Clearly, you are overly sensitive to someone pointing out that you are being illogical. You also seem to have some kind of Denial issue about the significance of race and gender in the US, even though there is ample science on the subject.

Anyway, for anyone interested in a nice discussion of the historical context:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/campaign-stops/make-america-great-again-for-the-people-it-was-great-for-already.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Certainly a valuable read for those who always bring up FDR– more evidence that he was far more like Hillary than like Bernie.

“Race and gender are the logical explanations for the pattern.” #46

No they aren’t. And, as I mentioned before, the only logical explanation for your “pattern” is an attempt to discredit Sanders by linking him to gender bias and racism.

There are obvious parallels between Sanders and Trump:

“ ‘By self-funding my campaign, I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!’ ” Donald Trump
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-americans-trump-betrayed-by-courting-big-money-donors/482025/

“ ‘The candidate is considered a political outsider by all the pundits. He’s tapping into the anger of the voters, delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have healthcare, he advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes, he’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies, and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process. And he’s not beholden to any super PAC. Who am I describing?’ ” Brzezinski asked.
Without missing a beat, Trump added that he is not beholden to any special interests or donors, before confidently asserting, “You’re describing Donald Trump.”
There was only one problem: she wasn’t. Instead, Brzezinski told the billionaire businessman that she was describing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic socialist.”
“He went on to say that he and Sanders agree that the U.S. is being ‘ripped off big league on trade.’ ”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/18/msnbc-anchor-asks-donald-trump-slick-trick-question-see-how-he-answers/

On a superficial level Trump and Sanders have a similar appeal. Both their candidacies are the result of a long economic process that has hurt many Americans. They are both insurgent candidates from outside the parties’ establishments, and some voters believe they’re almost interchangeable. They’re not, and the parties they’re attempting to represent are totally different. Racism has been a part of the Republican Party’s DNA since it launched its Southern strategy. The racists have left the Democratic Party. The social solutions promoted by the Republicans have likewise meant that gender bias coalesces there, and not in the Democratic Party.

One can oppose Clinton without being a racist or a proponent of gender bias, but there are valid reasons for not trusting her, and it is totally unnecessary to interpret protest votes against her as manifestations of racism and gender bias.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

Using your logic, Sanders’s losses can be interpreted in the following way: opposing Sanders because his campaign now seeks to overthrow a democratic electoral result, and because his political revolution is pie in the sky politics and he has nothing else to offer, is in reality nothing more than antisemitism.

I have no desire to continue this discussion.

You aren’t making sense. And for someone who likes to use the term “strawman”, you are addressing everything but my point.

It is obvious that there is “natural variation” in the voting, just like climate change– local factors have some effect. But that doesn’t change certain fundamentals, which are well studied and established.

There are no coal mines in New York State, but we observe exactly the same pattern I have described, when we look at the county level, and this is true all over the country. There are also independent studies about racial attitudes, again at that higher resolution, and the results are consistent with this effect.

So what are you arguing about? I have agreed there are policy-driven Sanders voters. How does that refute what I am saying about Sanders voters who aren’t policy driven?

And specifically about West Virginia– Barack Obama got 23% of the primary vote there in 2008. Are you saying that this was because of the Obama Administration coal policy, and the pace of economic recovery? Was there a time machine involved?

The quote doesn’t seem to be from the link provided.

“The OP was about Sanders voters not Trump voters.”

Correct, but the factors that have enabled Trump’s candidacy are to a certain extent the same as those that have enabled Sanders’s. They’re also factors that help explain why Obama became less popular after 2008, and why Clinton’s association with Obama hurts her among certain voters.

“Greg: “So why is Sanders beating Clinton in West Virginia.”
I answered and extended the analysis to Sanders votes in other historically Republican county level results.”

No, you cherry picked to get the answer you wanted and ignored all information that challenges your conclusion. These are the state’s results in presidential elections since 2000.

2000 Bush Gore
Popular vote
336,475
295,497
Percentage
51.9%
45.6%

2004 Bush Kerry
Popular vote
423,778
326,541
Percentage
56.1%
43.2%

2008 McCain Obama
Popular vote
397,466
303,857
Percentage
55.60%
42.51%

2012 Romney Obama
Popular vote
417,655
238,269
Percentage
62.30%
35.54%

The Republicans won each year, and Obama’s 2008 result is not appreciably worse than Kerry’s in 2004. It’s not very far behind Gore’s result in 2000. There’s a big change in 2012. Why? Is it because West Virginian voters suddenly became more racist than they were in 2008, or are there other factors, e.g. the drawn out economic crisis and the loss of coal mining jobs that better can explain this. Your only explanation is racism.

My reference does not agree with you:

“The West Virginia politics experts who spoke to ThinkProgress said the answer likely has less to do with widespread support for Sanders’ coal policies, and more to do with a symbolic rejection of the Obama administration’s coal policies. Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.
…Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals. But there is evidence to support the theory that many West Virginians cast protest votes, and that those votes benefited Sanders in the end.”

One has to be willfully blind not to see the passage about “the Obama administration’s energy agenda,” and extremely obtuse not to understand that coal mining communities feel threatened by it. One also has to be extremely obtuse not to realize how disastrous a blunder it was for Clinton to declare, “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Re. Obamacare, the state you’re thinking of is Kentucky, another coal mining state.

“And, while I can’t think of which state the study was done in, it turns out that it is popular as long as it is called something else. Gosh, I wonder why that is.”

You don’t have to wonder any more.

“Perhaps you think you have a better understanding than LBJ, who grew up in that milieu?”

What did LBJ have to say about the social consequences of the Great Recession and the collapse of coal mining?

Why haven’t you acknowledged that reactionary men have no problem voting for reactionary women.

“Anyway, you have offered nothing to contradict my conclusion, which is that the votes for Sanders are not indicative of agreement with the policies and rhetoric of his campaign in those geographical areas I have characterized.”

Alas, you chose to leave out the following: “Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals.” To a greater extent this would be the case in red states outside the South, where the remaining Democrats really are Democrats.

Why do you consistently choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your one-sided argument? To be clear, you are not focusing on one cause among many. You are arguing that only one cause exists.

I recently found this, which addresses the problem head on with some specifics:

Pick apart their voting records for the years they shared legislative seats. 93% identical votes. Differing on some key issues: She votes Yes to end the debate and vote the Immigration Reform Bill, He votes No. Several times. Many times. She votes No to allowing funding levels for troops in hot spots be raised/lowered at legislative will, He votes Yes. She votes Yes for a fixed deadline to end engagement in armed conflict, He votes No. BUT on any of the issues which could have put her in the pocket of wall street, made her a shill for financial or foreign interests, their voting records are identical. Bernie, What have you got for us? A revolution? Some of us were 18 fifty years ago. We grew up.

One boomer leveraged his considerable fame and intellect to start a public charity. One of the goals is infrastructure and economic change in places like Africa. So, if Walter Rhett is mad at Hillary for not solving Africa’s considerable challenges during her term at State, consider that the Clinton Foundation enabled farmers in Malawi to plant 2,600,000 trees with the ability to capture 200,000 of CO2, a commodity which they can sell as carbon credits. Other farmers gained access to climate sensitive agronomy techniques, maize & soy production partnerships. More Africans (9.9 million) received access to aids drugs at prices negotiated by the foundation, in addition to clinics, training of local health workers and mothers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/opinion/bring-hillary-and-bernie-together.html#permid=18503575

Perhaps you just want to be hostile and argumentative, but if not, you seem to be confusing focus with ignoring complexity. You also seem not to understand the implications of your own reference.

The OP was about Sanders voters not Trump voters.

Greg: “So why is Sanders beating Clinton in West Virginia.”

I answered and extended the analysis to Sanders votes in other historically Republican county level results.

Your own reference agrees with me:

Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.

Well, the question is, why are they protesting?

If white women are dying at an alarming rate, you would think that Obamacare would be highly popular among the poor rural white demographic. And, while I can’t think of which state the study was done in, it turns out that it is popular as long as it is called something else. Gosh, I wonder why that is.

Actually, cosmicomics, it is you who are not dealing with the “complexity” of the psychology behind this cultural phenomenon. Perhaps you think you have a better understanding than LBJ, who grew up in that milieu? Or the serious scholars who have studied Authoritarian Personality? Being afraid of minorities and women gaining status at white male expense goes back to the founding of the USA; it didn’t happen suddenly 50 years ago.

Anyway, you have offered nothing to contradict my conclusion, which is that the votes for Sanders are not indicative of agreement with the policies and rhetoric of his campaign in those geographical areas I have characterized.

Getting back to the original subject, which everyone is trying to change (validating the reference I gave at 37)…

Yes, the majority appears to accept gay marriage, but it is still a potent motivator for a subset of the population, just like race and gender. That’s why the Repubs keep using it.

So, as to the original question about the voting pattern that has been described (which I pointed out is consistent beyond West Virginia at the county level):

Race and gender are the logical explanations for the pattern, secondarily guns and strategic voting. Traditionally conservative areas do not agree with the Euro-socialist rhetoric of the Sanders campaign; there is no “revolution”.

Although I can’t provide the same kind of supporting evidence I did above, my speculation is that as “soft” or unconscious racism, gender-role expectations, homophobia, and so on, have become less prevalent and acceptable in the general population, hard-core bigotry has become, well, more hard-core.

Voting for Sanders, in those areas and among that particular demographic, is part of lashing out against that change. Again, there is no (Euro-socialist) “revolution”.

Below are some of the factors in addition to racism that have to be taken into consideration. The first is the development of the economy and its effects on the lives of ordinary Americans:

“It is not enough to say that Trump is a purely racial phenomenon. Nor is it complete to argue that he is the perfectly predictable result of economic upheaval. Rather, in the last half-century, several events have pushed conservative white American middle-class men to conflate their majoritarian, economic, and cultural decline. Economic anxiety and racial resentment are not entirely separate things, but rather like buttresses in an arch, supporting each other in the creation of something larger—Donald Trump.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/donald-trump-and-the-twilight-of-white-america/482655/

“The economic forces driving this year’s nomination contests have been at work for decades. Why did the dam break now?
The share of the gross national product going to labor as opposed to the share going to capital fell from 68.8 percent in 1970 to 60.7 percent by 2013, according to Loukas Karabarbounis, an economics professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Even more devastating, the number of manufacturing jobs dropped by 36 percent, from 19.3 million in 1979 to 12.3 million in 2015, while the population increased by 43 percent, from 225 million to 321 million.
The postwar boom, when measured by the purchasing power of the average paycheck, continued into the early 1970s and then abruptly stopped …
In other words, the economic basis for voter anger has been building over forty years.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now.html

“ ‘McJob’ was in use at least as early as 1986, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which defines it as ‘An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.'[2] Lack of job security is common.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob

Economic problems have had a documented effect on health:

“White women have been dying prematurely at higher rates since the turn of this century, passing away in their 30s, 40s and 50s in a slow-motion crisis driven by decaying health in small-town America, according to an analysis of national health and mortality statistics by The Washington Post.
Among African Americans, Hispanics and even the oldest white Americans, death rates have continued to fall. But for white women in what should be the prime of their lives, death rates have spiked upward. In one of the hardest-hit groups — rural white women in their late 40s — the death rate has risen by 30 percent.
The Post’s analysis, which builds on academic research published last year, shows a clear divide in the health of urban and rural Americans, with the gap widening most dramatically among whites…
White men are also dying in midlife at unexpectedly high rates. But the most extreme changes in mortality have occurred among white women, who are far more likely than their grandmothers to be smokers, suffer from obesity or drink themselves to death…
The Post last month found a correlation between places with high white death rates and support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-death-statistics-show-widening-urban-rural-health-gap/2016/04/09/0d8696ae-f2b6-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

Another factor behind the rise of Trump is the Republican delegitimization of government:
“But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what’s happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders.
Over many years, they’ve adopted strategies that have trivialized and delegitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right.
GOP leaders “tried to fan the flames of populist anger” — but ended up “undermining their own authority”
And add to that, they’ve delegitimized President Obama, but they’ve failed to succeed with any of the promises they’ve made to their rank and file voters, or Tea Party adherents.
…Trump clearly had a brilliant capacity to channel that discontent among Republican voters — to figure out the issues that’ll work, like immigration, and the ways in which populist anger and partisan tribalism can be exploited. So of course, to me, he became a logical contender.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-ornstein
There are local factors that apply to one or some states that don’t apply to others:
“Fifty-five percent of West Virginia’s Democratic voters with coal workers in their households voted for Sanders on Tuesday, while only 29 percent voted for Clinton.
So why did this happen? The West Virginia politics experts who spoke to ThinkProgress said the answer likely has less to do with widespread support for Sanders’ coal policies, and more to do with a symbolic rejection of the Obama administration’s coal policies. Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.
…Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals. But there is evidence to support the theory that many West Virginians cast protest votes, and that those votes benefited Sanders in the end.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3777329/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-coal-country-west-virginia/

Unlike most states, West Virginia has a significant number of Republicans who can’t vote in the Republican primary because they’re registered as Democrats:

“Sanders also benefited from support among Democratic primary voters who said they would favor Trump over Clinton or Sanders in a general election. Roughly 1 in 3 primary voters said they would back Trump in the general election over Clinton, and Sanders won two-thirds of their votes.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/early-w-va-numbers-show-4-in-10-sanders-backers-prefer-trump-over-clinton-and-trump-over-sanders/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

Clearly, the present situation in the U.S. is the result of a multiplicity of factors, and focusing on only one of those while ignoring all the others is an example of motivated reasoning and very poor analytical skills.