Earlier this week Andrew Gelman suggested that it looks like Barack Obama's election had less to do with "realignment" then an overall tilt in the electorate, which just managed to "tip" a few borderline states. This is rather clear when you look at maps of the results from 2004 to 2008. But today Gelman reports data which suggests that the gains in 2008 were disproportionately in wealthier regions. This makes sense when you inspect the McCain Belt, those counties where Republicans actually did better in 2008 than they did in 2004.
I believe this can be explained by the fact that the regions that went for McCain are heavily populated by poor whites, who would in many cases rather starve, and let their children starve, than have a black man upstairs in the White House. When you're poor and white, you have to have someone to look down on, and that is almost always people of color. If the Democratic nominee had been white, those regions may well have voted for him/her. Appalachia and the Ozarks will never vote for any person of color, at least not in my lifetime. Arizona is easily explained, and may well turn much bluer in the next election.