Sirota: "Events Prove Obama-Clinton Race Chasm Article...Correct!

[KoKo]

Events Prove Obama-Clinton Race Chasm Article Correct
by: David Sirota
Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 17:30

Earlier this week, I published this In These Times piece about what I called the Race Chasm, and how it relates to the Clinton campaign's strategy. I made some fairly bold assertions in the article, which some readers here at Open Left and elsewhere questioned (and by the way, I think questioning people's assertions are completely appropriate). So in the interest of fact-checking myself post facto, let's take a look at events of this week and whether they prove the major assertions of the article.
David Sirota :: Events Prove Obama-Clinton Race Chasm Article Correct
The Race Chasm - Still There?

The first assertion I made was that the Race Chasm does indeed exist, and that states whose populations are above 7 percent but below 17 percent black have been very difficult for Obama to win. Now, in a series of polls, we see that chasm again in advance of the upcoming primaries. Here's what I'm talking about, excerpting from Politicalwire and Bloomberg News:

SurveyUSA - Obama Not Competitive in Kentucky: A new SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky shows Sen. Hillary Clinton crushing Sen. Barack Obama, 58% to 29%, in the closed Democratic primary to be held on May 20.

PPP Poll - Obama Holds Huge Lead in North Carolina: The latest Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 54% to 36%.

Bloomberg News: Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region -- where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary -- suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Recall that Kentucky and Indiana is in the Race Chasm demographic (a new poll shows Clinton leading in Indiana, by the way), and North Carolina is outside the Race Chasm. The difference between Kentucky and North Carolina is especially striking considering their relative geographic proximity. That comparison alone suggests the Race Chasm is at work. More generally, these polls suggest that there's a solid chance the Race Chasm will continue affecting the primary campaign, especially with the Clinton campaign pushing the Jeremiah Wright story.

Race and "Electability" Arguments - Connected?

Let's just review what I wrote in my article on Monday:

Clinton has two reasons to try to highlight race and maximize the Race Chasm, both related to the second pillar of her firewall: the superdelegates...In trying to maximize the Race Chasm by focusing on race-tinged issues, Clinton is tacitly making an "electability" argument to superdelegates...Part of that "electability" argument hinges on portraying Obama as "unelectable"--and what better way to do that than stoke as many race-focused controversies as possible? It is a standard primary tactic: Launch a line of attack--in this case, the "Wright controversy"--and then claim the attack will be used by Republicans to defeat an opponent--in this case Obama--should he become the general election candidate.

This was no genius insight, of course. It's just an honest reading of what's going on. Yet some readers who emailed me took offense to this, saying that Clinton wouldn't meld the race issue into an "electability" argument with superdelegates. Yet, that is precisely what Clinton operative Harold Ickes said the Clinton campaign is now doing. In a story out on Tuesday - just a day after my article came out - TPM reported that Ickes acknowledged the race-tinged Wright "controversy" is "a key topic in discussions with uncommitted super-delegates over whether Obama is electable in a general election."

more at......
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E3F9ED7D817EEF2F5F1E860D00A60B0E?diaryId=4937

[Liberal Gramma]

1. Personally, I find this concept offensive

Because there are, admittedly, bigots in America, THEY should be the ones to select our candidate?
I think we are better than that, and I refuse to withdraw my support from an outstanding candidate because some racist won't vote for him.

[NC_Nurse]

2. I wholeheartedly agree.

[KoKo]

3. I didn't agree with everything Sirota said, either. But, thought some of it

was interesting for this election. :shrug: I guess we can take the interesting with what we don't agree with sometimes for discussion.

[jackson_dem]

4. Racism isn't why Obama loses whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans

Obama is odd. Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. all won across racial lines. Obama loses every racial group except his own. Fortunately for him, he gets 85-90% support from the one racial group he wins and that is enough (in a Democratic primary. The same performance won't cut it in the general election.) to make up for his roughly (low) 40 something with whites, 35ish with Latinos and Asians.

[AX10]

5. True.

[KoKo]

6. But, latest polls say that Repugs are signing up as Dems...so the enthusiasm over him

seems to be gaining Dems supporters. I worry that many are just coming over as "disruptors" and aren't true leaning Dems but those who are trying to "skew" the election. There's much to like about Obama...but then there's much to like about many Dem Candidates who have run in the past. Hillary's "baggage with Bill" and some of her personality things and the bias of the Media makes her have a rough time. But, I worry about negatives with both of them for the GE...Obama's charm after the Repug attack machine might not carry him.

I'm worried about this election. And that all those Repugs are "crossing over"...well I just don't trust them.

Who knows.....what's going to happen...it's all so crazy this cycle. Then there's the DRE Voting Machines to deal with in the GE.

[jackson_dem]

7. You shouldn't trust those ringers. Obama gets as much rethug support against McCain as Clinton

Polls show him getting 8%, Clinton 5%. That is not statistically significant due to the margin of error. To put that into perspective Clinton got 13% in 96', Gore got 8%, and Kerry 6% while Bush won 11% of Democrats both times. "Obamacons" are another Obama fairy tale. If they truly liked him he would be doing much better among rethugs against McCain, not the same as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry and worse than Bill Clinton.

[KoKo]

10. I wonder if an Obama/Richardson Campaign....could UNITE US...it's

kind of an interesting Ticket. I might think about this one...:shrug:

[papau]

8. True - but not something Obama supporters want to hear - but the GOP/media know this & wait for Nov

[anamandujano]

9. Too bad Wright got everyone riled up.

There are some racists no one can deny. Obama and his mentor will lose others because of who they are, which has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Depends on if it's most of America, or if it's "just a few bad apples".

"Good whites" unanimously maintain that it's the latter. It's not - which is the whole problem.

[Lucky 13]

11. Welp. Better vote for the white lady just to keep everybody comfortable.

:sarcasm:

[KoKo]

12. How would it go if Obama chose Richardson to be his running mate?

Richardson has Great Creds and he's a Diplomat, by nature. It's an incredible ticket as to the VOTER DRAW IN.

I don't think Obama would ever lose this Election if he chose Richardson for VP...It would truly be the ELECTION FOR THE FUTURE. :shrug: It would leave out many folks but "ENFRANCHISE" so many more who are "SICK" of Politics as usual.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. You Guys are ALL ignoring the gist of the article - point is - Obama only draws racist opposition in

States with a history of black-white racial oppression.

In states with no such history Obama draws overwhelming white support.

In states with lots of racism, where blacks are over 17% of the
population, black support drowns out racial backlash voters,
but only in the primary (NC).

The whole POINT is "backlash voters" in certain states,

AKA Reagan Democrats.

People whose existence -- and the wrongness of their anti-welfare,
anti-desegregation attitudes -- which are the only thing fueling
their ties to the GOP as they are not traditional conservatives --
we all refuse to acknowledge.

[knixphan]

16. yep.

[Willo]

15. These are the things I want to know

In the states where Obama has already campaigned AND where McCain is expected to do well:

1) How many are newly registered voters?
a) of that number how many registered as a democrat or republican?
b) what is the increase in newly registered democratic and republican voters compared to 2000 and 2004?
Would love these numbers and percentages by states and towns.

Just guide me where to look and I'll help find the data if someone is able to crunch it and report.

[TheDoorbellRang]

17. Guess he forgot about Illinois

So Obama doesn't win in states where the black population falls between 7-17%?

Illinos demographics: According to 2005 census, the racial distributions are as follows: 65.6% White American, 15.1% African-American, 3.9% are Asian, 2% other, and the remaining 13.2% are Hispanics or Latino of any race.

Illinois primary results: Obama 65% - Clinton 33%

Oh, that's because we know him here, I guess. Then again, maybe when the other states get to know him, they'll vote for him, too.

edited for spelling typos