Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Short Note on the Math of Racism
If I could take a moment away from the very important Takeonfoxgate argument, I'd like to make a point about the Pennsylvania primary math Chris Wallace was waving around today.
WALLACE: There’s something else that we saw in Pennsylvania. And take a look at this. Whites backed Clinton 63 percent to 37, while blacks voted for you 90 percent to 10. And if anyone has any doubts, 12 percent of those whites admitted that race was a factor, and they went for Clinton by more than 3-1.
Senator, for all your efforts to run a post-racial campaign, isn’t there still a racial divide in this country that is going to make it very hard for you to get elected president?
Obama's answer was typical thoughtfully Obama-ish and typical candidate level stuff. Go look it up yourself if you can bear to go to the Fox site and check out the transcript.
I however, was struck, once again, by how the repeated invocation of this statistic reveals the essential innumeracy of the MSM. This is the same innumeracy that has allowed Hillary to convince them that her zombified campaign is, in fact, alive, not merely an undead brain-eating corpse.
Work with me here. Twelve percent of whites admitted that race was a factor in their vote. Three in four of those who said that voted for Hillary.
Three fourths of 12% = 8%
That's right, we're supposed to get our undies in a bunch and do the Chicken Little Dance because eight lousy percent of white Democratic voters in Pennsylvania admitted that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black man. This in a state that, based on demographic stereotyping, is bound to have a higher concentration of racist whites than just about any other state in the north.
Eight lousy percent? Damn, that's <i>good </i>news, not a disaster, and certainly not a reason to replace the delegate winner with a loser. If you poll any statistically relevant sample, you'll always find 5 - 10% who purport to believe things that are facially insane.
Now, is it possible that some of the 88% of whites who denied that race had anything to do with thier vote were lying? Sure it is. Do we have the slightest trace of data that allows us to quantify what percentage of them would be unable to vote for Obama in the fall because of his race beyond this 8%? Nope, not a whit. Zero, zilch, nada. All we've got are a lot of condescending assumptions about Pennsylvania whites from Beltway insiders.
That really doesn't sound like the kind of thing you nullify fifteen month long primary races over.
Comments (15)
Senator Clinton's point is that we need to select a candidate who can get the most votes in an election. And, the best way to determine who that would be is not to look at the results of an election, but to read the minds of the electorate, who naturally agree with Senator Clinton that they would more likely vote for her, even though 49% of them detest her, than would vote for Senator Obama, even though 65% of them view him favorably. Now, isn't that easy to understand?
April 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when you put it that way, it all seems so clear. The scales have fallen from my eyes. Why, why, I feel as if I'm waking from some kind of dream into the bright light of a new day.
April 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton would face a low black turnout in a general election. How does that support her argument for "most voters?"
April 27, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her argument is that "most white voters" = "electability". Because black voters don't count. Of course, inconveniently for Clinton's argument, we are actually allowed to vote, and our votes can swing both Dem primaries and national elections. But if she's nominated, black people mostly won't vote. So, you see, it makes sense not to count us.
Of course, white voters in SD, ID, WY, CO, WA, MN, WI, AK, KS, IL etc. love Obama. But they don't count, either.
Gotta love Hillarymath!
April 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Connecticut!
April 27, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but I thought black folks loved the Clintons. Surely you'll get over your little mad and rally behind her again if she succeeds in stealing the nomination away from him despite having lost the contest, won't you? I mean, she's doing it for your own good, you know, what's to be mad about?
April 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, inconveniently for Clinton's argument, we are actually allowed to vote, and our votes can swing both Dem primaries and national elections.
Of course, it its recent ruling on the Indiana Voter ID law, it seems that the SCOTUS seems to have its sights on the inconvenient fact that everybody is given the right to vote.
April 29, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My two cents.
Good piece of reporting. MSM can be so attrocious and insulting. I think there is more to be said about the 65%-35% ( ~ 2 to 1) split among all white women who made up 50% of the electorate or ~ 1.2 million. If they went 2 to 1 (acc to exit polls) for Hillary that is aproximately 360000 additional votes for Hillary. This, i believe, is mainly due to their interest in seeing a woman in the WH in their lifetime rather than them voting against Obama.
If you compare this to the 8% so called whites (80% of electorate in PA was white) who admitted they are voting based on race, this comes to ~ 150000 (0.08*0.8*2300000).
In Philly area Obama netted close of 140000 votes which tells me that his defeat in the PA primary was more due to gender bias than race. He could not make up the huge difference in white women votes.
This should not be too concerning to Obama for the GE as i cannot imagine someone voting democratic go republican (the heat of the primary makes people say stuff they don't really beilve) if they are true to their beliefs.
April 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I would add that Obama made a mistake in not giving "street or walking" money in Pa. This held down the black turnout by over a hundred thousand and possibly much more.
Even Obama needs a big turnout from the AA community. No one carries Pa. without the AA vote. Clinton, after this campaign, will never have that support again.
April 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually agree with you, Maria, but I gotta disagree here. Obama is offering a different kind of politics. Paying "walking around money" would be totally contrary to that message, and would be turned against him far more effectively than any other way in which he's attacked for failing to walk on water.
Besides, PA went 65% Democratic in November's GE -- substantially higher in Philly. AA and other voters will turn out for Obama in sufficient numbers in November, without having to get paid to do so. Of course, the Philly Dem machine will be working for him then, so who knows what dubious GOTV tactics they might be using. But he's right, both morally and politically, to refuse to bribe people to GOTV. The inevitable spin would be, "Black candidate bribes black voters to vote for him." Nah, I'm just as happy not hearing that.
April 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. As ever.
Two things. It is only 8%, but I don't think most people are going to admit that race matters, to begin with (even when it most certainly does).
The other thing: yes, those who said race mattered went more than 3 - 1 for Hillary, but (crazy as this sounds) shouldn't it have been even higher? Doesn't this mean that a small chunk of voters, white voters, went for Obama because of his race?
April 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it looks like about 4% of Pennsylvania's whites voted for him, at least in part, because he's black. I'm guessing that little slice, at least, is safe for him in the fall.
April 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This 8% business reminds me of local news coverage of KKK rallies. I used to live in Texas and every once in a while the skinheads or whoever would "converge" on city hall and protest the weather.
Local news would go bananas and you'd think we were under attack, until they showed the parade. Six dudes with flags and seven hundred people protesting against them. Do they report that the community is completly united against the haters, no, they only report the hate, tiny as it is.
Also, there's a pretty easy way to nullify that eight percent and that's to get young voters to the polls. Obama can do that better than anyone. PA has about twelve young people, therefore the numbers out of there are whack anyway.
April 27, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am shocked, I tell you! This is the first I have heard about the lack of young people in PA. Since "PA has about twelve young people, therefore the numbers out of there are whack anyway." I hope someone will give me their names and I will promise to telephone each of them personally to ask for their votes for the Democratic Candidate in November.
April 27, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually racism is alive, well and fairly widespread. You can see the results in society and look up the research yourself as you seem to have been too lazy to bulwark your own argument.
hoppycalif2 already summed it up as far as polls show.
April 29, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment