Slog - Comments on What's the Matter with Appalachia?

Comment by Zander

Zander — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:41:00 -0800

Hillary's natural support base sort of looks like a bad rash.

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:43:37 -0800

For whatever reason, there are, essentially, no black people in West Virginia. There. Mystery solved.

Oh, and did I mention the historic, constant and ongoing neglect and abuse of the people of this state? These people are intentionally kept exactly how mine owners and other corporations want them. You want smart, non-racist voters? Then you go in and educate and diversify them. Don't want to? Don't expect change.

This isn't hard to understand.

Comment by elenchos

elenchos — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:47:17 -0800

There's lots of interesting Senators to talk about besides Hillary Clinton, you know.

Comment by ecce homo

ecce homo — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:49:29 -0800

That trend does NOT follow the Appalachian Mtn.'s.

Not unless Texas in now in Appalachia, as is Mississippi AND Georgia and South Carolina all of a sudden isn't part of it.

It would be better to say that most of her support comes from people who speak with a southern drawl.

Don't be a dolt.

Comment by R. Jackson, Campaign Oversaturation Intern

R. Jackson, Campaign Oversaturation Intern — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:00 -0800

@3

I keep trying to pitch a series on Idaho's own Senator Mike Crapo, or Georgian sensation Senator Johnny Isakson. Neither seem to whet editorial interest.

Comment by David Wright

David Wright — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:00:52 -0800

That's a pretty good graphic. It could be made a bit better by encoding her percent of the vote as the color saturation, instead of just picking a threshold value. Edward Tuffte would love it.

Comment by F

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:16:40 -0800

@4 is right. What do all these places have in common: TN, AR, Upstate NY, Western PA, Northern MI, Southeastern OH, South TX.

The purple areas indicate those areas that fit two criteria: 1) no black people and 2) relatively poor.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:17:52 -0800

Yeah, good pic. Though it's potentially misleading, IMHO, to include in there the results of a state in which Hillary's most notable opponent was "Uncommitted".

Comment by jonglix

jonglix — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:19:23 -0800

@4 It's pretty much the appalachians plus the ozarks, which are pretty simmilar geographically. T

Comment by Greg G.

Greg G. — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:28:51 -0800

To @4: Exactly what @9 just said, and don't forget -- she spent almost two decades in Arkansas, w/ much of that time as its first lady. Some lingering good will there in that state and its immediate surroundings (northeast Texas, southern Missouri, west Tennessee) makes perfect sense.

Comment by mickey in AR

mickey in AR — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:39:35 -0800

@9 actually it is the interior highlands which is comprised of the Ozarks and the Ouachitas. and how are similar besides what 7 already pointed out.

Comment by Ed

Ed — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:18:48 -0800

It should be noted, in the interests of fairness, that Obama didn't probably win the "rural white voters" in Nebraska. Nebraska is made up of two halves, the east which has Omaha and Lincoln (overwhelmingly for Obama) and the west which has "rural white voters." In the caucus Obama won the east BIG but barely won the west. Last night he won the east healthily, but probably lost in the west given what the early, rural returns looked like. Just saying, even here in Nebraska, the rural whites aren't jumping on the bandwagon. Thank god I live in Lincoln.

Comment by Cascadian

Cascadian — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:20:05 -0800

Read "Sundown Towns" by James Loewen and you'll get the picture. Josh Marshall summarizes a lot of it--the Ozarks and Appalachia were major areas where sundown policies were in effect and African Americans were deliberately expelled. Towns like that were rare in the South (Mississippi), but common elsewhere--particularly the areas that are now Hillary country.