Decision ‘08

Race and the 2008 Election: Part One

In a later post, I will put down my own thoughts on the role of race in this campaign, but in this post, I just want to highlight a few pieces published in the wake of the West Virginia stomping last night (while agreeing with the vast majority that the result was essentially meaningless in and of itself).

Josh Marshall says it’s not white states that Obama has trouble in, but Appalachian ones(!):

There’s been a lot of talk in this campaign about Barack Obama’s problem with working class white voters or rural voters. But these claims are both inaccurate because they are incomplete. You can look at states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states and see the different numbers and they are all explained by one basic fact. Obama’s problem isn’t with white working class voters or rural voters. It’s Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he’s getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky.

If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.

Well, I want to see more data before I take Marshall’s assertion at face value, but exit polls showed race certainly WAS a big factor in West Virginia:

Racially motivated voting ran somewhat higher than elsewhere: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. Just 31 percent of those voters said they’d support Obama against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question’s been asked.

Indeed, as noted, among all West Virginia primary voters, only 49 percent said they would support Obama vs. McCain, far fewer than elsewhere and one of many signs of antipathy toward Obama in the state.

Ruben Navarratte, Jr., strikes a more demagogic tone in seeing perhaps too large a role for racism:

…[S]ome white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they’re not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they’re insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many, to borrow a phrase, “hardworking white Americans,” in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.

That’s understandable. There are places in this country where white Americans are still raised to think of black Americans as inferior. And then comes someone like Obama who has performed off the charts — from Harvard Law School to the U.S. Senate and now, possibly, on to the White House. It’s going to take some time to get used to all that, especially for people who never thought they’d see the day that an African-American would be elected president.

But understand this: They had better hurry up. That day may soon be here.

Patrick Healey of the New York Times sees more troubling racial trends in that aforementioned exit poll data:

The voter surveys showing a strong racial component to the West Virginia voting suggest that Mr. Obama would still face pockets of significant Democratic resistance if he does become the party’s first black nominee. While he has argued that he could broaden the Democratic base in the fall, given his popularity with independents and his strong showing in traditionally Republican states like Colorado and Virginia, the Clinton camp has pointed to his modest support from white voters and blue-collar workers as weak links in his coalition.

Obama supporters accused Mrs. Clinton of playing the race card last week when she explicitly said that she had more support among “white Americans” than he did. Yet however blunt she may have been, white and financially struggling voters in West Virginia — and in Kentucky, which votes next week and which Mr. Obama has all but conceded to Mrs. Clinton — have become a major force keeping her in the presidential race at this late stage.

Meanwhile, Gary Langer of ABC News highlights economic status as well as race:

The anticipated outcome of today’s contest in West Virginia is prompting a fresh review of Barack Obama’s difficulties winning support from working-class white voters in this year’s Democratic primaries. One question: The extent to which it does or doesn’t predict problems for Obama if he’s the party’s nominee in November.

The effect, which we started reporting back in February, has been clear in the primaries: Whites who don’t have a college degree have voted for Hillary Clinton by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, while those who’ve gone through college have divided evenly, 48-47 percent.

It seems that the effect stems in part from the thematic positioning of the two, with Clinton’s more nuts-and-bolts approach better attuned to the working class, Obama’s inspirational pitch for a new politics resounding better among more upscale Democrats. Obama’s been helped by the fact that better-educated voters are disproportionately likely to turn out – especially in primaries.

But primaries only tell us so much about general elections. In our latest ABC/Post poll, testing each of the Democrats against John McCain, there’s a shortfall among less-educated whites for both: McCain leads Obama by 12 points in this group, Clinton by 8.

Obama, with his upscale appeal, does better among better-educated whites: McCain’s just +3 vs. Obama, compared with McCain’s 12-point advantage against Clinton among college-educated whites. That accounts for Obama’s better showing against McCain overall, 51-44 percent in our poll, vs. 49-46 percent in a Clinton-McCain matchup.
                         Obama  McCain    Clinton  McCain
    Whites, no college     40%    52        44%     52   
    Whites, college grads  47     50        42      54
There are other potential impacts of race and socioeconomic status. As we noted in our poll analysis yesterday, 17 percent of less-educated whites say they’re at least somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of an African-American president; among better-educated whites that declines to 4 percent.

That’s no more than a quick snapshot of reaction to last night’s results - and I’ve completely ignored the mountains of pieces from other points in the campaign. My purpose here was just to show a few prevailing examples of the ideas floating around, from the dogmatic (a vote against Obama means you’re a racist) to the regional (it’s a hillbilly thing, to vastly simplify and perhaps unfairly characterize Josh Marshall’s argument) to the socioeconomic (it’s the economy, stupid, not the pigmentation).

In another day or two, I will bring up my own views on some of these issues…but I think one thing is clear: race WILL play a significant role in this election (how could it not?), but not necessarily a decisive one…

4 Responses to “Race and the 2008 Election: Part One”

1 Fargus Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Your only nod to the rest of Marshall’s piece is to say that your characterization is “perhaps” unfair?

You treat it as though he only said what you quoted, and had no data to back it up. That’s more than “perhaps” unfair. It’s borderline dishonest.
2 Chris J. Breisch Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
On another note, Edwards’ endorsement of Obama shakes things up. The math now works in Obama’s favor to pick up the necessary delegates by next week, if we assume that most of Edwards’ pledged delegates will now come out in support of Obama. This is true no matter what happens with FL and MI. Edwards’ endorsement of Obama is essentially meaningless, except in the fact that he has just enough delegates to push Obama over the top.

So, finally:
Odds:
Obama secures Dem nomination next week: 7/10 (new entry–up from near 0, though)
Obama secures Dem nomination by June 3: 9/10 (new entry)
Obama is Dem nominee: 49/50 (up from 9/10)
Dem nominee decided on first ballot: 19/20 (up from 1/2)
Obama wins White House: 2/5 (up from 1/3)

Hillary’s only shot has been to take the battle to the convention. If Obama secures nomination before the convention, or even can claim he has, she’s toast. She now has lost that shot too, unless she can come up with (or Obama gives her) a miracle to get the superdelegates to change their mind, or at least waver in their support of Obama.
3 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Well, Fargus, I think it’s clear my tongue was somewhat in cheek…I may occasionally be sanctimonious and humorless, but never on purpose - in other words, lighten up! I put a link in, so anyone who’s interested can read Marshall’s piece and judge for themselves…his theory, while interesting, is not sufficiently detailed to be proven true, in my opinion…but your mileage may vary…
4 willie covington Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Sen. Clinton has brought out the real person in many whites in America. awhen a person of her caliber plaqys the race card, what should we expect of the average white American. Race has always been a factor in America, and I think it is showing just where Sen. Clinton is at when she brings up RACE in order to keep the BLACK guy from getting the vote. The REAL Clinton has come out!!