Did Appalachians vote their economic interests?

[Badger]

To the extent that lower middle class and poorer Appalachians choose income wasn't at least indirectly tied at Community level to fossil fuels, both natural gas fracking as well as obviously Cole, then yes.

The question is whether or not the percentage of such working class and poor voters who one could argue voted against their economic interest over social issues for some basic factual ignorance over the parties relative economic policies, is notably larger a share of such voters outside of Appalachia.

In other words, there were plenty of people throughout this country including outside Appalachia who firmly convinced themselves that the plutocratic tax-dodging billionaire running on a souped-up version of Mitt Romney's platform was " the one truly For the Working Man". Plus there are a lot of struggling Appalachia voters who work more concerned with arguable justification about the Democrats having an anti Cole and anti-fracking environmental policies than they were about having their grandmother's disability check cut or the like. Take those into account, and I'm not sure if Appalachian voters voted against their economic interests any more than non Appalachian voters.

Not necessarily saying it was the same in Appalachia as elsewhere. Rather, I'm saying that under that analysis I'm just not sure it's clear cut.

[Badger]

I think they voted for the candidate who they believed respected them, their family and their communities MUCH more.  Whether or not you agree with that is another thing, but I think many of these people didn't have to infer all that much to come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats in other areas of the country thought VERY little of them (I mean, just look at a lot of the posts here), and they felt the only dignified thing to do was not vote for them ... kind of like a New York Republican who might have liked Ted Cruz's views refusing to vote for him after the "New York values" thing.

This is to say nothing *better* about the GOP platform for Appalachia, but it IS my opinion that Trump signaled a bit more dignity their way than Clinton or any past Republican or Democrat of the past twenty years.  So, they didn't "vote their economic interests," but I think a lot of them would readily admit that.

Because Donald Trump is nothing else if not all about dignity.

it would be much more accurate to say that trumps campaign wasn't so much about extending dignity or respect towards such voters, but rather demonizing their perceived enemies and "the other".

[Badger]

I think they voted for the candidate who they believed respected them, their family and their communities MUCH more.  Whether or not you agree with that is another thing, but I think many of these people didn't have to infer all that much to come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats in other areas of the country thought VERY little of them (I mean, just look at a lot of the posts here), and they felt the only dignified thing to do was not vote for them ... kind of like a New York Republican who might have liked Ted Cruz's views refusing to vote for him after the "New York values" thing.

This is to say nothing *better* about the GOP platform for Appalachia, but it IS my opinion that Trump signaled a bit more dignity their way than Clinton or any past Republican or Democrat of the past twenty years.  So, they didn't "vote their economic interests," but I think a lot of them would readily admit that.

Because Donald Trump is nothing else if not all about dignity.

it would be much more accurate to say that trumps campaign wasn't so much about extending dignity or respect towards such voters, but rather demonizing their perceived enemies and "the other".

There was obviously a strong element of this, but one needs to remember why Trump rallies are such a potent weapon: if your town has been in economic decline for decades, and losing population as the young people move away to find jobs, it means something when Donald Trump, whose name is synonymous with wealth, gold, and success, is coming to your town to hold a rally. There's a reason why people take his "forgotten man" schtick seriously and think he's a man of the people, even though when you look at actual policy, Trump clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about improving their lives and has governed indistinguishably from a generic R president, aside from rhetoric and some stuff on immigration.

110% absolutely agree.

I will also say, as I've noted in other threads, that to the degree that the Appalachian economy relies not only on cold, but natural gas fracking as well, Trump is very much in their economic interest. Yes, the percentage of Appalachians actually employed as coal miners is quite small to the overall population nowadays, but once you take into account all the support Industries hutches machine manufacturing and repair, Transportation, Etc, plus the significant support all those combined Industries and jobs have on everyday businesses in those communities, everything from diners to car dealerships Etc, it overall is a significant chunk of the Region's economy which Clinton explicitly promised to sink.

Even to the degree that there are Appalachians whose jobs have little or no connection to the fossil fuels industry even indirectly, there are still economic interests who would support Trump. If we consider all Appalachians is stereotypical toothless Hillbillies living in shacks and single wide trailers, that's missing the fact that mini Appalachians even outside the energy images Stree have decent middle-class and upper-middle-class jobs who probably vote Republican on that basis anyway. If you combine that with those individuals who incomes are at least indirectly related to the fossil fuel industry, you're now possibly not far from half of Appalachians who didn't necessarily vote against their economic interest.

On the third hand, is unquestionable when it comes to issues like lacking health insurance and poverty over all that a bunch of Appalachians voted decidedly against their economic interest. What was that necessarily because of Trumps particular brand of demagoguery? Owsley County Kentucky an example where probably didn't make any difference. The county has been hardcore Republican since the Civil War, and yet it has I believe the second highest poverty rate in the entire country. Maybe Democratic voters are concentrated among the portion of the County under the federal poverty line oh, no one can't ignore that it's one hard to Trump even from its usual solid Republican base. Even Beyond those who are officially in poverty, there have to be scads of County residents lacking health insurance who nevertheless voted for Trump.

This also begs the question whether or not poor Appalachians voted against their economic interest substantially more than poor and working-class whites elsewhere in the country all right I got to get to work I have no goofing let's