Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The race is still about race
I can't help but see in the exit polls what amounts to the voting public's different attitudes toward race. It's hard to write about this without generalizations, but of course exit polls already generalize by creating the categories so let's see what they say:
Both the older and less educated voters casting their ballots with Clinton and younger and more educated voters casting their ballots for Obama gives me the sense that race is a big part of this primary.
Because the policy differences are not large enough to explain this difference, my feeling is that older voters are more likely to vote for people who look like them as they grew up in more intolerant times and have fewer associations with people of different backgrounds. The same can be said of education. College campuses are our best source of interaction with people of different backgrounds. If you've gone to college you also have a higher probability of working at a place with a more diverse workforce and therefore an easier time identifying with someone who appears different.
I see this difference as proof of the strides we've made in the last few decades with race relations and the positive effects of an inclusive education system.
So even though this race is still about race, I'm inclined to conclude that the trend suggests that we're on the precipice of a new politics.
Comments (28)
Interesting. Senator Obama is pulling over 90% of the Black vote. There have to be many young, educated Black people in that 90%. Why are so many of them voting for Senator Obama if it's not because he is Black? I don't think youth and education is going to solve this problem. Your assumption that age, poverty and lack of education equate to racism is sheer speculation on your part.
March 4, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
About the 90% Black vote... A few weeks ago, I argued that much of the Black vote coalescing around Obama was triggered by the three weeks after Iowa, that the Clintons and their surrogates waged a very subtle racial attack on Obama. This included a marginalization by Clinton on the importances of Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights era. This was dramatized by that fact that she did it on the eve of his holiday. It's ugly to many Blacks, because they considered themselves loyal Clintonites and she rejected us.
Many Blacks cringe at the idea of being seen as monolithically voting for a candidate because he is Black. Historiacally, we do not vote that way. I feel just as she is trying to make this elections about race, she is also trying to pit women against men, women against women, Latinos against Blacks, and Christians against Muslims.
If any were any Blacks who did not get angered by her retro-racial strategy of January, not to worry, she was just getting started. Now she is darkening his skin in advertisements, sending out pictures of him in Somali attire and fueling doubt regarding his religion. Another point, there is a large African American Muslimm community that supported Clinton prior to this strategy. I'm not sure how the arab commmunity voted before, but I saw a poll two days ago which indicated that they are now voting like Blacks.
So, if you were a Black Clintonite, why would you remain one? If you were looking at Obama and were not sure, she made sure you took a second look even worse... threw you at him. Before all these shenanigans, most Blacks felt loyal to her and I suspect that she would have retained the loyalty of older Blacks over 50 and retained the block of older female Black voters. But she has made that impossible now. So, while I have to admit as much as I do not like it that there are Black pride voters out there, but I do not think they are in numbers as high as 80-90%. Hilary fueled the Black pride vote. I think unprovoked, Black voted would have voted like the female voters. Had this been a normal race, I think that number would have fluctuated like the female vote.
What she did to the Black vote and likely the Muslim vote is what the Republicans have done to the Hispanic and Black vote. She made it virtually impossible for them to elect her. Trust me, most Blacks re not loyal to democrats as republicans suggest. Blacks vote democrat because the dems did not attack us relentlessly like the Republicans and now Hilary. Come the general election, if Hilary wins, I suspect that many Blacks simply will not go out.
Ironically, had Clinton not done this, I believe she would have beat him. I still think she is going to beat him, but now, she has more people opposing her. Before just the Republicans and some independents were against her, but I truly believe that those of us who were not crazy about her, Blacks, and the anti-war voters would have preferred her to the Republicans. These disparate factions would have most likely ganged together to remove Mc Cain. But now I am hearing increasing numbers of democrats and independents say that will not vote for her and see her as bad as the Republicans. I think she is being perceived as willing to divide the party to win and in they end, I fear we all will likely loose.
I think are choices are going to be grim:
1. a Battered and compromised Obama who will no longer be able to inspire
2. A Clinton who has even more people opposing her than when the election begun
Meantime the Republicans will have time to unite, raise money, study Clinton's playbook and raise mc Cain's image among party moderates and independents.
March 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
TD -
Thank you for that cogent answer to the overly-simplistic analysis of the movement of the black electorate. I'm in complete agreement & have witnessed and experienced same.
Everyone seems to have erased all the years of black voters voting for white candidates - even when there were black candidates - symbolic or not @ all levels of government.
March 5, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
About the 90% Black vote... A few weeks ago, I argued that much of the Black vote coalescing around Obama was triggered by the three weeks after Iowa, that the Clintons and their surrogates waged a very subtle racial attack on Obama. This included a marginalization by Clinton on the importances of Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights era. This was dramatized by that fact that she did it on the eve of his holiday. It's ugly to many Blacks, because they considered themselves loyal Clintonites and she rejected us.
Many Blacks cringe at the idea of being seen as monolithically voting for a candidate because he is Black. Historiacally, we do not vote that way. I feel just as she is trying to make this elections about race, she is also trying to pit women against men, women against women, Latinos against Blacks, and Christians against Muslims.
If any were any Blacks who did not get angered by her retro-racial strategy of January, not to worry, she was just getting started. Now she is darkening his skin in advertisements, sending out pictures of him in Somali attire and fueling doubt regarding his religion. Another point, there is a large African American Muslimm community that supported Clinton prior to this strategy. I'm not sure how the arab commmunity voted before, but I saw a poll two days ago which indicated that they are now voting like Blacks.
So, if you were a Black Clintonite, why would you remain one? If you were looking at Obama and were not sure, she made sure you took a second look even worse... threw you at him. Before all these shenanigans, most Blacks felt loyal to her and I suspect that she would have retained the loyalty of older Blacks over 50 and retained the block of older female Black voters. But she has made that impossible now. So, while I have to admit as much as I do not like it that there are Black pride voters out there, but I do not think they are in numbers as high as 80-90%. Hilary fueled the Black pride vote. I think unprovoked, Black voted would have voted like the female voters. Had this been a normal race, I think that number would have fluctuated like the female vote.
What she did to the Black vote and likely the Muslim vote is what the Republicans have done to the Hispanic and Black vote. She made it virtually impossible for them to elect her. Trust me, most Blacks re not loyal to democrats as republicans suggest. Blacks vote democrat because the dems did not attack us relentlessly like the Republicans and now Hilary. Come the general election, if Hilary wins, I suspect that many Blacks simply will not go out.
Ironically, had Clinton not done this, I believe she would have beat him. I still think she is going to beat him, but now, she has more people opposing her. Before just the Republicans and some independents were against her, but I truly believe that those of us who were not crazy about her, Blacks, and the anti-war voters would have preferred her to the Republicans. These disparate factions would have most likely ganged together to remove Mc Cain. But now I am hearing increasing numbers of democrats and independents say that will not vote for her and see her as bad as the Republicans. I think she is being perceived as willing to divide the party to win and in they end, I fear we all will likely loose.
I think are choices are going to be grim:
1. a Battered and compromised Obama who will no longer be able to inspire
2. A Clinton who has even more people opposing her than when the election begun
Meantime the Republicans will have time to unite, raise money, study Clinton's playbook and raise mc Cain's image among party moderates and independents.
So, you are right, this race has become about race, gender and religion
March 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying exactly that: people vote with the person who looks like them to a large degree. The fact is age, poverty and lower education are all positively correlated with that. And because of this we have some hope that race will play a diminishing role in the future if we can alleviate the poverty and lack of education in our country. The trend is a positive one.
March 4, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying education and money hasn't kept young or old blacks from voting for a black man because he is black. Where is the progress there? Are they going to get less prejudiced as they grow older? Isn't that just the opposite of your premise? Obviously, whites of all ages have gotten beyond the race problem. When and how do you think blacks will catch up?
March 4, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
It's really hilarious to answer the argument consisting of "Obama gets young, educated vote" by insisting that young, educated blacks are voting for Obama only because he's black. Couldn't be "as well as", I guess. And since that is a small part of the Obama bloc why mention it? That is kind of suspicious.
Both my children grew up hearing me defending the Clintons, but they went to integrated schools and share their secrets with black friends. They are way past caring about Hillary, and are moved by the modernity of Obama, I think. That's why they voted for him.
March 5, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm a little puzzled, like Tom, by your line of reasoning there too (I'll hold off on the suspicion for now).
I GREATLY appreciate tdemorsella's contribution of insight and perspective to the discussion.
Along the same lines, I'd like to share my own anecdotal information for your consideration: I know a few African Americans who, early on, were planning to vote for Hillary before she made her MLK/LBJ statements post-Iowa. Even after that, there were still a few remaining who were angered by her statements, but were willing to forgive them as clumsy, low-grade, non-malicious racism (that so many well-intentioned white people, including myself, are sometimes guilty of) and vote for her...until Bill's comments in South Carolina.
Now, I understand there have been lots of arguments about what the Clintons' intent was in their statements; though since nobody can know what was in their hearts, it's difficult or impossible to PROVE what the motivation was. And when we look at the genuine anger and reaction that has resulted, it's not necessarily relevant to prove intent, anyway.
Here's what I believe is undeniable: There were a lot of African Americans who considered the Clintons allies, but became hurt and disillusioned when they heard this stuff coming from Hillary and Bill. (I distinguish this from what was said by spokespersons and supporters like Bob Johnson, Cuomo, Shaheen, etc. Those things didn't cut DEEPLY like the incidents involving Hillary and Bill themselves.) I think (imho) those incidents had a profound effect on African American votes. So it will perhaps be difficult to measure voting patterns in this race by just looking at age, education, race, and ethnicity because of the complicating factors contributed by those incidents.
March 5, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, whites of all ages have gotten beyond the race problem.
Having read this comment again, I am dumbfounded by how ridiculous this statement is. This is like saying that the wealthy have finally gotten beyond the poverty problem. Race was never a problem for white people, it was and is a problem because of white people.
The way it's phrased, it almost sounds like white people should be patted on the back for finally being less racist. Awesome.
March 5, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF -
I heart you - you cut straight through the BS.
March 5, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what we have to keep in mind is that this is the first time a black or female candidate have been in such a race. Blacks of all ages have voted for white candidates before, sometimes it's their only choice. I don't see this one election as evidence of racial prejudice on behalf of black voters or women voters. It makes sense that they vote the way they do because it's new and it's novel. The difference is this is the first time that white voters had a chance to pick a woman or a black man as the Democratic presidential candidate. Once black and women are similarly represented in elected office I think that age and education will still be similarly correlated with voting preference.
March 5, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You raise a good point. While I think Billy has correctly pointed out that education is not necessarily a mitigating factor in racial voting trends, his treatment is superficial. It seems to imply that black voters and simply voting black. This is overly simplistic. Consider the mortality and incarceration rates of black males compared to white males. If you're a black man living in America it might as well be a different country in this sense. To suggest that the motivation is purely racial and that black voters are failing to join up with the meritocracy when their interests haven't been properly represented is a little ridiculous. I'm not black, but I think that to suggest that this a simple matter of race doesn't really get at what's happening. It's the politics of self-interest.
March 5, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the first time a black candidate has run for president. How long exactly have you been following politics? How about Al Sharpton in 2004? Jesse Jackson ran twice, in 1984 and 1988. I understand your initial theroy that younger, more educated voters lean toward Obama. But the facts of the exit polls plainly show that it is in no way to the extent of blacks voting for him. I think it is unfair to say race plays a part just because Hillary tends to carry blue collar workers and the elderly. As I see your following of politics is relatively new, maybe those people remember the last time a Clinton was in the White House. Even though Bill Clinton was not perfect by far, he left with a 60% approval rating. He did make strides in balancing the budget, erasing our debt, having us on our way to securing social security for the future. I really wish people would just leave the racism out of these conversations. The simple fact is that if many people of other races were not voting for Obama, he would not be in the position he is right now.
March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
huangdeji said race and generational differences might account for the demographic split, not that it was only race. Lest you think it's not about race at all, see Billy Glad's comments.
Sharpton and Jackson were not serious candidates, but outliers like Gravel or Kucinich.
March 5, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was also Mosely-Braun and Chisolm. Hilary made us a monolithic vote. It amazes me how people do not factor in her actions into our voting pattern
March 5, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't vote for Mccain. They won't vote at all. Likewise with Latinos under 30. Latinos over 30...they go to Mccain.
March 5, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, Blacks are more apt to vote for Black and White candidates based upon issues rather than based upon race which you so mistakenly imply. But don't take my word for it. It's already well documented by history. Black people like to support a candidate who has the best chance of winning too and for a period of this campaign, Black voters were split almost evenly between Hillary and Barack until the Clintons started doing trickly little things with race. I think the term is race-baiting.
Those tricks started after her lost to Obama in Iowa (a white state)of all places. Hillary wanted to remind folks that hey, I'm the White person running against Obama the Black person and I need y'all with me. Black people being not as naive as you seem to imply, jumped off the Clinton bandwagon in droves.
To go a step farther, Hillary's strategy is to win the primaries with White and Latino voters, then close ranks with Black support in the general election. One more caveat. If Obama loses to Hillary because of dirty tricks instead of her running a campaign of integrity, Black voters will be McCain supporters in November.
March 5, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
your assertion that black voters are voting for Obama just because he's black and further that "whites of all ages have gotten beyond race" seems to me quite odd. A nasty bit of simplistic hyperbole that reflects a certain kind of privileged positionality, as well as either an ignorance or disavowal of both political history and electoral dynamics.
What you have done is to assume in what seems an entirely unreflective fashion, that all people share the prerogative of white men to assess their individual interests without a care for the well-being of the group. This makes sense because the status of white men, especially those of higher classes, has been historically quite high. The fact of existence on the earth as a white man of property has been a generally good indicator that one's life chances will be as free from systematic bias and discrimination as it is possible to be. If one inhabits this identity unreflectively i guess it's easy to assume a posture of post-racial colorblindness and to shout down those who seem preoccupied with the labels, legacies of discrimination, and the practical realities of overcoming that at least in part shape their daily lives and effect their overall life chances. Such is the luxury of being born into a group that does not face the current and empirical consequences of a legacy of legal oppression and political suppression.
It is only rational for voters of color, poor voters, women voters, immigrant voters, those whose sexual orientation is in danger of being judged and legislated about, to keep an eye on the well-being of the group in order to assess their own self-interest. They do not have the benefit of sitting on the porch of generations of inclusion while they call out others for not "catching up" with their oh-so-enlightened view of the nation and world as unencumbered by racism, sexism, homophobia or a pernicious brand of neo-conservative individualism that punishes and criminalizes the poor.
As other commentators have pointed out, there has never before been a case where black voters have voted in such numbers for a black candidate seeking national office. Further, at the beginning of this campaign, before Obama had made his case about the kind of politics that he champions and the kind of policies that he wants to build a coalition to implement, black voters showed no particular inclination to vote for him.
Could it be that Obama's message of overcoming the divisions of the past, unifying the nation and inspiring Americans to live up to the dream that has been and continues to be damaged by the very real impacts of multiple isms, is *especially persuasive* to black voters because of their place in the political history of this country? A political history which is, by the way, still very present in the life chances of African Americans who continue to be statistically disadvantaged on a whole host of indicators of well-being. Need I recite the littany?
Because it has become permissable among some commentators to suggest that black people, women, and other groups marked by histories of oppression that carry empirical water in their real day-to-day lives should simply get over it or as you say, "catch up," does not make the empirical reality of group disadvantage less relevant in the political calculus that black people or any other such group ought to use as a legitimate factor in their selection of their preferred candidate.
You will note that white women, especially women of a certain age who themselves fought (and are still fighting) for the political and social equality of the gender, make a similar kind of calculation in deciding whether to vote for Hillary or Barack. They quite reasonably ask themselves: How will my interests and the interests of people like me be served by the candidate? How will we continue to make strides in achieving access to the halls of power and parity with the groups who have always had a seat at the table? And, most of all, how will my vote contribute to the safety, strength and progress of this nation, the promise of which is still both ultimately motivating and yet unrealized?
It seems to me that voters who by their birth must live in a more complex world, than you as well as those who simply cultivate a more complex and worldly perspective that you seem to, are not only justified, but duty bound to ask themselves such questions. How else could America have come so far and accomplished so much? How else can we face the challenges that remain?
March 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your rejoinder is admirable, but don't expect Billy Glad to field a cogent argument. He's as doctrinaire as they come and by the time you've called him on his nonsense, he's already run far, far away. However, if you're lucky you can piss him off enough to earn yourself a pet name. I consider it a badge of honor. :)
March 5, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A - f'in - men!
March 5, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a Masters in Social Work, am 32 and will NEVER vote for Obama because he doesn't say anything real. He mouths platitudes.
And his wife cannot seem to open her mouth without sticking her foot in it!
I always vote, but not for him, I'm sick of having a candidate forced on me and refuse to drink the kool aid!
March 5, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh....okay.
I don't think anyone on this thread would want to try to force a candidate on you or "drink the kool aid". There's nothing like that on this thread.
The notion of race being irrelevant means you vote for whomever you prefer without feeling obligated to vote for the candidate you "identify with," based on gender, race, etc.
March 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The op is suggesting anyone who opposes Obama is old, uneducated and white. That is inflammatory to me.
March 5, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I said: I said that education and youthfulness tend to make people (not you specifically) less likely to vote with who they identify with. It makes the race of the candidate less important.
The correlation between education, earnings, and age can be explained in other ways. Smarter people vote for Obama, richer people vote for Obama, younger people vote for Obama. All would be true statements given the evidence. But why? I'm trying to figure out why, and I've offered my idea: that these things are correlated with ability to distance oneself from identity politics. If you disagree, that's your right. But then offer an argument based on the facts of what we see in the exit polling data. I would appreciate a useful dialogue. I'm not here to single people out and accuse anyone of anything.
March 5, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Domo origato Mr. Roboto!
March 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeu1FLulWCo&feature=related
This is all I have to show for Kool aid.
March 5, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have time to spend 5 minutes listening to some losers diatribes against Mrs. Clinton. If Obama heads the ticket Democrats will make history by losing, again.
March 5, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think race affinity is absolutely a huge factor for blacks (since we're using that term - I much prefer, "African American"). More so now than it was earlier on in the primaries.
Don't forget, early in the primaries, Obama was polling well below Hillary among blacks. Anecdotal remarks included blacks saying they were "suspicious of Obama", "he's not one of us", etc., along with the usual uncle tom stuff.
But along the way, Obama impressed everyone with his oratory and vision, and blacks quickly jumped of the Hillary bandwagon and onto Barack's as they became familiar with him. Pretty soon, it snowballed.
March 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment