This Strange Democratic Race
by Dan tdaxp ~ May 6th, 2008
As I write this, nearly everyone has predicted that Barack Obama will win North Carolina’s primary, while CBS is preciting that Hillary Clinton will win Indiana.
Barack Obama’s strategy of racial polarization continued to do its work today, tearing his party at the seams while giving him a large enough margin among one race to run out the clock.
In fairness to Barack, he also does well among the college educated crowd. As college graduates run the media, it was fun watching then apologize for his defeats and hype his victories. Bill Schneider on CNN praised Obama for winning a third of the white vote in North Carolina.
The Democratic primary process has been strange so far. Hillary began the night leading in the popular vote (certified votes), Obama head in pledged delegates (assuming they vote with their constituents). Hillary began the campaign by playing the sex card. Obama tries to stay alive with the race card. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (Howard Dean) makes oblique pro-Obama statements regularly, while word is that the Clintons control the Democratic Rules Committee.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Dan, you wrote “Obama tries to stay alive with the race card.”
Is there evidence that Obama is actively playing the “race card”? And if so, isn’t Hillary playing the “blue-collar” card and McCain the “war continuation” card.
I don’t see evidence that Obama is explicitly or implicitly saying “I would be the first black president, vote for me.” All this talk of playing cards is grossly over-used and counter-productive.
Regardless, I agree with your general sentiment. What a long, strange season its been.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Tyler,
Thank you for your comment.
The specific link I gave in support of the claim was Obama’s refusal to denounce black liberation theology. He described it as a theological manner beyond his understanding. As an analogy, if Clinton would have refused to condemn the World Church of the Creator as a theological question, she would be playing the race card as well.
Obviously.
The question then becomes if race is a suspect form of organization.
I maintain that it is. A whites-only golf course is much more odius than, say, a podiatrist-only golf course. The reason generally given is that one is able, through luck and pluck, to change aspects of one’s identity, but one is not able to change race.
Obama is limiting his action to association and non-denunciation. As is typical in politics, explicit statements such as that are made by surrogates.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“…well among the college educated crow…”
I was thinking about this while watching the coverage a bit last night on TV.
I am thinking that those who have been off to collage in the last 30 years are going to be more aware of and comfortable with Obama’s rhetoric, leftists views, liberation theology, etc. because most American universities abound with it. It won’t shock them.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
OH! HRC isn’t playing the race card?
http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19447/hillarys-bittergate/
May 8th, 2008 at 8:21 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0
May 8th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Purpleslog,
Agreed.
Curtis,
Are you personally insulted by these facts, as Dona Brazile is [1], or are you rather asserting that it is illegitimate to use race as a factor in political analysis. If you are doing the latter, will you criticize Subadei for his post, “The Obama Effect Not Discussed” [2]?
What’s ironic about all this, of course, is that 2008 began with Clinton playing the sex card and Obama being above the fray [3]:
“Swap out Clinton’s sex-coded rhetoric with race-coded words, and you get a race monger like Sharpton or Jackson.”
The positions are now reversed. Obama is a race baiter who can’t be bothered to denounce black liberation theology [4], and his supporters rely on being selectively insulted by reality [5].
I would say this is sad [6], but insofar as this flip has made Obama more wrong on policyand tone, it’s simplifies the analysis of who the worse candidate is.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/06/this-strange-democratic-race.html
[2] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-effect-not-discussed.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/08/that-humanizing-moment.html#comment-19198
[4] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/04/29/obama-disowns-jeremiah-wright-but-not-black-liberation-theology.html
[5] http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/7/92647/30679/743/510810
[6] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/10/sex-monger.html
May 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The point, Dan, is that HRC was arguing:
1. that she has a broader base (although she’s not winning the primary race) simply because “hard working Americans, white Americans” support her more than they support Obama;
2. which would mean that the, um lazy and non-hardworking?, whites supporting Obama and the blacks supporting Obama — which are actually giving him more votes in the primary race than she is getting — are really less important than the “hard working Americans, white Americans” who are behind her (even though that block of voters aren’t delivering her the nomination in the primary race);
3. and this is a rather silly argument, since it is implied that those Democrats on Hillary’s side who are “hard working Americans, white Americans” will not vote for Obama in a general election campaign.
On point #3, especially, hinges the ludicrous race-baiting tactic Hillary is trying to use, since she’s essentially saying a black man named Obama can’t win in the general election; i.e., those “hard working Americans, white Americans” may be Democrats now but come November they’ll either be non-voters or vote as Republicans.; whereas were white HRC — who doesn’t really need lazy whites or blacks to support her in November — to receive the nomination, she would win handily on the basis of her popularity (in the primaries) among “hard working Americans, white Americans.”
I wonder if you actually listened to Donna Brazile’s argument live, in context, or are pulling it from YouTube only now? Her comments came in a wider discussion (which I listened to as it happened) in which point #3 was being debated. The theory that “hard working Americans, white Americans” may prefer her to Obama statistically — but not totally as a monolithic group — does not mean they would abandon the Democratic Party in November — as one monolithic group.
Indeed, Paul Begalada’s argument that Obama is not now making inroads in the “hard working Americans, white Americans” itself presents a viewpoint that is presumptuous and monolithic and hinges upon the theory that there is a monolithic race-based approach to how voters now voting in primaries will vote in the general election come November. And Brazile’s arguing against such a viewpoint.
Another point: There is a very big difference between 1) a professional pundit’s analyzing on the basis of exit poll data referring to race and 2) a political candidate asking for support or drumming up support on the basis of the same data. The pundit reports the data and draws conclusions, but the candidate reports the data and tries to make others draw conclusions. In this case, HRC is trying build up the message that Obama simply can’t win and the reasons have everything to do with race.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Curtis,
You make several points. Before I address them, I’ll rspond to your concern regarding “hard working Americans, white Americans.” The constrution clearly refers to working-class white. Political rhetoric often describess working-class voters as with some analogy of “hard,” distinguishing them from the (presumably soft) execcutive, managerial, and service sector workers.
That said
1. Obviously — her point is reasonable. Hillary’s broader base can reasonable expand, as many working-class whites and latinos are outside the Democratic Party. While Obama can reasonable expand into educated whites who are outside the Democratic Party, his most loyal constiuency (blacks) cannot so meaningfully be expanded.
2. As demonstrated in 2000, et al, what is important is obtaining a majority of the Electoral College. Clinton’s argument is that Obama would have a hard time doing this, because in the general election running up the score (as he did in North Carolina) doesn’t matter, but narrowly winning a state (as she did in Indiana), matters a great deal.
3. Obama surrogates regularly make the an analogous argument — that “taking the nomination away from Obama” would be a bad idea, because of the response of black Democrats. All that said, the polls I have seen show a greater defection rate of Hillary supporters if Obama wins than Obama supporters if Clinton wins.
“On point #3, especially, hinges the ludicrous race-baiting tactic Hillary is trying to use, s”
What do you mean by race-baiting?
“since she’s essentially saying a black man named Obama can’t win in the general election;”
Incorrect.
“i.e., those “hard working Americans, white Americans” may be Democrats now but come November they’ll either be non-voters or vote as Republicans.;”
As I mention above, the projected defection rate if Obama is nominated is higher than the projected defection rate if Clinton is nominated.
“The theory that “hard working Americans, white Americans” may prefer her to Obama statistically — but not totally as a monolithic group — does not mean they would abandon the Democratic Party in November — as one monolithic group.”
Trivially true, and thus uninteresting.
“Your question regarding
“Indeed, Paul Begalada’s argument that Obama is not now making inroads in the “hard working Americans, white Americans” itself presents a viewpoint that is presumptuous and monolithic and hinges upon the theory that there is a monolithic race-based approach to how voters now voting in primaries will vote in the general election come November.”
Your assertion is absurd. The summary that you use, “making inroads,” itself implies fractional (as opposed to monolithic) conrol
“Another point: There is a very big difference between 1) a professional pundit’s analyzing on the basis of exit poll data referring to race and 2) a political candidate asking for support or drumming up support on the basis of the same data.”
This reminds me you didn’t answer my question regarding race-concious politics. I will clarify & rephrase it for you:
“Are you asserting that it is illegimate to use the way that race may make certain outcomes harder or easier for a politician to achieve as a factor in determining which politician to support?”
Moving on…
“In this case, HRC is trying build up the message that Obama simply can’t win and the reasons have everything to do with race.”
Better phrased: “In this case, Clinton is trying build up the message that Obama will have greater difficulty winning for reasons that have to do with race and class.”
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/04/29/obama-disowns-jeremiah-wright-but-not-black-liberation-theology.html
May 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“As I mention above, the projected defection rate if Obama is nominated is higher than the projected defection rate if Clinton is nominated.”
Dan, where are those statistics, and do they refer to the working-class whites who support HRC or to HRC supporters in general? If they refer to her supporters in general — the only similar stat I’ve heard bandied about — then those statistics will not be very informative for the present discussion.
The fact that you find my comments re: #3 above “trivially true and uninteresting” — is this a case of finding uninteresting a reality you don’t like? Rather than, say, becoming insulted by a reality as you suggested of Brazile?
I’m sorry you can’t see the ludicrousness of Paul Begalada’s argument and that you find reality to be absurd. By suggesting that Obama is not making inroads, Begalada implies a static and monolithic majority in favor of Hillary over Obama which will remain static and monolithic in November. The members of that majority of that subset of America who support HRC are lost to Obama in November, in other words. That’s the same argument Hillary is trying to make, and it’s silly. It implies that race (and class) distinctions override all other considerations in that group, including party affiliation, political philosophy/ideology, and so forth.
“Are you asserting that it is illegimate to use the way that race may make certain outcomes harder or easier for a politician to achieve as a factor in determining which politician to support?”
I would like to turn the question back to you.
Meanwhile: I am asserting that making a decision on the basis of race, to the exlcusion of all other factors, would be racist. Even if HRC is not a racist herself (and I do not believe she is), she could still motivate and energize racists to decide their vote merely on the basis of race while also putting the fear in non-racists that the racists around them will be motivated to abandon the Democratic party if Obama is elected. This is a question of results; and if her argument were to carry the day and the primary election, the outcome would be the same regardless of the ratio of true racists to non-racist-but-fearing-of-racists within the Democratic party.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Curtis,
Thank you again for the comment.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I for one am glad that CGW has resurfaced!
May 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Purpleslog,
Here here!
And Curtis has resurfaced in strange political times, too.
Who would have thought I could agree with Paul Krugman [1] so much?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
May 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“As an analogy, if Clinton would have refused to condemn the World Church of the Creator as a theological question, she would be playing the race card as well.”
It isn’t too hard to notice your efforts to parallel TUCC with white supremacist organizations, but I think Monroe’s quote in the bottom link (around the last third of the page) raises an important point about the line between racial and ethnic pride.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp
May 11th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Jeffrey,
A good analogy if TUCC wants to present itself as merely ethnocentric was what the response would be if there was a church that preached “German Liberation Theology” or “Latino Liberation Theology,” taught that Jesus was German or Latino, informing members that God should damn and not bless America, etc.
Indeed, whether TUCC is racist or merely ethnocentric is an honest question to ask. Unfortunately, since Obama’s awful speech on race [1] we’ve been told that TUCC is merely old-fashioned, like a grandmother, and thus not a serious topic of conversation at all.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/19/obamas-awful-speech-on-race.html