Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama & Appalachian "Racism"
I no longer intend to weigh in on the "contest" aspects of Obama/Clinton. I have made my position clear on that (it is settled), and I won't recant.
I do reserve the right to come in here on occasion and try to answer any particularly egregious distortions that fall my way. One such case is the idea gaining support in here that Obama was beaten in West Virginia PRIMARILY because he is black, and was therefore done-in by "racists": Lazy, junk thinking
Like almost any analytical point that can be made in these socio-political matters, this is partly true. The same is undeniably the case (in more or less degree) anywhere that voters of ANY race gather anywhere in the country. How does one explain Obama's 90+% margin with black voters? "Issues"? It's equally true that this greatly over-simplifies things on all sides, and leaves out a lot more pertinent information than it includes.
Such as (in Sen. Clinton's case):
(1)Sen. Obama hasn't TRIED. To a greater degree than most, politics in these areas is highly PERSONAL. You'll get a lot further by getting in on the ground and demonstrating the type of everyday MAN you are, than by relying on TV ads, position-papers, or endorsements. People in West Virginia have to hear from YOU.
(2)LOYALTY is a stronger force in this region than in most other places. People in these often-disadvantaged areas remember Bill Clinton, and retain the good sense to think highly of him. He delivered, by simply helping them a little with some of their most pressing problems, and giving the impression that he genuinely understood them and cared about them. Much of what troubles more sophisticated types about the Clinton "brand" doesn't make much of a dent in the hill regions: Highly sophisticated in their own elemental way, people there have long ago lost any exalted, elevated ideas about "politicians", as about pretty much everything else in life. You get it done, or you don't. When you do, they don't forget.
Given more time,I could go on . I hope I've introduced just enough reality to serve as an antidote to the cartoons I see portrayed in here: Urban stereotypical pop-psychology, poorly disguised as genuine insight.
If you would really like to understand what goes on there (or anywhere else), GO there. Live there. Talk to actual people. Quit staring at your TV set or your computer screen, and get OUT there and see something - ANYWHERE.
That's how you get real knowledge of real life to help you make practical judgements.
Comments (13)
I think you make several valid points. Racism was a significant factor (as I believe you're acknowledging), but it most definitely wasn't the only factor, and quite possibly wasn't even the strongest factor. You're absolutely right in that he could've tried harder (especially assuming winning WV was the only concern), and loyalty is no doubt a factor here.
May 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racism wasn't a significant factor - the polls in West Virginia said that for two out of ten voters, race was a factor, overwhelmingly the greatest factor was the economy.
May 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're assuming that people are being honest about their own racism. 2 out of 10 admitted that race was a factor. Neither one of us knows for how many it actually was a factor.
Also, I'd consider even 2 out of 10 to be significant. In the sciences, 1 out of 20 (5%) is the usual cut off for (statistical) significance, although we sometimes consider even 1% to be significant.
As I mentioned, whether or not it's the dominant factor depends on how much you believe that the other 8 out of 10 are being honest about their racism or lack thereof. I'm definitely not asserting that it is the dominant factor, by the way, and I'm not being insincere when I agree with one_wilson (and you) that other factors were definitely significant as well.
May 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, weren't you telling the other day that exit polls were valid?
May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Quite the contrary—I agreed with you emphatically when you said that the number of people admitting to racism was no doubt lower than the actual number of racists.
I'm not sure how you got anything different from what I said.
May 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming nothing, for all anyone knows the 2 out 10 were not being honest and race played no factor in their choice. I told you what the polls said. The polls also said that for men gender was a factor by 7 out of 10. The real problem in reading these polls is the way they cite the numbers - for example 2 out of 10 voters said that race was a factor and out of that group, something like 80% of them voted for Clinton. Now 2 out of 10, isn't in my opinion, a significant factor, and 80% of that number is also not a significant demographic.
Gender as a factor played both ways - women who saw gender as a sig. factor tended to vote for for Clinton at a 1 - 6. For men who cited gender as a factor, they tended to vote for Obama in greater numbers.
The more significant numbers were the 2/3 of voters who cited the economy as the most significant issue - they overwhelmingly voted for Clinton.
I do find that the contempt and disdain for Appalachians is a significant factor in my opinion of some of the posters here. I've never found racism and sexism to be any more rampant than in urban areas and sometimes less so.
May 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the disdain for WV has been unpleasant, but you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "significant". (It almost sounds like something has to be dominant for it to be significant by your definition.)
May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
2 out of 10 isn't significant Ben, and it isn't dominant either.
May 14, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, do you have a link to these exit polls? I've seen these numbers thrown around, and believe them to be true (in the sense of this was what was said, whether or not it reflects the voters' true feelings), but I'd like to be able to dig in an do a little analysis of my own.
May 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Charlotte Observer has good polling information.
May 14, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, Bev, set disdain aside -- why do you think that Applachian voters have failed to support Obama in the way that voters in, let's say, Maine have? Though inexact, there are parallels that can be drawn between the these states, and I really do wonder how you would explain the vast difference in the voting results. I don't ask this simply to put you on the spot. I wish I could figure out a way Obama could appeal to any and all the people that he's losing, and when it comes to the Appalachia vote, I quite honestly just can't -- other than to think Maureen Dowd's point about JFK having paid hard cash for WVa votes really might be the ticket. But I don't believe that would fly with Obama.
May 14, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it occurs to me that anytime Clinton wins a primary it's because the voters are racists, they're republicans trying to create chaos in the primaries or they're ignorant, stupid shit kicking blue collar morons who don't know any better. Could it possibly be that Clinton won in those states exactly for the reason voters have said they voted for her? They believe she can handle the economic crisis better than anyone else and that to the vast majority of these people the economy is the number one issue? Obama didn't campaign in West Virginia, he doesn't resonate with blue collar people and probably because he has presented any kind of policy that would appeal to them. He doesn't appear to understand their problems or empathize with them. When Clinton says to these people it's about jobs, jobs, jobs, she is telling them she gets it. (And I'm not making moral judgements I like both candidates and will vote for either one.) When she tells them that she understands their fears when they stand at that gas pump, she is letting them know that she gets it - she understands what is happening to them and wants to provide some relief for them even if it seems to be nothing to many people. They don't want some existential conversation about change, because these people know that nothing changes, that the powerful will always be powerful, that nothing ever changes in Washington and they want someone who will fight for them. Appalachians lead lives of grinding poverty day in and day out and have for generations, if any people are reality based it is them. Obama comes into West Virginia with his promise to support clean coal, and right away West Virginians know he's bullshitting them - there is no such thing as "clean coal" and they know that because they've been dying of black lung for generations besides which the coal mining companies have destroyed their mountains, their health and their hope for a future.
And I might add that Maureen Dowd is full of shit. She has no more insider knowledge of what Kennedy did than anyone else, there is no evidence that Kennedy "bought" those votes. Did you read that Dowd article with skepticism? She claims that her father's car was overturned in 1933 by West Virginians because of the Al Smith sign and Al Smith ran in 1928. She also claims that West Virginians wanted to fight her father because someone told them that Roosevelt was crippled - now does that really sound reasonable to you? Why in the hell would they want to fight someone because Roosevelt was crippled? But here you are quoting that moron as though she actually has some sort of political insight.
May 14, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To add to BevD's point, I think poor people have excruciatingly real needs that need to be addressed in real terms. Barack is not specific enough to override their understandable skepticism.
May 15, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment