Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?

[Tintrlvr]

I think to a degree there may be a vote in the Appalachians that votes its perceived economic interests, that the nebulous promise that coal mining will come roaring back if only we abolish the EPA or roll back environmental regulations. Of course, that's a completely false premise; even if every Republican promise or ambition on undoing environmental regulation came to fruition, coal mining would continue its decline because it simply isn't economically viable any more.

There may be slightly more economic argument as it relates to fracking, but, even then, the long-term economic benefits of fracking seem pretty minimal: the main benefits to existing stakeholders accrue to just a few large landowners who often don't live locally (or leave once they make fracking money); it's not at all labor-intensive so doesn't create many jobs; it's highly cyclical and subject to major busts every few years lately, sustained only by cheap debt; and long-term it has a tough future as the price of renewables and battery storage look to inevitably decline and compete more and more with fracking gas, even without government weight on the side of renewables.

Even if fracking were a net positive for Appalachian communities, it's not at all clear that the trade-off is worth other policies the Republicans implement that are clearly and unquestionably contrary to the economic interests of Appalachia, such as cuts in public healthcare or welfare.

And you can't just ignore the social issue aspects, which drive a lot more passion, whether it's abortion, immigration, LGBT rights or other topics.