Legal Commentary

So I'm staying at the Marriott in D.C. (like a lot of Prawfsblawg readers and writers), looking forward to interviewing some great candidates.  Anyway, we get the USA Today, and there's a fascinating county-by-county map relating to the 2008 presidential election in today's paper.   I can't get a link to it, unfortunately.  (It's on page 7A.)  But it's not about the counties Obama won and the counties McCain won (that's available here, if you want it).

It's about how Obama did in 2008 versus how Kerry did in 2004.  And it's fascinating.  Obama did generally better, of course.  In some states, Obama did dramatically better.  (In virtually every county in Indiana, for example, Obama did more-than-7% better than Kerry.) 

But in a few states, Obama did worse.  Substantially worse.  Obama gets significantly less votes than Kerry in Arizona (not hard to understand), but also in this weird swath of territory running from southeast Oklahoma, through Arkansas, through Tennessee, through southeastern Kentucky and southwest West Virginia.  Arkansas is the most pronounced.  In Arkansas, in the majority of counties, Obama got more-than-7% less in each county than Kerry did in 2004.  And in no county in Arkansas did Obama do better than Kerry.

There's probably an explanation I'm missing.  If there is, I have no doubt that the Prawfsblawg readership will alert me to it.  Could it be better v. worse-organized campaigns in particular states, or a decision by Obama not to spend money in these regions?  Other thoughts?