Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What's Wrong With TPM?
I really do hate to bite the hand that feeds me - or at least, the hand that lets me mouth off for free - but what's wrong with the item "What's Wrong with Kentucky?" by Josh Marshall? Vast oversimplification and, I believe, a continuing and dangerous impulse to paint all-things-that-don't-go-Obama's-way as "racism."
OK, let's get these out of the way first - this isn't an attempt to support the Clinton campaign. I still think Obama's going to win the nomination eventually, and I plan on supporting him in the fall.
And this is not an attempt to pretend that there is no racism out there, particularly when it comes to issues some have brought up in regards to the Obama campaign.
But...let's start with this item's lead, a link to a New Yorker blogger who lifted up the sheets of the Bluegrass State and found some crackers in the bed. My goodness - there are white folks in the South who still won't vote for a black candidate? Do tell. As always, anecdotal evidence about backward Southerners, particularly when purveyed by New York journalists, is always a thrill, and a sure fire way to ensure the continued good will of everyone south of the Mason Dixon.
Next up - a Republican congressman uses a racial slur. Again, fetch me my salts. Now how that relates to what white Democrats in Kentucky think or feel I'm not sure, but there it is for good measure.
And now for the kicker - what is billed as the statistical proof of the anecdotal theory, that rural white Democrats in Kentucky won't vote for Obama because he's black - Hillary comes closer to beating McCain (but still loses) in a hypothetical match-up, while Obama loses to McCain by a margin of 2-1. Says Josh: "I don't know any state where either Democrat runs that much better than the other. And I think the conclusion that race is the primary factor in the difference is inescapable."
Now let's unpack that, shall we? The only way Hillary could possibly do so much better than Obama is because of racism. Not, you see, because Kentucky Democrats could POSSIBLY favor Clinton by so wide a margin for any other reason - it must be race. Of course, the only way to get the actual statistical evidence for this thesis would be to conduct exit polling with sodium pentathol injections. But even if a statistically significant number of Kentucky Democratic voters would vote for Clinton but not Obama (SOLELY, mind you) based on race, what's the answer - to paint all of the others with this overly-broad brush of racism? Look, there is no doubt that some white Southern voters would vote for Clinton but not Obama based solely on the issue of his race - but there are plenty of others who would vote the same way for a host of other reasons.
My point is, given that the race phenomenon must be true for some voters, what good do these overgeneralizations do? Do we think the racist voters (who are undoubtedly glued to TPM and New Yorker blogs) will be shamed into changing their evil ways? Do we think the non-racist southern Clinton voter would look at this and say,"wow, I'd better vote for Obama lest these cunning New Yorkers suspect me falsely of racism"?
The original thesis referenced in this item's title is that some white, rural voters have displayed a tendency to be swayed by the GOP's "social issues" (not just race, but that's certainly one huge factor) in recent elections, rather than vote their pocketbooks with Democrats.
Given that, I think it might be more productive for Democrats this year to emphasize those pocketbook issues rather than casting "racist" aspersions at anyone who doesn't support Obama right of the gate. The more important issue will be voters who will never support a Democrat for president no matter who he or she is, and it will take all of us-everywhere-to overcome that and win in November.
Comments (23)
I'm guessing that if a Democrat were to come up with a free dental plan, Kentuckians would be all smiles!
May 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
dws, this is all wrong. You're supposed to write about how TPM is completely idiotic and biased and that you plan to find some other news source. This shrewd, coherent, well put-together critique is altogether unpleasant to read, and I would not recommend it to any right-thinking reader who appreciates mindless rants.
May 1, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Kentucky isn't racist?
See, when Obama said that people don't want to talk about race and all that entails, he wasn't kidding.
May 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
O dear.
You're so right.
and this is why - This is so what the Republicans want - a race war.
I can't believe people fall for this shit.
It's a factor, but goddamn it, it's a factor in every stinking election and I'm sick of this stupid meme about the racial divide and the race sink? Whatever that was.
Talk about over simplifying a very complex issue that could very well wait, Josh. And the rest of you who want to over analyze the damn thing before it even begins. Can we get a Democrat nominated before we start tearing him down, please? Maybe even until he's elected?
I do not understand why the blogs are in such an all-fired hurry to turn into the MSM but going mainstream always does things to a medium.
May 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dialogue is explosive in this framework - because this is a conflict right now - Obama vs. Hillary; Obama vs. McCain.
So race is explosive and I wish people wouldn't want to exploit the whole situation when it could wait until after the election when all kinds of analysis can and will be done for fucking years, dudes.
Please let up - it's playing into the Republicans whole race war drama they are setting up.
May 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your frustration but I don't think we should fall into the trap of not discussing things just because we think that discussing those topics constitutes playing into the Republican's hands. Let's not second guess ourselves so much. If you want to discuss something, then discuss it. I know we all have an interest in a Democratic president and that most of us want that president to be Obama but none of the TPM sites are campaign sites. The staff and the commenters aren't expected to be "on message" at all times.
Trust that if the Republicans want to get an idea out there against our nominee during the general that what we've said about it here won't matter. They'll just email Joe Klein or Chriss Matthews.
May 2, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I very much doubt that you are. From reading the main page TPM for several years, I get the impression that Josh Marshall very much enjoys challenges to his thinking of this quality via eamil and sometimes quotes the best ones.
(I always found myself wishing that we could see more of those "best emails" and read a little interactive discussion between the main page posters and their best feedback. Matter of fact, I first came to TPMCafe as a user under the impression that that was what it was going to be used for! Silly me! We still don't get to see the best interactions, they are still kept private, and the forum software is utilized for the masses to happily enjoy churning out whatever their heart desires and form their own in-groups where they then jeer or cheer within group.)
Please continue posting, and others of your ability, please consider doing the same rather than putting it in an email to Josh. This is the kind of stuff the blogosphere needs, quality challenges in public to the main bloggers' thought.
P.S. For those that didn't catch the paraphrase in dws' title, its a play on "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.
May 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
art, I wrote a post that is in part a reaction to your comment:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/better-reader-posts.php
May 1, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well 20+% of voters defecting to McCain over Obama doesn't smack of racism just like there wasn't anything racist about Michael Richards saying "n!gger" a dozen times. It must be nice to be blissfully ignorant.
May 1, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point...it is so hard for me to understand why there is always so much outrage when a White person is accused of racism, yet there is no outrage when racism occurs.
I think that is why race relations will be very hard to improve in this country...people aren't interested in solving racism, only in making sure that nobody ever gets called a racist.
May 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
O please.
Spare me that.
I don't think all white people are only interested in not being called racists. That's very insulting to this white person.
May 1, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly Tena.....
Word as you would put it!
psst...to those of you who subtely claiming the people are voting for Obama because they dont want to appear racist and you are a Dem....I dont think you truly understand how offensive that is to both white and black people!
May 2, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your conclusion is fair and that you're right to question Josh's extrapolation here. However, you're also apparently readily to acknowledge that race is a factor without any evidence. I am, too, but I think you might be missing the mark with consideration for the target audience. I don't think Josh is trying to appeal to racists in Kentucky. I think he's trying to make the case to people who read TPM that still deny that it is a factor.
Of course, you're right that the real challenge is convincing people who are averse to voting for any Democrat to change, but as you've pointed out those people aren't reading this site.
May 1, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've spent some time in Kentucky (or did some time in Kentucky, in the spirit of a previous thread), and so I find this very careful tiptoeing about, in either direction, absolutely hilarious. As Tracy Morgan said, "I have a theory about this: America is a racist country. The end."
May 1, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there's that approach.
May 1, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with that quote, but change it to, "America is a prejudice country. The end."
I think that far more people have preconceived notions about all kinds of groups, but don't necessarily hate them. They more likely fear them or don't understand them, which leads to misunderstanding.
So, while the numbers may scream racism, it may be that the "black guy" is simply an unknown quantity for certain white voters, where the white chick who was married to a "good president" is something they understand.
I prefer to be as charitable as I can when describing motivations. Otherwise, life in this country would be way too depressing.
May 2, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh did miss one important possibility in concluding that the KY poll results were a result of race issues. Here's an alternative hypothesis:
Clinton does better than Obama in running against McCain there because KY voter see the contest as being between two essentially Republican candidates.
May 2, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
May 2, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually not bothered by all the attempts by Obama supporters and by the Obama campaign to paint those who don't support him as racists. I believe the more they do that, the more they hurt Obama. And since Obama himself played the race card in S. Carolina over Hillary's remarks about LBJ, and since Obama's comments about his grandmother, I think he deserves the damage.
May 2, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please,
First we know there are many many white people who support Obama. In much of the north, and west he did perfectly fine among white. Even if he loses 60-40 to Clinton, 40% is still a solid block, and no reason for concern (you have to realize there is a very strong gender component to that imbalance) There are plenty of perfectly logical explanations for that. Some demographic, many not. So what.
The question is why Obama does so poorly among Appalachian white voters, or more strictly Applachian white democrats? I think their voting preferences are more similar to whites in SE Ohio, central PA, SW Virginia, and parts of WVa than they are to whites in Wisconsin, or Vermont, or Washington State, and on and on...
Are white Appalachians more likely to vote against Obama because of race? Is racism more prevalent there?
If you think there is some other explanation in this part of the country, you should spit it out.
May 2, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorance answers that, I'd say. Being less widely read, some folks feel a kind of unease, a feeling of unexplained foreignness, about Obama. Weird name, white-sounding voice in apparently black face, too strange for them.
This kind of person is hard to call racist, since they don't actively discriminate against, or verbally denigrate, blacks. But they can't think of black Americans as normal, capable people.
May 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we are batting around the race issue, does anyone know how come black voters support Obama overwhelmingly?
Is it Hillary's hair? The way she dances? Is it her policies?
OOh, not the "R" word!
May 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you think there is some other explanation in this part of the country, you should spit it out."
Hock- pthhoowie! Here you go:
White Appalachians (and other lower-income, less educated white voters) don't spend an enormous amount of time doing political research - I will bet you dollars to donuts that until maybe last December at best they had never even heard of Barack Obama, much less knew what he stood for. They go into a voting booth and see random guy vs. Clinton - hey, that names sounds familiar...
Econ, econ, econ - there is actually very little difference between Clinton's and Obama's macroeconomic plans, but even the most enthusiastic supporter of Obama has to admit that Clinton has run away with this issue. Not fair, I know, but she is portrayed in the press as the one who focuses on the economic problems of "people like me" - the press these people see and hear (Fox and USA Today), not incisive, thoughtful political blogs (ahem)
Did I mention my name is Clinton and I was first lady of Arkansas, where my husband is from? Sen. Clinton of New York is about as southern as a cranberry bog - but she has southern roots and has been playing them for all their worth.
Those are just a few -
May 2, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment