I wouldn't say West Virginia is a "microcosm" of the Democratic Party's relationship with the white working class at all. More like West Virginia is a macrocosm of their issues with the coal industry and those that depend on it, along with Kentucky, SW Pennsylvania, SE Ohio, some areas of Virginia, etc. Anyway, kudos to her for visiting I guess, but the state is and will remain hostile territory to Democrats for a long time. Just like Vermont was a reliable Republican state that went hard towards the Democratic party in a short amount of time, West Virginia was a reliable Democratic state that is (has) going hard towards the Republican party in a short amount of time. I can see Trump getting 65-70% in the state even if Hillary wins nationwide by double digits.
The problem is that the Democrats have gone hard left on the issues that matter to them most. The Dems went from being moderate environmentalists (I'm pretty sure most people would support the Clean Water Act, for example) to hardcore hippie Sierra Club activists about it. Considering WV is a coal state, that doesn't play too well there. If the Democrats could shift a bit more to the middle on environmental issues, while still supporting labor rights and the basics of the New Deal, WV could shift back to the blue column.
I could see a moderate like Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, John Bel Edwards, etc. putting it into play in a future election.
Not trying to pick on you personally, but there's good reason the Democrats have gone "hard left" on coal. It's a major contributor towards climate change, which the Department of Defense considers a significant threat to national security.
"Shifting a bit more to the middle" on the environment at this point is like shifting a little towards the middle on allowing poison in baby food. It doesn't frelling matter how much of WV's economy depends on poisonous baby food, it's still a bad idea.
Labeling a position as 'radical' does not make it so. While I recognize that all industrial production is going to have some effect on the environment, beyond it's contribution to AGW, coal also releases fine particulate matter that:
a 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually.
Even if you don't trust this group's numbers, the evidence from China in addition to this both show coal is the fossil fuel that is the most unhealthy to humans (and to the environment) and ending its use for energy purposes (coal is also used in steel making) in as quick but responsible a manner as possible is in nearly everybody's best interests.
This is a bit over the top, but imagine if murder wasn't illegal but that most people who wanted to murder others were uncomfortable doing it personally and so hired others to kill for them and the government proposed outlawing murder and the 'hitman' industry and lobby said 'but think of the job losses!"
I think the burning of coal is basically legalized killing and harming of the health of third parties.
