Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSlate: Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020
The Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/2020-democratic-primary-white-candidates-trump-racism.amp
Before Barack Obamas election in 2008, the relationship between white racial views and partisanship wasnt as clear-cut as one might think. Yes, Republicans won the large majority of white voters who believed black disadvantage could be attributed to a lack of hard work or efforta key measure in the racial resentment scalebut a substantial minority of white voters was part of the Democratic coalition as well. But once Obama was in office, whitesand especially those with less formal educationbecame better able to connect racial issues to partisan politics, according to a recent book charting these changes to American politics.
Still, in his 2012 re-election race, Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didnt emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial viewsand white identitywerent as crucial to the outcome.
This changed in 2016. And the way it changed has important implications for the upcoming presidential electionand the Democratic race in particular.
In Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Michael Tesler provide a short but useful summary of what happened: In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. Peoples attitudes on these issues were then activated as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters preference for Clinton or Trump.
From the start, Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign of agitation and disdain toward immigrants, Muslims, and black Americans, and likewise, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign emphasizing tolerance and racial diversity. They were asking Americans to vote on the basis of national identity: Who should America be for? In response, white voters sorted themselves according to their racial views: If you held negative attitudes toward blacks and immigrants, believed racial inequality was a result of individual laziness or cultural pathology, or thought nonwhites threatened the economic advancement of whites, you were more likely to back Trump. If you believed the reverse, you were more likely to back Clinton. Account for education, and the result is the same.
The number of white Republicans with liberal racial views was low enough that there werent many defections. But the number of white Democrats with conservative racial views was significantand critically, those voters were clustered in key Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin, enough to give Trump his narrow but decisive advantage in the Electoral College...One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because theyll automatically win black voters, but because they wont have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the presidents racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced ... {T}heres a certain irony in the possibility that to get some Trump voters back into the Democratic fold, the party may have to choose another black messenger.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/2020-democratic-primary-white-candidates-trump-racism.amp
Before Barack Obamas election in 2008, the relationship between white racial views and partisanship wasnt as clear-cut as one might think. Yes, Republicans won the large majority of white voters who believed black disadvantage could be attributed to a lack of hard work or efforta key measure in the racial resentment scalebut a substantial minority of white voters was part of the Democratic coalition as well. But once Obama was in office, whitesand especially those with less formal educationbecame better able to connect racial issues to partisan politics, according to a recent book charting these changes to American politics.
Still, in his 2012 re-election race, Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didnt emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial viewsand white identitywerent as crucial to the outcome.
This changed in 2016. And the way it changed has important implications for the upcoming presidential electionand the Democratic race in particular.
In Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Michael Tesler provide a short but useful summary of what happened: In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. Peoples attitudes on these issues were then activated as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters preference for Clinton or Trump.
From the start, Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign of agitation and disdain toward immigrants, Muslims, and black Americans, and likewise, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign emphasizing tolerance and racial diversity. They were asking Americans to vote on the basis of national identity: Who should America be for? In response, white voters sorted themselves according to their racial views: If you held negative attitudes toward blacks and immigrants, believed racial inequality was a result of individual laziness or cultural pathology, or thought nonwhites threatened the economic advancement of whites, you were more likely to back Trump. If you believed the reverse, you were more likely to back Clinton. Account for education, and the result is the same.
The number of white Republicans with liberal racial views was low enough that there werent many defections. But the number of white Democrats with conservative racial views was significantand critically, those voters were clustered in key Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin, enough to give Trump his narrow but decisive advantage in the Electoral College...One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because theyll automatically win black voters, but because they wont have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the presidents racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced ... {T}heres a certain irony in the possibility that to get some Trump voters back into the Democratic fold, the party may have to choose another black messenger.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 563 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Slate: Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020 (Original Post)
EffieBlack
Dec 2018
OP
Turbineguy
(37,291 posts)1. We'd better choose carefully.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)2. HRC would have won, absent GOP cheating. eom
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,254 posts)3. ignores Russian amplification
The article ignores what we now know about the Russian operation to amplify everything that could be exploited to divide us. The blue tsunami carried into office the most diverse group ever. This happened in spite of continuous racist fear-mongering campaigning by Trump and the GOP leading up to the midterms.
Pelosi's plan worked -- don't run against Trump; run on what people need and want from government. It seems to me that plan is still good for 2019 and 2020. Ignore race, we all need health care, infrastructure, and a livable planet.