Ohio: The Greater Appalachia Factor

Will Greater Appalachia cost Obama a victory in Ohio?

Ohio

In 2008, Obama only won Ohio with 51.2% of the vote, even with a D+8 electorate and an 8 point advantage with Independents.

How come? It is very significant that McCain won 92 percent of Republicans, but Obama only won 89 percent of Democrats. In other words, McCain won over significantly more Democrats than Obama won over Republicans in 2008.

That’s the only swing state where that happened. Everywhere else Obama won over more Republicans than McCain won Democrats. If McCain hadn’t done so poorly with Independents, he would have won Ohio in 2008.

Note: If you check the New York Times 2008 Election Map, you can see how parts of east and southeast Ohio became more Republican over Kerry’s run in 2004. The same effect can be seen in adjacent parts of southwest Pennsylvania.

The voting shift toward the Republicans in 2008 (this was at the peak of Obama’s popularity) blazes from pink in southeast Ohio to a deeper shade of red through West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, North Alabama, Northeast Mississippi, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

I can’t wait to see how the partisan vote shifts across Greater Appalachia, particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, in the 2012 election. Remember, Obama had a lot of trouble in Greater Appalachia in the 2012 Democratic Primary.

About Hunter Wallace 9509 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

49 Comments

  1. I had a roommate in college who was from southern Ohio and would constantly regale me with anti-Yankee rhetoric (I am from the western US). To get him going I just had to mention the “Civil War”. I would say that southern Ohio whites display similar loyalties as the area around Kentucky-Tennessee with a slight West Virginia flavor. Although, he would often say his beef was with East Coast Northerners, not niggers. Yep, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if they talked to cultural Marxist pollsters one way and voted red. It’s strictly Appalachia without so much of the physical mountains. Essentially, they are Appalachia mountain folk who were able to get jobs in the Midwest factories (i.e., before outsourcing and unfair trade).

  2. @ Hunter

    Excellent little essay, and a very smart map.

    They don’t call it Southern Ohio for nothing. LOL. The early settlers in southern Ohio prior to the Civil War were largely from Virginia & North Carolina.

    South Western Pennsylvania was originally part of Virginia. What’s the old saying, how a twig is bent is how the tree grows?

  3. The voting shift toward the Republicans in 2008 (this was at the peak of Obama’s popularity) blazes from pink in southeast Ohio to a deeper shade of red through West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, North Alabama, Northeast Mississippi, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

    Louisiana is largely pink or bright red as well. Which seems a bit strange in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. You’d think there might have been a bit of a backlash against the “heckuva job, Brownie” Republicans, but the opposite seems to be true.

    Maybe we should call the anti-Obama wave, at least in the South, the Transappalachian Factor. Take a gander at today’s RCP map:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    All 9 Transappalachian states in the South are listed as Solid Romney. But in the South Atlantic states, two are listed as the weaker Likely Romney, three as Toss Ups, and two as Solid Obama. I keep telling y’all that the Appalachian Mountains are becoming the new political fault line in the South. Now can somebody please explain to me why?

    I agree with Hunter and others that Romney is likely to win Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, but the margin of victory will probably be small. And the fact that they’re still listed as toss ups 3 years and 51 weeks after Obama was first elected doesn’t bode well for their future viability as red states. And why are Georgia and South Carolina only listed as Likely Romney when every single Transappalachian state is listed as Solid Romney?

    The usual excuses, that Transappalachia is whiter and that the South Atlantic states have more Northern transplants, aren’t going to cut it. Texas is the least white state in the South and is crawling with transplants and immigrants, yet it’s more staunchly Republican than any of the South Atlantic states. Louisiana is less white than South Carolina and has a much larger Catholic population, but against all odds LA’s support for Romney is ‘Solid’ compared to merely ‘Likely’ in SC.

    Only fifty years ago, Maryland and Delaware were charter members of the Jim Crow South. Today they’re both Solid Obama states, just like California and Massachusetts. Could the same transformation be happening right now in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida? And further down the road in Georgia and South Carolina? Why is this happening in the South Atlantic states but not in Transappalachia? Be original, please.

  4. In Texas, far more transplants are economic migrants from conservative areas like refugees from California. Texas has a very weak safety net which skews potential migrants. Also, huge numbers of Hispanics in Texas are illegal alien non-voters.

  5. ‘Palmetto Patriot can tell you all about the Yankees in South Carolina. Much of suburban Charlotte is located in SC.’

    Yes, here in Aiken County, we native Southerners are a minority. Rare to go to the grocery store and hear a Southern accent in town. No Confederate flags here. All Yankee retirees and Yankee horse women. Charleston, SC is also over-run, though not quite as badly. Myrtle Beach is over-run. Columbia and Greenville have lots of Yankee transplants but are not yet over-run. And like HW says, the suburbs of Charlotte (a city that seems almost completely non-Southern) extend into SC. To give you an idea of how we are being displaced, the population of NC has doubled since 1970. That is not natural population growth. Most of that is Northern transplants. It’s similar here in SC, though the immigration patterns are a little difference since we get more retirees while they get more young Northern professionals.

  6. “You’d think there might have been a bit of a backlash against the “heckuva job, Brownie” Republicans, but the opposite seems to be true.” – The local democrats were much more incompetent than the national republicans were(by virtue of not simply brushing the local democrats off to the side).

  7. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121030/DA2854680.html

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) – Mitt Romney is suddenly plunging into traditionally Democratic-leaning Minnesota and Pennsylvania, and his GOP allies are trying to put Michigan into play. It’s forcing President Barack Obama to defend his own turf – he’s pouring money into television ads in the states and dispatching top backers – in the campaign’s final week.

    The question is: Why this Republican move?

    GOP efforts in the trio of Rust Belt states could indicate that Romney is desperately searching for a last-minute path to the needed 270 Electoral College votes – without all-important Ohio. Or just the opposite, that he’s so confident in the most competitive battlegrounds that he’s pressing for insurance against Obama in what’s expected to be a close race.

    Or perhaps the Republican simply has money to burn. Use it now or never.

  8. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2952515/posts

    Via Mark Halperin and Jim Geraghty, who points out that Detroit’s TV market doesn’t reach Ohio. This is all about defending Michigan, which would have seemed crazy a month ago but now, in a world where The One is under 50 percent in Oregon, makes lots of sense. This is, after all, a state capable of electing a Republican governor (by a landslide) and a Republican legislature, and there’s a native son at the top of the GOP ticket. The last poll of Michigan — taken one week ago — showed a dead heat. I wonder what those Hopenchange internal numbers are showing right now. From Halperin:

    An Obama aide tells me this on the Michigan ad buy:

    “Restore Our Future went up with a $2 million buy in Michigan. We’re matching states where they go up. We’re not going to let them make a play anywhere.”

    Both sides have enough money for these end-game ad forays. The real issues remain candidate time/visits, the psy-ops involved here, and the belief of some Republicans that a combination of Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania could surprise on Election Day.

    My only question: How likely is it that any of those three states comes through for Romney if Ohio doesn’t? And if Ohio comes through, why do we need any of those states? Seems like maybe the Romney Super PAC’s ad buy is less about stealing Michigan to capture the presidency even if Ohio falls through than it is (a) forcing Obama to divert money to a formerly “safe” state, and (b) increasing the odds of a big red wave if there’s a final small tilt towards Romney nationally (or regionally) over the next seven days. In that case, he wouldn’t “need” Michigan to win but it’d be lovely to have it as proof of a mandate to govern, and that’ll come in handy in twisting Democratic arms during those fiscal cliff/deficit reduction negotiations.

  9. SC will be voting Democratic in the not too distant future. SC is 28% Black (which is declining due to White Northern immigration), 5% Mexican and 1.3% Asian. Those are all Democratic voting groups. And of the 64% of the people who are White, well over a third of them are Yankees now. In 2008 John McCain got 54% of SC. But Obama won major parts of the State (the Black areas,the Charlotte suburbs and Charleston). Fifty-four percent is not an impressive win in SC. It’s easy to see that as the Mexican population continues to explode (SC had the highest growth of Mexicans of any State between 2000 and 2005) and the Yankees continue to pour in that this will in the not too distant future be a Democratic State.

    Before SC goes Democratic, Georgia will. And Texas is close. Only 45% of Texas is White. As soon as those young Mexicans reach voting age, it’s a done deal.

    I’m not trying to depress folks. I just think we should understand what we face, if present trends continue.

  10. No doubt there are lots of transplants in the South Atlantic states. But there are all kinds in Transappalachia too. DFW and Houston are full of them. San Antonio and El Paso are mostly Mexican. Austin’s full of SWPLs. Transplants aren’t exactly rare in Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, OKC, Louisville, etc. either.

    And as Palmetto Patriot pointed out, Texas is only 45% white, far less than any South Atlantic state. Mississippi and Louisiana are both under 60% white. Yet all three Transappalachian states trend more Republican than whiter South Atlantic states like Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

    So transplants and/or non-whites can’t fully explain the emerging political differences between the South Atlantic states and Transappalachia. In the 2008 election, the South Atlantic went for Obama by 71-23 in electoral votes, while Transappalachia went for McCain 95-0. From a conservative perspective, that’s a big edge to Transappalachia.

    There are 4 Republican governors in the South Atlantic compared to 3 Democrats. In Transappalachia there are 6 Republican governors compared to 3 Democrats. Edge, Transappalachia.

    In the South Atlantic states there are 8 Democratic senators compared to 6 Republicans. In Transappalachia there are 14 Republican senators compared to only 4 Democrats. Big edge, Transappalachia.

    In the House of Representatives, there are 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats from the South Atlantic states. Transappalachia has 58 Republican congressmen compared to 19 Democrats. Edge, Transappalachia.

    Whatever the exact reasons for this political disparity, it definitely exists and it’s certainly worth paying attention to.

  11. What about mean age? Fewer Whites but older ones more inclined toward conservatism might explain the tilt despite fewer Whites in raw numbers.

  12. My only question: How likely is it that any of those three states comes through for Romney if Ohio doesn’t?

    Right. It’s a pretty straightforward question. And there’s a LOT of (R) chatter that says Ohio is locked up. People who say they know Ohio politics, including prominent Rs.

    The only wrinkle is ad saturation; Ohio’s been bombarded so long now, we don’t know when saturation set in (i.e., where on the trend lines) and people are dead set in their decisions and just want the pollsters to GTFO of Ohio so they can vote and move on with their lives.

  13. Louisiana is largely pink or bright red as well. Which seems a bit strange in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. You’d think there might have been a bit of a backlash against the “heckuva job, Brownie” Republicans, but the opposite seems to be true.

    I don’t know what “‘heckuva job, Brownie’ Republicans” means, so I don’t know what sort of backlash you’re talking about. But this GA cracker thinks the whole “backlash” against Bush over Katrina was a bunch of media horseshit. I’ve never been a Bush fan, hell I’m not even a Republican, but Katrina was 100% fabricated media bullshit IMO. It’s not the Presiden’ts job to clean up nigger messes in Louisiana, it’s the Louisiana gov’t’s job. Failing that, the feds move in and wipe their asses for them, and that’s just what happened.

    For me the “lesson of Katrina” is “white man, go armed.”

  14. I keep telling y’all that the Appalachian Mountains are becoming the new political fault line in the South. Now can somebody please explain to me why?

    Mountain people are stubborn and insular. This is a human trend AFAIK, though I’ve never looked into it, only seen it repeatedly referenced over the last 10 years at Steve Sailer’s blog (I’m just assuming it’s true). Part of it’s isolation; mountains and hills are so old, man may have evolved around them, psychologically speaking. Maybe men know instinctively that mountains are defensible and harder to tame and civilize, and so the sort of men who want that kind of environment go/stay there. Could also be a feedback loop; people tend to have their stubborn and insular attitudes reinforced by hilly or mountainous (i.e., defensible and low-population-density by nature) terrain.

    Point being, stubborn and insular people tend to vote less in line with the regime.

    Obviously there’s a host of other factors combining with this, I just wanted to add this HBD wrinkle.

  15. Only fifty years ago, Maryland and Delaware were charter members of the Jim Crow South. Today they’re both Solid Obama states, just like California and Massachusetts. Could the same transformation be happening right now in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida? And further down the road in Georgia and South Carolina? Why is this happening in the South Atlantic states but not in Transappalachia? Be original, please.

    Coastal real estate attracts money and people far more than upland terrain. No comparison. So obviously the SWPLs are going to take over places like FL, GA, and SC before Tennessee or Kentucky.

  16. Hunter,

    Get thee to dailyhowler.com

    There’s a fight brewing on the left. Open uncensored comments now breaking out.

  17. “Only fifty years ago, Maryland and Delaware were charter members of the Jim Crow South. Today they’re both Solid Obama states”

    Western Maryland is still physically and politically in Appalachia. Maryland’s Eastern Shore is still Tidewater, it’s the heavily populated Balto-Wash corridor that is Obamaland.

    As for Delaware. The Eastern Shore adjacent farms are still Tidewater. The coastal towns are just like the Maryland and Jersey shore and Wilmington is like an extension of Philadelphia with lots of urban blacks and Pennsylvania-like Chester County/Main Line suburbanites outside the city.

  18. BTW for those who smoke it, The Left Coast aka “Cascadia” hands down has far and away the best weed of the various regions on the map. The initiative to legalize pot in Oregon on the ballot this election is going down in flames though. Despite Portland and Eugene, Oregon is a much more conservative state than Washington, California or the province of B.C.

  19. The discussion here generally seems to be making an assumption that is wrong, and then drawing a conclusion based on it. To wit, there seems to be an implicit assumption that no northern whites (and especially transplanted ones) will vote for their interests, ever. I have no doubt that so long as the borders are open we are lost and that type of creeping California effect is happening nationwide to varying degrees (i.e., specifically, immigrants from outside the US are predominately dem/socialists/communist voters; and the fact that California was swamped first, largely due to weather and perceived desirability), but to assume a suicidal white American voter will always vote for suicide even when the economy is crashing around them is suicide itself.

    For example, we fail to take account of the fact that the west was arguably the most conservative portion of the country before “Civil Rights” got rolling and especially since the 1968 Immigration Reform Act” essentially threw open the borders. For example, I would argue that Utah may be the most conservative state in the country (full disclosure, I’m not from Utah and not a Mormon). Given that “demography is destiny”, this whole thing begins and ends with that, but the current wild card seems to be the economy changing the perception of what is good for white voters (Greece anyone?). If you don’t have a job, or your cousin or wife or close friend etc. doesn’t have one, then your view of life, economics, politics, and your related voting pattern may change dramatically (which is why voting forecasts with high explanatory power are driven by economics). To argue about one group being more racial realists than another is fine and good (e.g., your average white Georgian vs. average white Wisconsinite), but the dynamic portion of the equation is the economy and the associated incompetence displayed by the not so magical incompetent traitorous illegal occupant of the White House (or most importantly the perceptions of the economy and the not so magical retard); and the economy and the retard in the White House favor the cause in Ohio, Michigan, etc. We all know the media is in the bag for their magic negro and are biasing their polls to try to impact the outcome; what is not clear is the degree to which the economy is weighing on the average white voter in places like Ohio and Michigan (and we probably won’t know because of the media until the actual election, or just before it). If there was no bias in the media we wouldn’t even be having this debate, it would be a large margin for the Mormon, and otherwise it looks close. In short, if the Mormon wins states like Ohio and Michigan chalk it mostly due to the economy and the not so magic negro.

  20. once again Jeppo its the type of transplants we get in the South East vs Texas. The ones who go to Texas are looking for a “conservative” environment. The ones who head to NC and SC are old liberal yankees of retiring age. The ones I saw while living in Texas where a different breed. Two entirely different types of transplants. I also broke down the raw numbers of yankees in NC for you a while back. They are a bigger part of our population vs the transplants in Texas.

  21. Bah, this map again. That left coast map is wrong. Most of southern Oregon and the border counties in N. Calif. would not follow Portland/Sacramento’s lead. They fall in with the “far west” culturally.

  22. I also broke down the raw numbers of yankees in NC for you a while back. They are a bigger part of our population vs the transplants in Texas.

    Let’s compare growth rates in Texas compared with North Carolina and Virginia combined (NCVA). In 1970, Texas’s congressional apportionment was 24 seats compared with NCVA’s 21 seats. By 2010, Texas had 36 seats, an increase of 12, compared with NCVA’s 24 seats, an increase of 3. So in this 40 year period, Texas had 4 times the number of newcomers (immigrants, transplants, births) than NCVA did. If the transplant theory held water, then Texas would be a toss up state while NCVA would be Solid Romney. But in fact the opposite is true.

    I don’t know if the transplants in Texas are initially more conservative than the ones in NCVA. Maybe they become that way over time, adjusting to the more inherently conservative atmosphere in Texas than in NCVA. It used to be said that the liberal suburbanites around Washington DC flocked to Maryland while the conservative ones went to Virginia. Maybe that’s less true now. But one thing is certain: the number of transplants and immigrants in NCVA is dwarfed by those in Texas.

  23. “Heckuva job, Brownie” is what George W Bush famously (and stupidly) said to the incompetent head of FEMA. I agree that media unfairly blamed Bush for all the fuckups in the aftermath of Katrina, but these media smears often times shape public opinion. Not in the case of Louisiana though, where support for the Republicans went up rather than down after Katrina.

  24. Coastal real estate attracts money and people far more than upland terrain. No comparison. So obviously the SWPLs are going to take over places like FL, GA, and SC before Tennessee or Kentucky.

    Yes, but there are a lot of inland cities in the South Atlantic states and plenty of coastline in Transappalachia (TX, LA, MS, AL). I looked at real estate prices in the major metro areas in Transappalachia and the South Atlantic, and there doesn’t seem to be any consistent differences between the two regions, or even between coastal and inland cities. For example, average (metro area) house prices in inland Birmingham, Alabama are slightly higher than those in coastal Jacksonville, Florida.

  25. Western Maryland is still physically and politically in Appalachia. Maryland’s Eastern Shore is still Tidewater, it’s the heavily populated Balto-Wash corridor that is Obamaland.

    As for Delaware. The Eastern Shore adjacent farms are still Tidewater. The coastal towns are just like the Maryland and Jersey shore and Wilmington is like an extension of Philadelphia with lots of urban blacks and Pennsylvania-like Chester County/Main Line suburbanites outside the city.

    Urbanization has a lot to do with the leftward tilt of these two states I think. Most white people in MD and DE, rather than being transplants or immigrants, are the descendants of people who’ve lived in those states for decades, or even centuries. But the children and grandchildren of the segregationists of MD and DE in the 1950s and ’60s are now for the most part a bunch of Obama groupies.

    What happened? Extreme urbanization, as the vast majority of the population of both states are now part of the vast BosNyWash conurbation, which didn’t really exist 50 or 60 years ago. I haven’t looked closely at the urban/rural percentages, but I’m pretty sure that the South Atlantic states are generally more urbanized than Transappalachia. Urbanization seems to be a better explanation for the South Atlantic’s tilt to the Democrats than other factors like the number of transplants, immigrants, non-whites and real estate prices. More research is needed.

  26. “Bah, this map again. That left coast map is wrong. Most of southern Oregon and the border counties in N. Calif. would not follow Portland/Sacramento’s lead. They fall in with the “far west” culturally.”

    An accurate map would show some extensions the other way too. The crest of the Cascades is not a precise political dividing line. In Oregon one should also factor in an extension of Eugene east to Sisters and Bend in the high desert. The conservative nature of southern Oregon and the rural parts of the Willamette Valley would also Give he state a 3-2 Democratic-Republican split in Congress had the Republican’s not laid down and bent over on re-apportionment again. It’s hard to fight a liberal Secretary of State in Oregon although Kurt Buehler is making a decent run at the office. Republicans have a history of just barely losing the statewide races like Dudley losing to Dem retread Kitzhaber by 48-52 in the last gubernatorial election.

    California should also show a long arm of the Left Coast extending from the Bay Area through Sacramento and up to Lake Tahoe.

  27. The discussion here generally seems to be making an assumption that is wrong, and then drawing a conclusion based on it. To wit, there seems to be an implicit assumption that no northern whites (and especially transplanted ones) will vote for their interests, ever.

    Correct. As if Whites are just going to “ho-hum, no biggie” as the trends continue. Nope. They will start voting like a bloc. More importantly, they’ll start coalescing into local majorities that run their affairs the way they like.

    Southerners vote R because, inter alia, they’re hip-deep in niggers and that’s what white people do when they’re hip-deep in niggers; they move to the right. When all Whites are hip-deep in niggers and mestizos, they’ll all move to the right.

  28. BTW for those who smoke it, The Left Coast aka “Cascadia” hands down has far and away the best weed of the various regions on the map. The initiative to legalize pot in Oregon on the ballot this election is going down in flames though. Despite Portland and Eugene, Oregon is a much more conservative state than Washington, California or the province of B.C.

    Legalized pot is a non-starter. The vampires want to legalize it because they’re desperate for new revenue and they want to tax it, but they’re too stupid to think things through. If pot is legalized, it becomes roughly as valuable as tobacco. But the gov’t (state & federal) gets FAR MORE pot interdiction money than pot would be worth in tax revenues. I did my own calculations for this a few years ago, so I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but trust me, the feds would LOSE a LOT of money if pot were legalized, because criminalization is the only thing keeping the prices up.

    The states are breaking ranks because they want to game the system; they want pot to stay illegal in most of the US, but decriminalize it in their territories, thus giving them huge profits via arbitrage (i.e., sell it to the states where it’s illegal). They’re out of their minds if they think the feds are going to let them get away with that. It will stay illegal according to federal law, the feds will continue to bust people for it in the states where it’s decriminalized, and the feds will continue to get their huge sums for the drug war.

    Because that’s where the money is, period.

  29. NC got 4 million damnyankee transplants out vs 6 million local White folk since 1980 or so. Leastwise that’s my guess from census records and birth records. Combined with negros, mexicans, and our local libs…. it’s a bigger impact. Texas tends to get people fleeing liberal strong holds because there old town was too liberal, and blue collar men willing to work the oil fields. MD and VA got flooded with gov workers during this same time frame. (I don’t have the same kind of numbers like I did with NC or care enough to track them down). NC got liberals looking for work, mostly from NYC, who wanted to change the area, make it like the yankee shit hole they left. Or old, retired yankees. Either way, big liberals. I’ve lived in MD, VA, NC and Texas off and on from 1980 until now and have seen the difference in transplants and how it’s worked out.

  30. Urbanization seems to be a better explanation for the South Atlantic’s tilt to the Democrats than other factors like the number of transplants, immigrants, non-whites and real estate prices.

    If I’m correctly understanding Wikipedia’s article about Charlotte, North Carolina, that city is “the second largest financial center by assets” in the U.S.–second to New York. Its rise as a financial center seems to have been triggered by one Hugh McColl, a banker who was born in 1935 and appears to have a solid Southern pedigree. A New York Times article linked at Wikipedia’s entry for McColl gives one the impression he’s a run-of-the-mill liberal.

    I don’t know what any of that means, but I’m struck by Palmetto Patriot’s remark, above, that Charlotte is “a city that seems almost completely non-Southern.” What does Southern mean at this point?

  31. We need a fence on the border, all right.

    Running along the southern bank of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, that’s where.
    Yankee go home!

    Deo Vindice

  32. “Southerners vote R because, inter alia, they’re hip-deep in niggers and that’s what white people do when they’re hip-deep in niggers; they move to the right. When all Whites are hip-deep in niggers and mestizos, they’ll all move to the right.”

    Right on the mark, Svigor. Too bad the Republican party knows it can completely take these folks for granted and pander to the negroes and mexicans instead.

    “What does Southern mean at this point?”
    Pro-white.

    Deo Vindice

  33. “What does Southern mean at this point?”

    Pro-white.

    Okay, Apuleius–let’s use that definition. At a website called Familypedia, I just found a biography of Duncan Donald McColl, great-grandfather of Hugh McColl. Duncan Donald was born in 1842 in Richmond County, North Carolina, and, at age sixteen, moved to Bennettsville, South Carolina, where his great-grandson Hugh was (eventually) born. The elder McColl fought in the Civil War, with Company A of First North Carolina Artillery. That sounds pretty Southern to me.

    Of Duncan Donald’s great-grandson Hugh, the 2000 New York Times article I mentioned says the following:

    “His willingness to pursue his civil rights and urban renewal goals nationally has helped earn him recognition as Bill Clinton’s favorite banker. One minute, Mr. McColl is thundering that Wall Street is undervaluing his bank’s stock …. The next, he is cooing about his company’s widely admired record of seeking diversity. (Emphasis added)

    “Mr. McColl has had Mr. Clinton’s ear since they met in 1992.

    “And the future president was happy to find a banker committed to financing inner-city and minority-owned businesses.”

    “… Mr. McColl, who grew up in the small town of Bennettsville, S.C., was offended when he returned home after training with blacks in [Marine] boot camp to hear friends using racial epithets.”

    It sounds as if Hugh McColl, scion of a proud family of the Carolinas, is what our friend Stonelifter would call a Yankee city fag; whereas 313Chris and I, being pro-white, might be, by your definition, your fellow Southrons.

  34. JohnB, the correct term for such creatures is “scalawag.”

    He is to Southerners what Quislings were to Norwegians.
    Remember who Dante placed in the lowest circle of Hell?

    Deo Vindice

  35. @Palmetto Patriot:

    “Before SC goes Democratic, Georgia will. And Texas is close. Only 45% of Texas is White. As soon as those young Mexicans reach voting age, it’s a done deal.”

    Not necessarily.

    I have never understood why Democrats and Republicans, in particular, pander to Mexicans. The majority of them are some degrees of Euro with a large amount of Meso-Amerind blood in them and they are mostly apolitical unless there is a Mestizo candidate running and only then do they get off their asses and vote for him. They are NOT anti-Castro Cubans (majority or all Euro with trace admixtures of something else). It is a big mistake to assume that the Hispanics are all some monolithic bloc who will vote in tandem with each other. They all dislike and envy each other and there is an established pecking order that the lower castes resent but still try hard to ascend.

    Education is not a priority with most of them or their parents. Most of their turf wars are with the Negros, because they seek out the working class niche and try to take it over. Because Mexico and Latin America are not necessarily about racial purity (our one-drop rule) but advancing up the color continuum. The lighter-skinned and more Euro in appearance a Hispanic child looks the better s/he is treated by them. I wish any Whites whose anti-White programming by Marxist doctrinaires could visit a majority Mexican group and just observe the color continuum in action. Light-skinned Euro-ish Mestizos just exude the kind of White pride and caste confidence that you don’t see in pure-blooded White Americans anymore. That is why they rarely try to purge their neighborhoods of Whites, because the goal is to absorb them through intermarriage. It is called “mejorando la raza” (improving the race). That is why even the most loud-mouthed of La Raza Clowns go for White spouses. I have heard them talk about how they all want children with “colored eyes.”

    Unlike Negros, Hispanics think of themselves as White, by varying degrees. It was thanks to the stupidity of the Republicans who screwed up big time by creating a Hispanic category for Democrats to shower them with special preferences and other minority that the La Raza and La MecHa bullshit started up. Even then, no one bristles harder than a Mestizo if you talk about them being a RACE. Even the most “La Razaiest” ones of them will bristle indignantly and correct you. They are an ETHNICITY, not a RACE. They want to convey to you that they are a WHITE ethnicity, FYI.

    That is why there was Deafening Silence from them when George Zimmerman, an obvious Mestizo or Peruvian MesoAmerind was referred to by the Anti-White media as a “White Hispanic” after they realized that he didn’t fit the blond haired-blue eyed Germanic Nazi protype they were trying to sell to the public after the Trayvon Martin shooting.

    Texas has been infiltrated by YKW Marxism via the press and the Universities, but the rank and file White Texan suffers very little White Guilt and is very proud of the Texas heritage. Texas also is a “right to work” state whose welfare benefits leave a lot to be desired. Whenever and wherever Whites show racial confidence, the Mestizos trend White (because they like to think of themselves, by varying degrees, as White). That is why Texas, though majority Mestizo, trends White Republican in voting. Those Mestizos who trend White, vote Republican. Those who don’t trend White, don’t bother voting the majority of time.

  36. JohnB, the correct term for such creatures is “scalawag.”

    Thank you for that information, Apuleius. I encountered that term (and “carpetbagger”) in elementary school, of course, when my classmates and I were being taught about the Civil War, but not until this exchange that you and I have just had did I grasp its meaning.

    I wonder how much of North Carolina’s influx of liberal Northerners is a result, broadly-defined, of Mr. McColl’s business activity.

  37. @jeppo:

    “All 9 Transappalachian states in the South are listed as Solid Romney. But in the South Atlantic states, two are listed as the weaker Likely Romney, three as Toss Ups, and two as Solid Obama. I keep telling y’all that the Appalachian Mountains are becoming the new political fault line in the South. Now can somebody please explain to me why?”

    Easy. There is a perfect convergence of factors that make White Guilt non-existent up there.

    The early American ancestors of a lot of the White Appalachians were slaves themselves. I’m talking lifelong servitude. Slaves in the traditional sense of the word. Many of them were kidnapped from Ireland, Scotland, and Great Britain, shipped to the New World under the most dehumanizing conditions imaginable and sold. Many slave owners forced their Irish female slaves to submit to rape by Negro males to breed Mulattos. Oprah Winfrey was shocked to discover that one of them was an ancestor of hers. The remainder were indentured servants who might as well have been lifelong servants, because it was rare for any of them to survive their term of service. They were treated nowhere near as well as Negro slaves. The best analogy is how people will abuse the hell out of a Ford Fusion they RENT, but they will baby the BMW or Lexus they OWN until the bitter end.

    Once they were freed, it was rare to never for any Appalachian freedmen to buy Negro slaves. For one thing they were too damned por. For another thing, I’m assuming their kidnapping to and forced term of service on the plantations left such a nasty taste in their mouths that many of them fled westward as far and fast as they could into mountainous turf that they could more easily defend. because it was harder for their enemies to reach.

    The Transappalachian states tend to be underdeveloped, because so much work and money would have to expended to make them accessible to outside commerce. I suspect the Appalachian folk like it that way. Stonelifter, I have an Appalachian cousin, Becky, by marriage. She is from the mountainous region bordering Ohio and Kentucky. In valley parlance, she was called a “briar hopper.” I used to go with her when she visited her family when I was a child. What you Southron Appalachian folk think of as “Damn Yankees,” the Northern Appalachian (NA) folk used to refer to as “flatlanders.” If you ever find a movie where the hill folk are talking about flatlanders, chances are you are watching something about your Northern Appalachian cousins.

    The flatlander in these movies is usually portrayed as some slick, fast-talking, urban, metropolitan East Coast type. Vaguely Semitic or Mediterranean-looking. That was their version of the carpetbagger. Though it is rare to hear the NAs call anyone a “flatlander” (at least to their faces), they exude the same, wary, stand-offish, slightly cynical attitude shown in these movies.

    Where Great Society or “Hope and Change” politicians are concerned, the NAs regard them as Flatlanders on Steroids. About every twenty years, White Libtards armed with cameras venture up the mountains and are shocked – shocked, I tell ya – to discover there are desperately poor White people. I suspect this is usually done to convince better off White people that there are actually White people who will benefit from the more ambitious welfare programs being promoted.

    In spite of huge welfare budgets being passed, the next visit to poor Appalachians by White Libtards reveals that there has been no change. Same old shanties and horrible living conditions. Of course, all these new projects have sprung up in Negro ghettos and Mestizo barrios in large urban areas in the meantime. So, you pretty much understand why the poor Appalachians tend to be stand-offish, because they know they are being used for other than the purposes implied by flatland politicians.

    In any case, part of the result of all this White Libtard nonsense is that the Marxist assholes see no way they can sell the concept of White Skin Privilege to poverty-stricken Appalachians, so they tend to leave them alone and I think the Appalachians prefer it that way. (Make me wonder if they trash their own neighborhoods upon getting a heads up that the camera crews are coming their way, LOL?)

    In any case, those factors are why I think the Trans-Appalachian states are immune to a lot of the bullshit that their more affluent counterparts in the valleys would be vulnerable to. It is easier to make someone who has been blessed with abundance feel guilty over it. That’s why the children of the wealthy and the upper middle class were targeted in the colleges by the Marxists.

    JMO.

Comments are closed.