Look at it this way: West Virginia's combined Democratic vote last night -- in a primary -- was roughly 25,000 more than what John Kerry generated there in the general election of 2004.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Now, does it mean anything? I haven't a clue. Nor does any other political scribe this morning, but it's the sort of analytical entree they'll have you feasting on throughout the day, most commonly served with side dishes of utmost certainty.
You may take it, or leave it, as you wish. At this early stage of the game it makes little difference. The same goes for all the other exit-polled statistics that exploded onto the screen last night and this morning have made their way onto the printed page.
Some were just plain bizarre. Such as those that "showed mistrust about Mr. Obama," which, as the New York Times added to its reporting, is "a relatively rare finding in Democratic primaries." To be a trifle more specific, "More than half said Mr. Obama was not honest and trustworthy," but we all know how and by whom that statistical outlier was cultivated.
Of course, 63 percent of West Virginia primary voters also thought the gas-tax holiday scam was a boffo idea, so some indigenous opinions may have come more naturally expressed than intelligent endotherms would like to think.
Others statistics, if true, were downright chilling. Such as the one reported by the Washington Post: that "only a narrow majority of Democratic primary voters said they would support Obama in the general election if he were to get the party's nod."
But again, one can take that or leave it at this early stage of the general campaign season. Because the political variables that went into the primary results were so enthusiastically warped and twisted by the heat of the Democratic contest, they rendered definitive -- or anything close to reliable -- conclusions for the future impossible.
Yet the most chilling statistic, which, because of its shame factor, probably is true? "Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes." That would be the two in 10 who were willing to admit that the particular hue of a candidate's skin is a key and valid determinant in their electoral behavior.
Among this atavistic 20 percent "more than 8 in 10" said they "backed Mrs. Clinton." Now there's a Democratic primary-victory stat to be proud of -- hail the hardworking, toothless hayseed vote, otherwise known as the GOP base, which is likely why so many said they wouldn't be supporting the presumptive Democratic nominee anyway, come fall.
None of this is to say that Barack Obama cannot carry West Virginia in the general. Even though Democratic presidential candidates haven't carried the overall white vote since what seems like Martin Van Buren's grandfather's time, Bill Clinton won W.Va. in both of his contests (of course he had the correct hue of skin) and the profound, post-Bush yearning for something different in 2009 could yet sway a majority to Obama's column. It does, however, call into question the wisdom of pouring Democratic resources into the state for all of five electoral votes.
For just one step away there are 21 in Pennsylvania and 20 in Ohio. And, as Democratic strategist Dave "Mudcat" Saunders pointed out yesterday to The Politico, "McCain’s going to camp on the Pennsylvania-Ohio border. He knows if he wins those states he can’t lose."
Saunders added that "What people don’t understand about Appalachia is that we’ve heard all this 'hope' and 'change' stuff since the English kicked the Scotch-Irish out in the 1700s. We’re 'hoped' out. Nothing ever changes out here" -- to which I might add that that's because so many of its impoverished residents have historically voted for racial bullshit over economic basics. It's been their call, not the pols'.
Nevertheless Saunders said there is indeed hope in the other direction -- for Obama, that is -- if he "come[s] with some solid policies." And, along these lines, Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia projected the region "would ultimately gravitate to Obama’s message of economic development, telemedicine to expand health care, federal support for water infrastructure projects, and broadband development to provide expanded Internet service and attract high tech jobs."
We'll see. Because there are, and probably always will be, those electoral legions beyond hope from any which direction.
I give you, for instance, Clinton-supporter Mary Ann Kominar of Kermit, W.Va. -- wife of a Democratic state delegate, no less -- who done thunk all this out deeply and said: "A lot of people are saying 'McCain looks better every day.' I’m opposed to Obama because of his religious beliefs. I believe Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright told me a whole lot. The fact that [Obama] doesn’t pledge allegiance to the flag, he doesn’t wear a flag pin, concern me."
Yes, it concern me too, until I stop to think what a comedy representative democracy can be. Let's just be thankful we live not in a direct one.
buzzflash
delicious
digg
yahoo
technorati
Technorati Tags: 
