )
Polk 348 (14%) 2154 (86%) 2502 (Clinton+72 )
Rhea 405 (17%) 2026 (83%) 2431 (Clinton+66 )
Roane 1350 (27%) 3733 (73%) 5083 (Clinton+46 )
Sevier 1245 (26%) 3568 (74%) 4813 (Clinton+48 )
Sullivan 2541 (29%) 6162 (71%) 8703 (Clinton+42 )
Unicoi 205 (22%) 736 (78%) 941 (Clinton+56 )
Union 155 (10%) 1322 (90%) 1477 (Clinton+80 )
Washington 3258 (36%) 5731 (64%) 8989 (Clinton+28 )
TOTAL 25,481 (26%) 72,247 (74%) 97728 Clinton +54
Outliers
Knox 16849 (47%) 19064 (53%) 35913 (Clinton+6 )
Hamilton 19831 (54%) 16562 (46%) 36393 (Obama+8 )
Note – The Percentages only include the Clinton/Obama vote percentages, and does not include Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or any other candidate. This will, in my opinion, be more likely to pad Obama's percentage than Clinton's. I've also removed Hamilton County and Knox County because of their heavy reliance on the urban areas of Chattanooga and Knoxville, respectively. I'm from rural Hamilton County north of CChattanooga, so I know this part of the country.
The only counties where Clinton won by less than 30% are
1) Loudon County - borders Knox County and Knoxville, and includes Lenoir.
2) Washington County - Home to East Tennessee State University and Johnson City.
...
PART 2: Appalachian Virginia
Final VA Results (BO +29)
HC:54 BO:41
Appalachian VA Results (HC + 32)
HC:74 BO:24
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Virginia by 61%
On Feb. 12, we had our turn at the already enchanting Democratic and Republican primary elections. 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.
Virginia has an open primary, which means that you can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries (but not both.)
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, and partially in the 6th. 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. So, in areas where there is no campaigning done, Clinton would be heavily 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 favor 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 in the 6th.
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.
PART 3: Appalachian Ohio
I need some help with this area, as I have almost no experience in this area of the country.
Final OH Results (HC +10)
HC:54 BO:44
Appalachian OH Results (HC +42)
HC:71 BO:29
Obama under-performs in Appalachian Ohio by 31%
Obama performs slightly higher in OH than VA and TN because there was substantial campaigning done in OH.
In OH-06, Hillary took 66% of the vote in, and in OH-18 Hillary took 70% of the vote in. I still don't really understand Ohio as kos says, even on a "gut level." But both of these districts are represented by two Freshmen Democrats who have NOT endorsed a candidate according to the Hill. OH-06 is represented by Charlie Wilson, and OH-18 is represented by Zack Space.
Historically, many of these areas have a strong Democratic presence due to the long history a history of working-class labor battles. I can not imagine that the income brackets favor Republicans either.
If you have more insight into SE Ohio, please share in the comments.
PART 4: Appalachian PA, NC, WV, and KY.
The most pressing state...PA
The Appalachian Regional Commission includes almost all of western and central PA in its definition of "Appalachia."
Recent polls show Obama competitive in PA. All polls taken in the last 2 weeks show him within single digits. However, Hillary has blunted his momentum, will continue to throw the kitchen sink at him. To win this state Barack Obama will need every single vote he can get.
Obama also leads most primary polls in NC, where the population is buoyed by the central and eastern parts of the state. Now, NC has 15 electoral votes - as many as New Jersey. I will be the first to say that Obama can and WILL compete with McCain in North Carolina. Dems control the Governorship, have a majority in the Congressional delegation, and recently expanded our Dem majorities in the State House and State Senate.
In WV, polling from 2 weeks ago shows a commanding 43-22 lead for Hillary Clinton. WV is quintessential Appalachia.
I have not seen any data for Kentucky.
PART 5: What the Obama campaign should do if it wants to improve its performance in Appalachia
I want to first include Ohiobama's quote, the inspiration for this post, in its entirety. Emphasis mine.
Realizing the strategic error made in Ohio, go to rural Appalachian Pennsylvania FIRST. Do small town meetings in Appalachian towns BEFORE you do big rallies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Visit with poor mountain families and coal miners. Show those people you are about them. Forget all national issues for a few days and talk about local issues. Find out what those communities want and speak to those wants. Don't send Oprah or Michelle to those areas; send George Clooney and John Edwards if you can get him. Don't jet around. Take bus tours with multiple stops in small towns. Pay attention to local history. Visit historic sites. Recruit new voters from the hollows as well as from college campuses. In fact, avoid the college campuses, they stigmatize you. Go out of order to the electoral calendar, visiting border areas of West Virginia when you are nearby. Prepare for North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia as you campaign in Pennsylvania. Issue a position paper on Appalachian regional issues. Hold an Appalachian summit that includes people from the parts of Ohio, Virginia and Tennessee where you already lost. Don't listen to national strategists. Bring in a group of Appalachian community organizers to advise you from organizations like the UMWA, Highlander Center, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and Southern Ohio Neighbors Group. Visit the same Appalachian towns that JFK did in the 1960 campaign. Show some humility and willingness to learn. Pray at very small churches, a lot. Say the words "New York" in connection to Hillary Clinton as often as you can. Make HER the urban outsider who doesn't understand. Show you're neither afraid to slam the Democratic political machine, nor afraid to take a walk in the woods.
Appalachia is the epitome of racial mixture in America. The people are of mixed Euro-American, African American, and Native American stock. It is natural turf for Barack Obama.
My suggestions are as follows:
A) Go There
Go to small towns like Sylvester, Dorothy, Whitesville, and Blair Mountain (site of the biggest labor battle in American History!)
B) Come out with a strong-position against strip-mining and mountaintop removal. Say you'll stop the dumping of coal waste into our water on Day 1.
For those who don't know, over 1 million acres of Appalachia have been recklessly bombed away by coal companies seeking to reduce their labor force. Over 474 mountains have been lost, entire communities destroyed, and economies suffocated as 90% of coal jobs are lost. 1700 miles of headwater streams that feed the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Mississippi River have been buried and poisoned
C) COAL IS OVER. Work with industry and local people to make Appalachia the renewable energy center of the country.
Providing America's power is a source of immense pride to the people in Appalachia. However, we have 10-20 years of coal left in Appalachia, and we need to work to make renewable energy the economic engine of 21st century Appalachia. Help us make wind towers. Incentivise solar, and wind, and biomass, and micro-hydro power.
D) Finish what FDR, JFK, and RFK started
Address endemic Appalachian poverty aggressively. (You might even pick up a few key endorsements).Appalachia has some of the highest poverty rates in the country. A lot of that has to do with the mono-economy of coal. Encourage tourism. Encourage local businesses.
...from iLoveMountains.org
...lifting straight from Ohiobama
E) Issue a position paper on Appalachian regional issues.
Poverty, religion, coal/energy, tourism.
F) Show you're neither afraid to slam the Democratic political machine, nor afraid to take a walk in the woods.
This one will be tough. The Democratic machine in WV is not kind, and is deeply in the pocket of coal. This is exactly why we are so poor.
G) Wear a flag (not just a lapel) :)...and talk smack about George Bush.
DC has done Appalachia NO favors. Bush actually made it easier for coal companies to dump poisonous mine wastes in our streams, 1700+ miles of which have already been buried and polluted by mountaintop removal. The Democratic history with labor and working class issues is strong here.
H) KEEP COMING BACK
You will need at least WV (5 EVs) and PA (21 EVs) to beat McCain. Having OH (20EVs), NC (15 EVs), and VA (13 EVs) while adding TN (11) and KY (8) to the mix will only help get you the 50%+ that Democrats have been working on for so long.
This is where the 50-state strategy brings you.
We look forward to seeing a Presidential candidate who stands with us and not the coal company CEOs.
We look forward to working with you.
And we look forward to helping you to a crushing win in Novermber.
...
BONUS!!!:
Part 6: What Appalachia is and is not
Appalachia is...
The most beautiful place in the world.
Rich in cultural history.
(has...) a deeply divided political history, but one that shows a inner-conflict on race that is at once both progressive and "inexperienced" with racial diversity.
Appalachia is not...
A resource colony for the US.
A national sacrifice zone.
racist.
I 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 Pennsylvania (4-22), and West Virginia (5-13).
I welcome your thoughts, corrections, and suggestions.
UPDATE: If folks think I am over-stating the immensity of destruction from mountainop removal mining in Appalachia, Im not.
Southern WV, Southwest VA, Western KY, and should include north Central TN.
UPDATE 2: Some historical comparison might also do some good. Check out what Kennedy did in 1960 against Humphrey in the WV primary. Tip o' the hat to HollowDweller!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Appalachian Abberation in the Democratic Primary: Tennessee
COUNTY OBAMA (26%) CLINTON (74%) TOTAL VOTES %
Anderson 2558 (34%) 4886 (66%) 7444 (Clinton+32 )
Bledsoe 195(12%) 1399 (88%) 1594 (Clinton+76 )
Blount 3090 (35%) 5717 (65%) 8807 (Clinton+30 )
Bradley 1625 (28%) 4139 (72%) 5764 (Clinton+44 )
Campbell 326 (10%) 2854 (90%) 3180 (Clinton+80 )
Carter 745 (24%) 2366 (76%) 3111 (Clinton+52 )
Clairborne 276 (11%) 2138 (89%) 2414 (Clinton+78 )
Cocke 440 (19%) 1835 (81%) 2275 (Clinton+62)
Grangier 249 (16%) 1341 (84%) 1590 (Clinton+68 )
Greene 1038 (25%) 3181 (75%) 4219 (Clinton+50 )
Hamblen 1094 (25%) 3302 (75%) 4396 (Clinton+50 )
Hancock 56 (19%) 240 (81%) 296 (Clinton+62 )
Hawkins 650 (20%) 2623 (80%) 3273 (Clinton+60 )
Jefferson 775 (24%) 2470 (76%) 3245 (Clinton+52 )
Johnson 214 (26%) 600 (74%) 814 (Clinton+48 )
Loudon 1027 (29%) 2459 (71%) 3486 (Clinton+24 )
McMinn 897 (25%) 2637 (75%) 3534 (Clinton+50 )
Monroe 719 (21%) 2628 (79%) 3347 (Clinton+58 )
Polk 348 (14%) 2154 (86%) 2502 (Clinton+72 )
Rhea 405 (17%) 2026 (83%) 2431 (Clinton+66 )
Roane 1350 (27%) 3733 (73%) 5083 (Clinton+46 )
Sevier 1245 (26%) 3568 (74%) 4813 (Clinton+48 )
Sullivan 2541 (29%) 6162 (71%) 8703 (Clinton+42 )
Unicoi 205 (22%) 736 (78%) 941 (Clinton+56 )
Union 155 (10%) 1322 (90%) 1477 (Clinton+80 )
Washington 3258 (36%) 5731 (64%) 8989 (Clinton+28 )
25,481 (26%) 72,247 (74%) 97728 Clinton +54
Knox 16849 (47%) 19064 (53%) 35913 (Clinton+6 )
Hamilton 19831 (54%) 16562 (46%) 36393 (Obama+8 )
Note – The Percentages only include the Clinton/Obama vote percentages, and does not include Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or any other candidate. This will, in my opinion, be more likely to pad Obama’s percentage than Clinton’s.
Counties where Clinton won by less than 30% are Loudon County and Washington County.
Loudon County, which borders Knox County and Knoxville, and includes Lenoir. Washignton County is home to East Tennessee State University and Johnson City.
Anderson 2558 (34%) 4886 (66%) 7444 (Clinton+32 )
Bledsoe 195(12%) 1399 (88%) 1594 (Clinton+76 )
Blount 3090 (35%) 5717 (65%) 8807 (Clinton+30 )
Bradley 1625 (28%) 4139 (72%) 5764 (Clinton+44 )
Campbell 326 (10%) 2854 (90%) 3180 (Clinton+80 )
Carter 745 (24%) 2366 (76%) 3111 (Clinton+52 )
Clairborne 276 (11%) 2138 (89%) 2414 (Clinton+78 )
Cocke 440 (19%) 1835 (81%) 2275 (Clinton+62)
Grangier 249 (16%) 1341 (84%) 1590 (Clinton+68 )
Greene 1038 (25%) 3181 (75%) 4219 (Clinton+50 )
Hamblen 1094 (25%) 3302 (75%) 4396 (Clinton+50 )
Hancock 56 (19%) 240 (81%) 296 (Clinton+62 )
Hawkins 650 (20%) 2623 (80%) 3273 (Clinton+60 )
Jefferson 775 (24%) 2470 (76%) 3245 (Clinton+52 )
Johnson 214 (26%) 600 (74%) 814 (Clinton+48 )
Loudon 1027 (29%) 2459 (71%) 3486 (Clinton+24 )
McMinn 897 (25%) 2637 (75%) 3534 (Clinton+50 )
Monroe 719 (21%) 2628 (79%) 3347 (Clinton+58 )
Polk 348 (14%) 2154 (86%) 2502 (Clinton+72 )
Rhea 405 (17%) 2026 (83%) 2431 (Clinton+66 )
Roane 1350 (27%) 3733 (73%) 5083 (Clinton+46 )
Sevier 1245 (26%) 3568 (74%) 4813 (Clinton+48 )
Sullivan 2541 (29%) 6162 (71%) 8703 (Clinton+42 )
Unicoi 205 (22%) 736 (78%) 941 (Clinton+56 )
Union 155 (10%) 1322 (90%) 1477 (Clinton+80 )
Washington 3258 (36%) 5731 (64%) 8989 (Clinton+28 )
25,481 (26%) 72,247 (74%) 97728 Clinton +54
Knox 16849 (47%) 19064 (53%) 35913 (Clinton+6 )
Hamilton 19831 (54%) 16562 (46%) 36393 (Obama+8 )
Note – The Percentages only include the Clinton/Obama vote percentages, and does not include Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or any other candidate. This will, in my opinion, be more likely to pad Obama’s percentage than Clinton’s.
Counties where Clinton won by less than 30% are Loudon County and Washington County.
Loudon County, which borders Knox County and Knoxville, and includes Lenoir. Washignton County is home to East Tennessee State University and Johnson City.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Appalachian Aberration in the Virginia Democratic Primary
Full disclosure: I support, and have given money to Barack Obama.
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
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
Current reading list
Whats Wrong With Kansas by George Lakoff
A History of Watauga County by John Preston Arthur
Southern Mountain Republicans, 1865-1900: Politics and the Appalachian Community by Gordon B. McKinney
Speak Now Against the Day: The Generation Before the Civil Rights Movement in the South by John Egerton
United States of Appalachia: How Southern Mountaineers brought culture, enlightenment, and independence to America by Jeff Biggers
Born Fighting: How the Scotch-Irish Changed America by Senator Jim Webb
A History of Watauga County by John Preston Arthur
Southern Mountain Republicans, 1865-1900: Politics and the Appalachian Community by Gordon B. McKinney
Speak Now Against the Day: The Generation Before the Civil Rights Movement in the South by John Egerton
United States of Appalachia: How Southern Mountaineers brought culture, enlightenment, and independence to America by Jeff Biggers
Born Fighting: How the Scotch-Irish Changed America by Senator Jim Webb
Monday, January 21, 2008
Welcome
My name is JW Randolph, the superest of super-seniors here at Appalachian State University.
I also currently serve as Legislative Associate in Washington, DC for Boone-based non-profit Appalachian Voices.
I have a loose idea that I would like my thesis to center on the history of the Republican Party in Appalachia, and more specifically - Western North Carolina - after the Civil War. I look forward to working on this project and coming to more specific and defined themes, and reconciling them with current events and trends.
peace,
JW Randolph
I also currently serve as Legislative Associate in Washington, DC for Boone-based non-profit Appalachian Voices.
I have a loose idea that I would like my thesis to center on the history of the Republican Party in Appalachia, and more specifically - Western North Carolina - after the Civil War. I look forward to working on this project and coming to more specific and defined themes, and reconciling them with current events and trends.
peace,
JW Randolph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
