Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

If by your math, Obama can't win, then by the same logic, neither can Hillary. What you don't seem to understand, Jim, is that if Hillary still gets the nomination under these circimstances, then Obama's constituency stays home and McCain still winds up as president. Without the black vote, she loses Michigan(no Detroit), Ohio(no Cleveland), Pennsylvania(no Philadelphia); without the youth vote and the high-earning independents she can't hope to carry Colorado, Virginia, or Arkansas. And how is it seemingly more of a "social experiment" if a black male is elected instead of a white female? The election of either one would be an earth-shattering achievement. And one more thing: McCain has his own weaknesses. It's not exactly a shoo-in for him, either.

Reply
Report this post

Hats off to Carl Rove and the conservative media they have found a way to win the coming presidential election. Democrats can change course and select a different candidate thus empower “Jim Crow”, loose the base, possibly cause riots in the streets or go forward to certain defeat. Again HATS OFF we are in the presence of greatness.

Reply
Report this post

Missing from all the discussions today on MSNBC was how Hillary has now completely now dissipated her and her husband's support within the black community, and acts as if her new "base" is the 'hardworking, white voter'. We African-Americans have, in a word, been "thrown under the bus". And in keeping with your point that America's blacks are still considered irrelevant by many white pundits, the conversation took the direction of all the handwringing that Obama is going to get "blown out" in WV and KY because the voters there aren't buying what he is selling. Lost in all this is another unfolding tragedy: that working-class whites may again allow themselves to be distracted by a meaningless, non-economic issue, as in 2004, when the enemies of the people were gays and Muslims. And one more thing: Don't think for a minute that Hillary's comments yesterday were at all coincidental. When placed in context with her previous comments and those of her husband's( in the run-up to South Carolina), and the non-apology for them, one has to think: Was she really willing to dump over the side the very constituency that, along with middle-aged white women, most helped to keep her husband in office in 1998? Apparently so. We African-Americans are used to being disregarded and ignored and patronized by white politicians until it comes to election time. Active racial pandering and hostility used to be the province of Republicans; now, sadly, it has been taken up by a Democrat. And Hillary seems to have largely been given a pass. I would like to see any of those pundits visit any black barber shop or hair salon anywhere in the country: There is a strong and powerful resentment in the air towards Hillary nowadays, even stronger than the oft-reported 'white resistance' to Obama. Few of us are going to miss her, regardless of what happens in November.

Reply
Report this post

Obama supporters are found of using arithmetic as reason for Clinton to drop out. OK. Lets use arithmetic to suppose Obama's chances of winning the general. Obama has won 90% of the African-American vote which is 38% of the Democratic party. Obama has taken has taken a third, approximately 20% of the remainder, which has given Obama the 55 to 56 % margin we have seen him maintain. Obama can look forward to gaining 90% of the Republican AA vote-- er, how many? And as for twenty percent of the remainder, they are Republicans, may not be as much. At this critical point, with all the best of hopes and dreams and good intentions, this is not the time for a social experiment. Dems we are looking at a 45 STATE drubbing.

Reply
Report this post

I think you are correct to suggest that race is playing a major role in this election but I think your conclusions are flawed. You attempt to draw attention to a "racially motivated white vote" which you claim is offset in certain states by the black vote, with the implication then being that this demographic is bias free. Using the example of South Carolina, a state in which this issue has been beaten half to death, it can be clearly shown that your premise is flawed. In this state blacks made up 55% of the vote and went overwhelming for Obama by about 80%. Among South Carolina whites Clinton and Edwards received between a third and 40% of the vote and Obama won about a quarter. Numbers were similar in other states and, if poster "jim" is correct with his statistics, apparently nationwide. This tells me that race is not a significant factor for white voters but is, in fact, THE factor for black voters. Even more interestingly, in the states that you label as the "Race Chasm," it appears that the Latino vote was in fact the decider. In places like Florida, California, New York and New Jersey the Latino vote was heavily in favor of Clinton and she ended up winning the state (although admittedly her record as New York Senator likely had an impact there). However, Obama won Illinois, which fits squarely into the "Race Chasm" as you define it. The Latino vote in Illinois was evenly split between Clinton and Obama. It appears that Obama's losses can be attributed more to opposition from Latinos than any ridiculously conceived "racially motivated white vote." It looks like you might owe white Americans an apology (specifically Buchanan and Lott, who probably do not appreciate being arbitrarily labeled as "racists").

Reply
Report this post

Jim missed the point. African-Americans will vote for every Democrat in a national election by 90-10 pecent, regardless, but the point I made is that Hillary screwed it up this time. She and her husband seemed hell-bent on alienating and angering us, and then acting if we don't matter. All of you remember one thing: Hillary had the black vote in the same proportions as the white vote and the Latino vote, and then Bill opened his stupid fat mouth. She had the chance to marginalize him, in the way such outsiders are pushed aside by insiders(think Hart vs. Mondale, 1984), but she messed up. She is not going to win the nomination precisely because she could not find a unifying Democratic message and because she assumed we are with him only because of race. We came to his side only when he was validated by one of those so-called "too-white" states. Before then, we believed he had no chance against Hillary. Remember, at that time, he "wasn't black enough". No one would dare accuse middle-aged white women of the same thing; it's a pride issue. They have every right to love and admire her; they are her contemporaries and have fought the same battles she has. All we ask is just equality of consideration, that we African-Americans be given the same space to be proud of the first viable black candiacy and not have it be ascribed to just race. Wanna see real racism? Real race consciousness? Check out the article in today's Financial Times, concerning the real reason for Hillary's monstrous lead in WV. Very sad indeed.

Reply
Report this post

Tom, you David and me make the same observation, that is in today's America “Race Matters.” David's excellent analysis has reliably predicted the outcome in the Democratic primary's. In the general, states with small AA populations-- Utah, Idaho, New Hampshire.... forget it! Forget them and the solid south. The states remaining fall into David's “race chasm”, I see no reason his proof should not continue true. It is wonderfully romantic but not realistic to base ones hopes on the optimism of youth; I can remember marching the streets singing we can “change the world” with no regard of the ballads or balladeers of the depression. Change only happens when the “wage slaves” black, brown, or white make it so, wage slaves are not with Obama.

Reply
Report this post

I am bothered by the constant references in the press to the "working-class white" vote and the obvious implications of those references. The articles on the race chasm are a welcome perspective on this issue. I am even more bothered by the Clinton campaign's decision to pick up on this issue and use it as if it were an advantage. Why is the "working-class white" vote an important demographic or block to consider for the Clinton folks? Are they suggesting that the working-class white will vote for a white democrat but not a black democrat? Why can't we assume that working-class whites who choose to vote for a democrat in the primary will remain favorable to a democratic candidate in the general election? Is Hillary Clinton basically saying "I am more electable because I can count the white racists as part of my base." I am not ready to agree with the Clinton campaign that the race chasm states are the new battle ground states.

Reply
Report this post

I'm not following the math in this last post. I do follow David Sirota's math in identifying the race chasm. I come from one of the "too-white" states -- Washington, although I live in a Seattle precinct that is half African-American (and half "latte-liberal" white, and therefore 8-to-1 Obama in the February caucuses). I think assuming Obama will cause a 45-state drubbing ignores the millions (no exaggeration here) of young voters -- including women, blue-collar, and Hispanic young voters -- ready to vote for Obama and toss boomers out for still fighting a "hippie-straight" argument over Vietnam, abortion, gay rights, feminism, etc. This is so yesterday for younger voters, and they are a distinct part of Obama's coalition. Young *evangelical* voters often have no problem with gay rights. Young voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq war and wonder why their generation is supposed to enlist to fight such in such a futile conflict. They are natural Democrats if Democrats give them a place. If Democrats don't, their participation in voting could walk away for a long time. I'm one of the boomers. Our generation produced Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Indeed, how boring. We got ourselves in a war as futile as Vietnam (voted through by a Congress of boomers, not just led by neocon boomers). Obama suggests a new Democratic coalition that could be unstoppable. It's nearly all African-Americans, lots of upper-income whites, many white voters in states with few African-Americans, and most voters under 35 regardless of gender, race, or income. That's a different coalition. It could lose Florida but win Texas. It could lose Pennsylvania but win Virginia and Colorado, if not North Dakota and Nebraska. It's been eight years of assumed blue states and red states. Those assumptions may not fly this November, and Sirota has helped identify why. When Clinton graciously withdraws in June and campaigns strongly for Obama in the fall, this intra-Democrat battle will fade, and McCain could get trounced, especially because the recession people feel will be worse and Republicans will be blamed for it.