An interesting POV regarding the need and potential to reach out to this demographic.
*The Oregonian *calls it for Obama.
ETA: Sorry–they report NBC’s call.
Okay, now The Oregonian calls it for Obama.
In 2004 Kerry won Oregon with 943K. Today it seems like nearly the same is to be counted in the Oregon Democratic primary, again, in an election that the vast majority of Oregonians believe is already settled!
The turn-out in these primaries, whether voting for (or against) Obama, or for (or against) Clinton is amazing.
When I encouraged my students to vote today, several responded by waving their ballots in the air.
I swear to Og, I read that out loud, and NajaHusband says: “…which one?!”
NajaNivea, reporting live from “Springtucky”, Oregon. 
Fred Meyer.
ETA: Or Smartpop, depending on your question.
So, not only does Obama and Clinton split the contests, as expected, Clinton wins KY by the margin I expected, quite close to WV’s. Obama now has the majority of delegates. Clinton, of course, vows to carry on, her rabid supporters seemingly oblvious to the fact that the math has just closed the door on any realistic chance she had for the nomination. Okey dokey. No surprises here at all.
It’s the economy and the population. “Mid-northern” white folks, especially along the coast, tend to live there because of D.C., Philly, New York, and Boston. Even in the South, Atlanta and the Research Triangle and Charleston have a large geographic influence. Big cities have several layers of college-educated people at the top of the (huge) workforce, who get paid for the privilege. Appalachia’s economy is about pulling stuff out of the ground and processing it into a commodity; commodities are always low-margin, and so extracting and processing them doesn’t pay terribly well for the people doing the grunt work.
The population is mostly descended from the Scots-Irish and German immigrants who settled the area originally; not many people move in, so it’s the same hundred pasty-white families that have been there for two centuries. They’ve been living there, poor and insulated, for as long as their families have been in America.
The South had the Civil War & reconstruction to shake up the population mix, and several port cities on the Mississippi and Atlantic and Gulf Coasts to bring people and culture in. The east coast has ports and cities to spare. The Great Lakes region had shipping, livestock, fur trading, and manufacturing. The western half of the country has always been a mix of different kinds of settlers. Appalachia is too mountainous for good farming; coal, oil, and steel are pretty much the only thing you can do with the land.
Another numbers fact … Obama’s results in his overwhelming loss in KY last night - 209K - was not far off from the total number of Democratic primary voters there in 2004 (230K).
Now why is there that kind of turnout?
When was the KY primary in 2004?
The primary was around the same time as this year. But IIRC, the two presidential candidates were already decided, and there really wasn’t much else on the ballot. No close races to decide, mostly incumbents who would win their nominations unopposed or against weak candidates.
I generally vote in each election, but that was a year I could have easily skipped.
I suppose now Kentucky will be labeled an incredibly racist state, but living here I know the folks really LOVED Bill, and would give anything to have him back in office. My guess is that many people saw a vote for Hillary as a vote bringing Bill back in office. Over the years, the Clintons spent quite a bit of time here, so no matter who ran against Hillary, I think she would have easily won.
During this campaign, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea were all over the state at very public events, including the Kentucky Derby. It seemed that the Obama events I heard about were more of the private kind.
Had the campaign not gotten so divisive, I would think many of the Hillary voters would switch to whoever the Dem candidate would be. But under the circumstances, many are saying they will stay at home, or take a second look at McCain.
And this is what chaps me, right here. The Clinton camp was the cause of much of the divisiveness her supporters are using as a reason not to vote for Obama.
From what the news was reporting last night, polls indicated that about 30% of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama, and about 50% of Obama supporters would vote for Clinton.
So both sides are likely wanting to punish the other candidate, but a higher % of them are in the Hillary Camp.
Now this is without having heard a thing from McCain. Those numbers may change once the general election campaigning starts…
Please. Is there good evidence that large numbers of voters won’t vote for their candidate in the general election, regardless of their rhetoric during the froth-mouthed primary?
Sure. Reagan would not have won in 1980 without the votes of disaffected Democrats.
I find it hard to trust those polls. As long as one side thinks there’s something to gain by threatening the other, they’ll do so. Once there’s nothing left to gain for their side, the motivation isn’t the same.
Did they wave them like they just did not care?
Heh. Good one 
That would be “AS IF they just did not care.”