Misleading statistics - Appalachia

We have had quite a few analyses of how Obama did in Appalachia, and why.  But consider this:

Clinton said in her victory speech on Tuesday night that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without taking West Virginia. True. But they all could have won without it. The margins of victory in those races ranged from 23 to 515 electoral votes. West Virginia has five.

That quote is from Skirting Appalachia, an op ed in today's NY Times by Charles Blow that I believe is well worth the brief time to read, and to examine the maps he provides.  Come along for a further examination.

Blow ends his column like this:

Obama has proclaimed "change" his mantra. That change may well be evident in the electoral map come fall. Appalachia is all American, but America is not all Appalachian.

   And while I do not believe in ignoring any part of the nation, am a firm supporter of the 50 state strategy as practiced by both Howard Dean and Barack Obama, and have noted that adding someone like Jim Webb to the ticket could help in Appalachian counties (and in other states like OK and AR with a significant number of people of Appalachian descent), there is really nothing about which to fret looking at Obama's performance in Appalachia in the primaries.

Consider the following remarks by Blow about Appalachia:

In fact, it hasn't been Democratic country for the last two presidential elections. Only 48 of the counties voted for John Kerry in 2004, down from 66 counties (or 16 percent) that went for Al Gore in 2000. The only states with counties in the region that have consistently voted Democratic in the last four such elections have been New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

 And here I would note that from 1992 to the present all three of those states have been Democratic - Dukakis lost PA and MD in 1988.  

It is not a question of winning counties, but of winning states.  And to some degree in a general, the loss of Appalachian whites (who have NOT been strong supporters of Democratic presidential candidates beginning in 2000) will more than be offset by the increased turnouts among African-Americans and young people.   And I firmly believe that the margins we are seeing now in primaries - from OH to PA and WV and will see Tuesday in KY are artificially high in these regions.  Some people are voting for HRC because of her husband, of whom they have fond memories.  That does not mean, regardless of what they say, that none of them will vote for the Democratic ticket, regardless of who might be Obama's running mate.  And I think a Jim Webb, Ted Strickland, or John Edwards (who will not run as VP) could bring a substantial number of these voters to the Democratic ticket, even absent the issues of economic equity to which Obama has now committed.  

If you are interested in my thoughts about Jim Webb as VP candidate, you can read here.  

But that is a tangent to the reason why I posted about this column.   I think the talking heads are totally misinterpreting what is happening in these primaries - big surprise, considering how much else they have gotten wrong this cycle.  There may be some states that are effectively off the table for Obama, but it is hard, given recent patterns, to describe states like WV and KY as swing states presidentially, not given their performance in the past two cycles.   Either Gore or Kerry could have beaten Bush without them.  Gore could have won with NH, which is certainly NOT Appalachian.  Kerry could have won without any additional Appalachian states had he won IA, NM, NV and CO.  OF course it would have been far easier to carry OH, in part Appalachian, or FL.  

It is not inappropriate to examine data and patterns.   But to look at things in isolation often provides a distorted portrait.   It is understandable that the Clinton campaign would try to make an argument on such selective facts - after all, any examination of a larger picture makes clear how weak their argument actually is.   That the MSM and talking heads buy into it is quite unfortunate.

Would I like to see the Appalachian region contested more?  Certainly.   But it makes no sense for Obama to strive mightily in WV and KY in a primary setting in which he has already effectively locked up the nomination, spending money and time when he will still get badly beaten.  And in WV and KY some of that vote will be to give Clinton a boost on her way out the door.  Why spend millions merely to cut a margin from, say, 41 to 30 points in WV? It has made far more sense for Obama to begin his focus on the general election now.  

I hope and expect that Obama will not totally abandon Appalachia in the general.   I do not expect that he would carry such counties, but one or two visits by him - or an appropriate running mate - can cut the margin of loss in those counties and put additional states into play.  That includes my own state of Virginia.  I note that Jim Webb lost the Appalachian regions to George Allen, but did better than other Democrats might have, so that his massive advantage in NoVa and other Democratic friendly regions was sufficient to propel him to a narrow win statewide.

Look at the maps that accompany the Blow piece.  And realize that the big picture is not so bleak as some - Clinton, MSM - might have you believe because of the losses Obama is suffering.

Peace.