How Big Is Appalachia Anyway?
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on May 13th, 2008 4:38 am by HL
This DKos post argues that Barack Obama’s inability to connect with white working class voters is limited to Appalachia. That is incorrect in my view and I will discuss why I think so below.
But the question is begged – is that not a problem in and of itself? The Appalachia Phenomenon is used to explain Obama’s problem with white working class voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and improbably, Maryland. That is 7 states. One is comfortably Democratic, Maryland. Four are solidly Republican, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky (though Bill Clinton won it). But the last two? Ah, Ohio and Pennsylvania. They decide Presidential elections. Even the Appalachian Phenomenon gives serious cause for worry. But the Appalachian Theory does not explain everything. More . . .
The expanded Appalachian Theory holds that:
In the 19th century, migrants from Appalachia moved west. People from Appalachia settled and put their stamp on the Ozark region of Missouri and Arkansas, on Oklahoma and the southern Plains, on North Texas, and eventually they were a big part of the initial growth of Southern California.
(Emphasis supplied.) The Appalachian Theory now explains Obama’s problems with white working class voters in Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma as well. Of those, Oklahoma has long been a solid Republican state. But Missouri and Arkansas have been battlegrounds. So now we have Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Arkansas explained by the Appalachian Theory. This is a problem we must overcome if the Dems are going to have a good chance to win the White House in November.
But I do not accept that the Appalachian theory addresses the full spectrum of this phenomenon. Of course we have the Southern Problem which effects Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.
But that still does not explain all of Obama’s white working class problem. Let’s look at three other states: Arizona, Florida and Indiana. In Arizona, Clinton won the white vote by 53-38 (she won Latinos 55-41.) In Florida, Clinton won whites by 53-23 (she won Latinos by 59-30). In Indiana, Clinton won whites 60-40. Are these three states in Appalachia too? Need to hear more? Ok.
In Massachusetts, Clinton won whites 58-40 (she won Latinos 56-36). In Rhode Island, Clinton won whites 63-37. In New Jersey, Clinton won whites 66-31.
Unless the entire country East of the Mississippi is now referred to as Appalachia, I think this proposed theory explains very little and indeed is part of the entire Ostrich approach we now see from Obama blogs. It is just plain silly now.
I believe Obama can do better. I believe his problem goes beyond race issues. Obama is indeed the wine track candidate, the candidate of the Creative Class (and of course African Americans.) But he must do better – with white women, with the white working class, with seniors and with Latinos. I wrote about this in February, March and April and Obama is not doing any better now. Indeed he seems to be doing worse. This is a problem that MUST be addressed for November. Pretending that saying “Appalachia” will solve it is no answer.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
