This whole drama over Hillary winning big in WV yesterday, as she presumably will in KY next week, boggles my mind.
Let's look at some key figures from the exit polling, according to CNN's summary:
Clinton's largest margins, as expected, were registered among voters at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. Among white voters without a college degree, Clinton defeated Obama by 50 points. Among white voters making less than $30,000 a year, Clinton's margin of victory was more than 60 points.
Voters supported the gas tax suspension by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Those voters who supported suspending the gas tax broke for Clinton, 74 to 19 percent.
Only 38 percent of Clinton's voters said they would vote for Obama in a general election matchup against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain.
President Bush was able to win the socially conservative state twice largely on the basis of hot button issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control.
What I'm about to say will probably offend a lot of people, so if you want to keep your image of me being an idealistic egalitarian unblemished, you'll probably want to stop reading.
I'm going to say what isn't being said, but what everyone is thinking:
Hillary won yesterday because the demographics of the state played right into her hands. Uneducated, poor white people love Hillary.
Look at the Census Bureau data on West Virginia. Look at the raw exit polling data -- particularly this gem, which I haven't seen reported elsewhere: more than one-fifth of the people who voted said that race was an important factor in their decision, and of those, 82% voted for Clinton.
These are the people at whom whisper campaigns about Obama being a secret Muslim terrorist are targeted -- and the people most likely to believe such filth. These are people who are, for some reason, registered Democrats, but who watch (and believe) Fox News. These are people who believe the Bible should be taken literally, who are suspicious of higher education and anyone claiming to be an expert about anything (like economists). These are people who are oftentimes racist, nativist, and homophobic. These are people who are born, grow up, and die in the same small towns, generation after generation.
Am I making sweeping generalizations? Yeah, probably. Is there anything, other than numbers, to back this all up? Absolutely.
See, my dad comes from these people. Not these particular ones -- he's from rural Georgia. But except for the fact that the community revolves around the paper mills instead of coal mines, and the accents are different, it's the same stock. My dad's the only one is his family to get out, get an education, and see that there's a whole world beyond the pine trees and red clay. The rest of his family... well, one sister's a grandmother, the other a great-grandmother; the n-word is tossed around freely; homophobia and nativism are points of pride. And, yeah, they cling to their guns and religion.
I understand that this is a democracy, and that Hillary's win in West Virginia is every bit as valid as Obama's in Colorado (where 35%+ of the citizens have 4-year degrees). I understand that as far as the candidates are concerned, a vote is a vote.
But I don't want these votes deciding who the nominee, or president, is going to be. I don't want the election to be determined by people who clearly don't understand the issues, who are more susceptible than most to anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant scare tactics (like conservative pundits who always use Obama's middle name when referring to him).
So am I suggesting some kind of meritocracy? I don't know.
What I do know is that this is the 21st century, that the world is more complex and interconnected than ever before, and that this is one of the most critical elections in decades.
And I sure as hell wouldn't want my grandmother picking the president.