Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken
In American politics, there's a basic - and sad - rule of thumb: When a white person talks about a taboo subject, they are often considered courageous or a "truth-teller." When a black person talks about the same subject, they are attacked as "controversial" or worse. Draft-avoider Pat Buchanan, for instance, beats his chest as super-patriot and supposedly principled spokesperson for that horribly oppressed group: whitey, as he calls it. For this, Buchanan is rewarded with a regular slot as a Serious Political Analyst on cable news. Meanwhile, Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor and former Marine, is berated as anti-American for acknowleding the concept of blowback that our own government acknowledges.
This double-standard dynamic is why Barack Obama's speech on race was so courageous: He addressed a taboo subject - America's racial divide - knowing that black political leaders like him have typically faced harsh Establishment vitriol for doing so.
This divide is American politics' own version of Voldemort from the Harry Potter books - the thing whose name must not be spoken - and especially not by a black man, according to our political culture. That's especially true in the 2008 presidential campaign as the Clinton campaign continues to do everything it can to transform the election into a proxy war over race.
There should be no doubt that racism is a powerful force in America. As I noted in my most recent syndicated column, I don't agree with everything Wright has said - not in a heartbeat. However, the treatment of Wright has proven the reverend's fundamental underlying thesis that bigotry is alive and well.
As reporters and pundits blanket the airwaves with attacks on Wright's statements - many of those statements truisms - these same reporters and pundits categorically refuse to ask Hillary Clinton why she has chosen a virulent anti-semite, Billy Graham, as her spiritual adviser (Clinton continues to cite her close relationship with Graham - even attending an event with him - well after the Nixon tapes came out). Similarly, the media refuse to ask John McCain why he solicited the endorsement of John Hagee - a pastor who has repeatedly slandered Catholics, once calling their religion "a great whore." Apparently, confrontational statements by a black man are "controversial" but white extremism is perfectly acceptable.
Likewise, there should be no doubt that racism is a powerful force in the Democratic nominating contest. Just take a look at this graph from my In These Times article released this week. It is known as the Race Chasm:
For a full explanation of why these 33 states are on the graph, see the full In These Times piece. Though this graph does not prove that race is the only factor in the election, it does show a powerful trend: Namely, that Obama is winning very white states where black-white racial politics basically doesn't exist, and states with a large enough black population to offset a racially motivated white vote. The Race Chasm - states with more than 7 percent but less than 17 percent black populations - is where Clinton has won three quarters of her states - and that's no accident. These are states where black-white racial politics very much exist, but where the black vote is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. And that white vote is being motivated by the Clintons.
Whether it was Bill Clinton likening Obama to Jesse Jackson; Clinton aides deriding Obama as "the black candidate" to the Associated Press; Geraldine Ferraro stoking anti-affirmative action anger by linking Obama's success to his skin color; or Clinton surrogates deliberately reminding white audiences that Obama lived in the inner city, the Clinton campaign has been working overtime to hone a message aimed at stoking racial fears. The message boils down to one simple mantra: Barack Obama Is Black.
This race-charged message is clearly aimed straight at the Race Chasm - because the upcoming Pennsylvania, Indiana and Kentucky primaries are squarely in that chasm (and, not surprisingly, the evidence from upcoming states - here and here - suggest the Race Chasm could persist). This would explain why Hillary Clinton gave an interview to the fringe right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - the paper owned by the same billionaire who funded the anti-Clinton witchhunts of the 1990s. She used the interview to specifically attack Obama over the "controversy" surrounding Wright. It was a perfect venue to narrowcast such a race-tinged attack to conservative and racist groups in Western Pennsylvania.
But it goes even further than primaries. As TPM first reported, the Clinton campaign is now specifically using the racial argument as its message to convince superdelegates to overturn the results of the primaries, caucuses and popular vote.
So considering this political topography, Obama deserves real credit for addressing the issue head on, and in a way that is bound to make both sides uncomfortable. Beyond anything he said in the speech, he forced us to admit that race remains a major divide in American life. That sounds like such an obvious truism, but, as I said at the beginning, our political culture today is one that shuns even that obvious admission. The culture is one of "colorblind racism," as Duke University professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva told me in an interview - a racism emanating from white political and media elites that shrouds its bigotry in the bromides of outrage against racism itself.
That Obama tore the veneer off this colorblind racism and forced us to discuss it will be the most important legacy of his Philadelphia address - and perhaps his entire presidential campaign.
We see this in venues other than race.
For example, McCain and Bush can brag about being poor students and are considered "someone to have a beer with", yet Obama is somehow tainted by virtue of being an excellent student and teacher so that only "Starbucks effete" would associate with him.
Education is just sooo over-rated and unimportant when it comes to politics seems to be the meme.
April 2, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are there enough electoral votes combined from the states which are heavily black or heavily white to win in the GE?
April 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's not going to lose some states to John McCain just because he's "the black guy." He might have lost them to Clinton, but he's not going to lose them to McCain. I mean, I'm sorry, but the idea that CA and NY suddenly jump to the (R) column if Obama is the nominee is absolutely ridiculous. And in every analysis of electoral match-ups that I've seen (and I've seen quite a few), Obama is definitely leading Clinton.
I'm sorry for not posting specific links to electoral match-ups to support my assertion (I really hate the "you'll just have to take my word for it" approach). But I just tried that in another thread and the comment came back with a message that it is "awaiting moderation by the blog owner." I guess it seemed link-heavy and so potentially spammy, maybe? But when/if that comment gets posted, I will point you toward it so that you can follow those links for support of my argument. Obama does not need to worry about electoral votes any more than Clinton does. She has a much tougher map v. McCain - and, in all likelihood, a losing map.
April 3, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it can be done. See SurveyUSA's electoral college map as of 3/6 (based on Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain polls in all 50 states). They project Obama losing most of the states in the "race chasm" but making it up by winning a number of states that Hillary would not win.
Now granted, this was calculated before the Rev. Wright flap, so things may have moved since then, but there is still a clear map to victory without the traditional swing states. It's unfortunate this dynamic is in play, but it can be overcome.
April 3, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in any case, when Wright says that God will or should damn America, how does that differ except in tone and time from: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; [and] that His justice cannot sleep forever."
And even if you like to believe that these words of Jefferson (uttered while speaking on the subject of slavery) are hypocritical, that doesn't undo the comparison.
April 2, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen David. Talk about throwing a whole segment of the population under the bus for political gain. Looks like prior support of African Americans was just a facade pandering for votes.
"Bill Clinton did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky - he was ridin' dirty"
- Rev. Jeremiah Wright
April 2, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Penguins can fly!! I just saw it on BBC. Wow!!
April 2, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the Obama camp takes this as a cue to make the opposite argument to superdelegates:
See how many states Hillary wins if the party's biggest demographic bloc stays home because the party bowed to racist fears to coronate the loser of the primary race.
Hillary's argument is that there are some states where the racial demographics will make it hard for Obama to win. I wonder how many other states might be lost if a third of Democratic voters decide to not show up. I hope the superdelegates are wondering about this too, and if they aren't, I hope Obama's campaign gives them some food for thought.
April 3, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is the important question.
April 3, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I agree with this analysis in general. For one, Edwards pulled in 18% of the vote which is the 2nd highest percentage he received this election. So it seems as though that should be excluded if Iowa and New Hampshire are excluded as well.
There are also other perfectly sound reasons to see why a place like New Jersey voted for Hillary Clinton, she's a significant figure in New York City, where many of us New Jerseyans go to work every day. There are an awful lot of Clinton fans around here, and I would say that this area isn't much less of a "home turf" as NY is.
Places like Ohio and New Jersey and PA also (this is purely based on my own observation) have a tendency to favor establishment figures, while states like Vermont and Minnesota tend to favor insurgent style candidacies.
Certainly the racial dynamics are very important, but I think that it's relatively minor in the great scheme of things
After all, isn't it most telling that of the 33 states selected for this chart, Obama has only lost 8 of them?
April 3, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
While an interesting argument, your graph and argument suffers from a serious flaw that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned yet given how much attention this is getting.
Virtually all of the states you have listed on the right side of the graph (the "white" states) are mainly caucus states. I believe only VT and WI are primary states, and they are a lot lower on the graph. On the other hand, all the states in the middle of the graph except for NV (a heavily hispanic state that should have been excluded if AZ, CA, etc. are excluded) are primaries.
Unless you can explain the extent to which your race theory plays a role independent of the caucus/primary factor (the variation of which seems independent of race and more on other factors), then your graph is quite a bit less impressive than it looks. In other words, it shows that Obama does particularly well in caucuses (not news), and that as the black population in a state increases, Obama's share of the vote increases (also not news).
It does NOT necessarily show, however, that the white states vote for Obama because of a lack of racial issues in their politics. It may simply be that they hodl caucuses, in which Obama does particularly well. I do hope you address this concern, because I'm interested in the response.
April 3, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if we follow this logic, the breakdown for the remaining states will be:
Clinton: Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana
Obama: North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota
If we arbitrarily give the winner 55% and the loser 45% for the sake of argument, the delegate totals won in these primaries at the end of the primary season (minus Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico) are:
Clinton: Pennsylvania (87), Kentucky (28), Indiana (40), North Carolina (52), West Virginia (13), Oregon (23), Montana (7), South Dakota (7)
Obama: Pennsylvania (71), Kentucky (23), Indiana (32), North Carolina (63), West Virginia (15), Oregon (29), Montana (9), South Dakota (8)
This yields a net increase of 7 delegates for Clinton. And of course, the Obama campaign will make tremendous hay out of the fact that Obama wins 5 states to Clintons 3, giving him an even greater total in the "states won" stakes. Finally, if Obama has a crushing win in North Carolina similar to his South Carolina win, and keeps it close in Pennsylvania, the entire process could end up a complete wash.
This is the lazy man's version, of course; if one wanted to be more thorough, one could take the time to project the differences between Obama's average percentage wins vs. Clintons, and adjust the delegate count slightly. Or say "But Obama will win North Carolina by 65-35, and lose Pennsylvania by 52-48", or some such. But the other important consideration is to calculate the actual vote totals, i.e. what will be the result in the popular vote based on this model? I don't have the numbers for Democratic registered voters per state, so I can't calculate the figures, but maybe someone with more data and more time can provide them. Given how close to a wash the delegate count is going to be (with no caucuses), it seems that the popular vote count wouldn't shift much. According to this model, anyway.
This doesn't prove a damn thing, but if a predictive model is to be tested, the predictions must be made, eh?
April 3, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not seen a poll anywhere which showed a potential Obama victory in WV, he's behind at about 2-1 these days...
April 3, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Virginia throws this whole theory out the window. Obama won the white vote, the black vote and the Latino vote in a state which you could hardly say is a stranger to racial politics. It's also the same state that threw George Allen's sorry ass out of the Senate in 2006 because of a racist remark.
Let's try to remember that these are Democratic primaries. When the Clinton's play the race card, lots of Democrats of every stripe recoil.
April 3, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. people should look to Virginia as a bell-weather state here. when he becomes the nominee, there is a good chance that a lot of purple states will end up looking like Virginia. VA was already trending Dem for a while, but a strong Dem governor, along with Jim Webb in the Senate, lays strong groundwork there for whoever the candidate is. Virginia has urban, rurual and suburban, and they pretty much all banded together behind Obama. a lot of other states such as NM, CO, IA, Maryland, PA, will go for him. NH may go for him, Maine was surprisingly strong for him. He could take WA and OR, MT, SD, if he gets those states he could win without FL or OH.
April 3, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is nuts! Strum Thurman would not have bought this in 1948. Yes, Trent this is correct.
At least it was not dated 04-01-08!
For those who take any of this seriously, it reflects a poor understanding of regional variations of all types and the fabric of this county.
As it has been stated National Negro History Week was intended for white folks? It appears expanded it to a month and calling it Black History Month now makes it more prudent for black folks.
American History? That is different?
The Race Chasm? Yes, do continue to whistle Dixie!
April 3, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And that white vote is being motivated by the Clintons."
What a load. The white vote is motivated by 5oo years of racism in this country and the bottom line is that Obama can't win the general election. The only states he carries are the ones where no Democrat can carry in the fall, and he can't win in states that a Democratic candidate MUST win.
Sheesh... even a kindergartener could see the handwriting on the wall at this point. But don't try to point out the obvious to all the smug adolescent political neophytes on this blog. Their heads are so far up their butts that they'll still be blaming Hillary when Obama loses in November.
PS Billy Graham is not a 'virulent anti-semite'
April 3, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of how this plays out will depend on how nuclear Clinton wants to make things, and the signs are not good. knowing that its going to be Obama, there are sure few people in the Dem party who would be better at bringing the reconciliation message than the Clintons once the primary season is over. We could end up saddled with a significant chunk of good people who could go for Obama but who are alienated after Clinton's end. I dont think that will be the time to have petty arguments about it all, Obama's camp should just grab everyone they can, get them involved and invested right away in as seamless a manner as possible.
April 3, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to consider what people are REALLY not talking about, namely THAT HISPANICS WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. Here is a quote from Christopher Hitchens from his appearance on Joe Scarborough's show back on March 5th:
"HITCHENS: But so, the white working-class vote seems to be breaking in a different direction, at least in Ohio and parts of Texas, and that -- and that the open-but-nasty secret is that many, many Hispanic voters don't mind telling opinion pollsters they don't want a black president, or indeed mayor or police chief or senator, at any price. It's really a question of whether Mrs. Clinton wants to be represented as the candidate of that backlash. My opinion is she would do anything. She wouldn't mind running with George Wallace if it would get her the nomination."
I thought he said running AS George Wallace not running with him, but the point is clear. Play it out, why do you think Hillary is going for the working class, family vote? Why did John McCain get the nod? To me it's all about the Hispanic vote, even with the ugly truth, either side will take their votes. Prove me wrong.
April 3, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, looks like what they call ex post facto data snooping. It is more likely a total coincidence in my opinion. I'm sure the facts are correct. What you could do to recreate this "find" is take data from all states of any kind, and find how a strong correlation of some variable like say milk consumption per capita is, and find one from these states that is strong. Who knows, maybe they drink less or more milk in those states, or it comes from a single dairy...Then what, the forces of evil are adding an anti Obama ingredient? Too silly. This will get some play because enough people like this kind of stuff to be true, just like tarot card readings.
April 3, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. There are just too many variables to attach any cause and effect to this correlation. In addition to the many other factors others have cited, there is the simple fact that these votes have taken place over time, with many different dynamics in play.
April 3, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem with your analysis. If you were correct, and racial tension is the cause of high Clinton support in the states she won, then we would expect black support for Obama to be higher (or at least equal) in those states as well, no?
But in some of the states Clinton won, black support for Obama was actually much lower than the national average, suggesting that the cause of Clinton support in those states was actually common to blacks and whites.
Obama has 80% of the black vote overall in the primary, Clinton 17%. Here are the states you put in the "Race Chasm" in your graph which had exit polls taken on race, and black support for Clinton/Obama in those states:
MA: 29/66
CT: 24/74
MO: 15/84
OH: 11/89
NJ: 14/82
FL: 25/73
TN: 22/77
Note that only in MO and OH is black support for Obama substantially higher than average; moreover, in big Clinton wins like MA, CT, FL, TN (four of the 10 you list) Obama did substantially worse among blacks than his national average. This would seem to seriously undermine your thesis in regards to these Clinton victories; blacks and whites together supported Obama less in these states.
The other place to look is white exit polls in high black population states-they should be similar to those in the racial chasm if your argument is correct, and more pro-Obama than those states if state effects on blacks and whites are similar.
VA at least goes against your thesis, with 52% white support for Obama. MD and GA are both near national averages in white support for Obama, and thus have significantly less white support than the states she won in the "chasm." Admittedly, MS and SC support your point.
I would say that race likely played a big role in OH, MS, and SC, but a smaller role in CT, MA, RI, FL. It's an important aspect of Clinton's successes, but hardly as important as your chart suggests at first glance.
April 3, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this analysis is the magic numbers of 6% and 17%. What is the reason for each? What exactly is the cause of the precipitous drop and then gain? I don't buy your argument.
Instead, I would think that if there really were a "correlation," one would expect a straight-up positive correlation between Obama's win/loss margin versus percentage black population. This is clearly not the case. That brings me to another point. Why not plot on the x-axis the actual number for the black population? What does the pattern look like then?
April 3, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting theory. Have you examined the impact of turnout? What about obstacles to voting?
April 3, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
where is New Hampshire on this graph, all white and went for clinton?
April 3, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Sirota:
"...a racism emanating from white political and media elites that shrouds its bigotry in the bromides of outrage against racism itself."
Chris Matthews:
"...can Obama woo more regular voters -- you know, the ones who actually do know how to bowl...how's he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community..."
Carlton Ridenhour and William Drayton, Jr.:
"What we got to say
Power to the people no delay
To make everybody see
In order to fight the powers that be
(Don't believe the hype)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTi9UZtPbw
BTW, does anyone know what Chris Matthews' bowling average is? I heard he has to use a ladies ball...
April 3, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Sirota:
"...a racism emanating from white political and media elites that shrouds its bigotry in the bromides of outrage against racism itself."
Chris Matthews:
"...can Obama woo more regular voters -- you know, the ones who actually do know how to bowl...how's he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community..."
Carlton Ridenhour and William Drayton, Jr.:
"What we got to say
Power to the people no delay
To make everybody see
In order to fight the powers that be
(Don't believe the hype)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTi9UZtPbw
BTW, does anyone know what Chris Matthews' bowling average is? I heard he has to use a ladies ball...
April 3, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard the caucus argument a lot. Bill and Hill seem to be fixed on some evil inherent in the caucus system. Caucus's have been around a long time. Candidates who do best in caucuses are candidates who have been able identify their supporters. They have worked hard to ramp up enthusiasm. They have helped their supporters to the polls. Well organized ground oriented campaigns nearly always do well in caucus situations. Air warriors who rely on large donations to fund TV ads don't do as well. Obama is running a well organized campaign with a significant ground component. He isn't just dropping ads. Lots of his people are very enthusiastic.
What he has also done is focus on the exact caucuses where he needs to focus. He lost the popular votes in Nevada and Texas but won the delegate votes in both states by virtue of his organization's superior understanding of the local election map. His people simply out worked Team Hillary.
I suspect that many super delegates realize that if handled correctly Obama's ground organization could pay giant down ballot dividends for the party across the country. Regardless what Hillary and Bill say, Hillary's very poor showing in caucus states highlights a major Clinton weakness.
April 3, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis. In Missouri, Hillary's organization was full of party "regulars" who simply relied on normal GOTV using union organizatons and media advertising to turn out their voters. Obama's campaign created a new GOTV structure from scratch and based on volunteers for the initial organizing effort.
Obama could do this in a primary; in a general election with higher turnout, a professional approach is needed. It is simply the GOP GOTV efforts applied to a Democratic model. It relies on enthusiastic volunteers and a focused professional effort at the top.
It's a matter of how one spends money. In Missouri, it would have taken a lot more money to focus on rural/small town areas to persuade folks to Obama. Instead, it was more efficient and economical to have these efforts in the metropolitan areas--and, behold, these areas also have the state concentrations of minority group, particularly blacks. To see the rural/small town areas as necessities for a primary is simply not cost-effective--and the Missouri result certainly shows that Obama was right.
April 3, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Sirota is definitely onto something. But I think there is a more basic point: what percentage of the white majority population is "non-racist", that is, broadly tolerant? Various surveys suggest the percentage is anywhere from 20% to 40% of the population. Obama's genius is that he recognizes that the most important minority is not African-Americans, not Asians, not Latinos but rather non-racist whites. He is consistently getting more votes and caucus-goers from non-racist whites. This is true whether Iowa or Mississippi. Recast this way, it could be said that Barack Obama will become the first "minority US President". Ironically, the minority will have been non-racist, tolerant voters from among the majority white eligible population.
April 3, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who would have thought of this?
Non racist whites in Mississippi!
No more white citizen councils, and fewer private Christian schools? The Klan in pain?
Trent, where is your hair piece!
More less others than white non racist?
What has America become?
Genius, I tell you! Absolute Genius. Absolutely!
Welcome to America folks!
As earlier noted this whole post is nuts!
April 3, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like most bivariate analyses, this is terribly flawed. MA, which has a popular black governor, votes against Obama on race grounds? FL is included, when there was no campaign there?
A closer look at the voting by county shows that Obama is doing worst in the Appalachians, a region with very few black residents and thus by Sirota's reckoning fertile Obama soil.
A better analysis would use income, party affiliation, campaign spending, etc. in addition to race as independent variables, and counties as the units of analysis. If, after controlling for those, the 'race chasm' still exists, you have a good case. What's here is really amateur hour.
April 3, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks the Republicans are going to win New York and California is a complete moron.
April 3, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is more to this, even if the 'race chasm' is real. Clinton supporters tend to come from the Democratic base. She certainly doesn't seem to attract independents, to say nothing of cross-over Republicans. She was even doing well among black voters (definitely part of the Democratic base) before her campaign turned to racism.
It might well be that some of her supporters would rather vote for a white candidate than a black candidate. But in this case, after all, the two candidates are almost identical on the issues. That certainly won't be the case in the general election, will it? Do you really think that her supporters will vote for John McCain, rather than support a black man? I don't.
Race is a factor in this contest. Of course it is. But it is only one factor among many. It might be a more important factor in the nomination, just because there are no differences on important things like the issues (though there ARE differences on important things like character and judgment).
In the general election, on the other hand, issue differences will be stark. There are huge policy differences between Barack Obama and John McCain, so it's much more likely that race won't be the determining factor then, even if it might be - in some areas - now (and we don't even know that for sure).
April 3, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "modern" factor: There's another correlation, although one side of the correlation is difficult to quantify. The black-white ratio may be correlation without causation. A different screen would be the proportion of people with a modern mentality - using "modern" here to be what the skew towards youth in Obama's support and the elderly in Clinton's demonstrates.
The American population - particularly the younger end of it - tends towards mobility. There was a recent NY Times article about people who bilocate between Brooklyn and the East Bay (Oakland etc.). That's one current in a larger wash of people who fit roughly with Richard Florida's "creative economy" - who are not only comfortable with difference, but positively prefer it.
These are people who, although it would be hard to define a test for membership, you know when you meet. Wherever they live now, you won't be surprised to find they've also lived in San Francisco or Seattle or Burlington or Alaska or Athens, GA, or Madison or Brooklyn or Asheville or either Portland ... but you can be pretty damn sure they've never, as adults, chosen to live in Knoxville or Orlando or Columbus or Trenton.
Now, why would it happen that the states close to 10% black aren't particularly hip, forward-looking places, and thus not Obama's base? What else correlates? Those are the states which achieved that race ratio in the population migrations in the period after after World War II, largely based on job availability (except Florida, which is where that generation of course has retired to from those states). That's why these states aren't hip now; it's not their wave now, that economy has failed; the cool kids leave them after high school.
It overgeneralizes to take it as states - it's more specific areas, really.
April 3, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Sirota has made news with his recent In These Times piece about the “race chasm” in America. Sirota argues that Obama wins in states where race politics is not an issue, and that Clinton wins in states where it is an issue. Race politics exist in states in which the afrincan american population is between 7-17% of the population. In states with less than 7%, like Iowa, Obama wins ostensibly between he is perceived as voters as the most qualified candidate rather than as the “black” candidate. Similarly he wins states like Mississippi because the black population is large enough so as to offset the racial based voting among some disquieted whites. The Hillary camp exploits the race chasm in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana by reminding voters, not too subtly that Obama is black. Her campaign does this most explicitly by exploiting the Wright affair. For a moment, let me investigate the implication in Sirota’s piece that states with low black and high black populations have somehow transcended ugly race politics. Specifically, I wish to focus on such low black states. Consider Iowa for example. that a 2007 University of Iowa poll among likely 2008 primary voters found that 49% considered undocumented immigration to be a very important issue. Consider Iowa’s white population is about 94& and its foreign born population stands at about 4%, although it has doubled since 2000. Without claiming the statistics that Sirota presents in the impressive chart in ITT, I throw out there for your consideration the following argument: 1) Race politics is deep seated and deeply embedded in American culture; 2) it exists on both sides of Sirota’s chasm–low and high black population states– 3) it plays itself out differently in low and high black density states; 4) immigration is a race politics issue; 5) it becomes a scapegoat for racial politics in states that have lower density black populations. 5) In sum, immigration is the proxy issue for race in states with low black populations. The thing the Clinton campaign forgets is that the race hatred being fomented in chasm states may shake loose some Hillary votes in the upcoming primary states, but these voters will go to McCain anyway in the fall. Hillary’s sympathetic positions on immigration, I believe, would be sufficient to prevent Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Indiana’s “Reagan Dems” from ever voting for her in the general election.
cross listed at
http://koulflo.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/race-chasm-argument-must-consider-immigration/
April 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true! Starbucks-sippin' limousine liberals prefer Obama!
Look at the states (plus DC) with the highest per capital number of Starbucks stores:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph-t/lif_sta_sto_percap-lifestyle-starbucks-stores-per-capita
Of the top 12 states that have already held their primary or caucus, OBAMA WON TEN!!
And Clinton overwhelmingly won Arkansas, which is dead last on the list.
Of course, I'm sure some Obamatons will choose to ignore this PROOF!
April 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please. We effete, latte-sipping, Prius-driving, university-educated liberals do *not* hang out at Starbucks. Our coffee tastes run snootier than that. ;)
April 3, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish SOMEONE would TRY and tell me WHY Obama is even running ??? he is JUST a 1st term Senator, he has NOT Finsihsed one single term yet, so WHAT EXPERIENCE does he have ??? SOMEONE tell me ONE thing he has ever done since hes been in the Senate ? He claims to have ALWAYS been against the war in Iraq, YET he has voted FOR every Bill for it since he has been in the senate ! Doesn't look like voting against it to me...
April 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could just as easily make the argument the graph shows him winning states in which the large black population overrode the desire of the racist whites, and states in which there's not enough black population for the whites to know any better.
The point is, you can make a data mean whatever you want it to. At this point, it's way too early to guess. Check out the maps on www.electoral-vote.com to see how Obama and Clinton compare to McCain. Right now, its not looking good for either of them.
April 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find fascinating about this article is the assumption that white voters voting on racist lines are bad a thing (a sentiment with which I agree), while black voters voting along racist lines can't be criticized (a sentiment with which I don't). It presumes that all or most whites voting for Clinton merely because she's white are throwbacks to the era of segregation, but that blacks voting for Obama merely because he's black are doing the country a service. Huh?!?!?! This assumption is insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, and frankly strikes me as extraordinarily patronizing both to whites (who implicitly must be racists) and blacks (who implicitly must be too stupid to be able to vote on the issues so are therefore using race as a proxy). As Sen. Obama showed in his speech responding to the criticism of Rev. Wright, race and racism are rather more complex topics than that. Too bad Mr. Sirota chooses not to examine that complexity further . . .
April 3, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to see voting results which raise a lot of questions, look at the county results for Obama's home state of Illinois. Why would southern Illinois vote for Clinton? There's not big industry with lots of unions. To me, it is pure racism.
April 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why would southern Illinois vote for Clinton?" The assumption that any white person who votes for Clinton MUST be a racist is as racist as the assumptin that any black person who votes for Obama MUST be (reverse-)racist. Clearly, no one is voting on what they perceive to be the comparative merits of the candidates, merely on the color of their skin. *eyes roll*
April 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things:
First, why would a region of a candidate's own state prefer the other choice? What merit does Clinton offer people that's more specific to this region? I think there are questions about Obama's inability to lose counties within his own state.
Second, you don't know me. Do not call me racist. I made no claims about reverse-racism. I cannot see reasons for the choice of Clinton in Illinois other than the idea of the race chasm. A gold star to the first person to do the stats on Illinois counties and see how the results might fit into the theory of a chasm.
April 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll call anyone who makes a racist comment a racist. And the fact that YOU cannot see reasons other than racism for why someone might vote for Sen. Clinton is YOUR lack of intelligence or imagination, NOT anyone else's--Sen. Obama is NOT God, or Christ, or invincible, and there are quite a few reasons for people to vote for her as opposed to him, despite the screeching and whining among his acolytes.
The racism and blinkeredness of Sen. Obama's supporters is one of the biggest open secrets of this race, and it's also one of the main reasons I am deeply concerned that Sen. McCain is going to be the president next January.
But, of course, if one supports Sen. Clinton, one is per se a racist . . . *eyes roll some more*
April 3, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Obama's victories in red and purple states didn't have anything to do with the fact that he campaigned hard there. Clinton, who didn't have the money or the organizing chops to organize a 50-state effort, didn't. She win the states in which she didn't put herself out -- shocker. So she went with the Giuliani strategy and dismissed the states that "didn't matter".
April 3, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, commentary on substance aside, I have a very basic question for you regarding what you're trying to convey with your data presentation:
What *possible* reason could you have for connecting the dots representing states in the graph you present? They should be presented simply as points on a graph. Idaho has no more reason to be connected by a line to Vermont than it does to DC.
Presenting the data this way feeds the impression that you don't actually understand what it says. Consider revising your chart.
April 4, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a ridiculous column. "Talk about throwing a whole segment of the population under the bus for political gain," says one of the commenters, but that's exactly what zealots like yourself have done. From the first Hillary victory in New Hampshire on, there have been racialized attacks on Hillary, her supporters and the people who voted for her as "racist." Conveniently, just in time for South Carolina, where the black vote was shifting anyway, but hey, why not call the "white candidate" racist, despite what history shows? If it elects Obama, why bother? Why not accuse Hillary of planting that Kenyan picture... on Drudge's say-so?
Look, Obama's victory seems inevitable. Stop it with this jacobin whining about race. You REALLY want to split the Democrats? For what end? You want a third party, David? Fine. You go off and form one.
April 4, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a ridiculous column. "Talk about throwing a whole segment of the population under the bus for political gain," says one of the commenters, but that's exactly what zealots like yourself have done. From the first Hillary victory in New Hampshire on, there have been racialized attacks on Hillary, her supporters and the people who voted for her as "racist." Conveniently, just in time for South Carolina, where the black vote was shifting anyway, but hey, why not call the "white candidate" racist, despite what history shows? If it elects Obama, why bother? Why not accuse Hillary of planting that Kenyan picture... on Drudge's say-so?
Look, Obama's victory seems inevitable. Stop it with this jacobin whining about race. You REALLY want to split the Democrats? For what end? You want a third party, David? Fine. You go off and form one.
April 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink