Race

McCain's Rovian Turn

Adam Doster — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:54:22 -0700

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. In fact, Mark Schmitt wrote in May that it was the Republican's "single alternative." Now, after hiring a cavalcade of Rove disciples, John McCain has finally descended into the murky world of "identity politics." With his infamous Britney/Paris ad and the accusation that Obama played the "race card," the GOP campaign has taken to stressing that Obama simply isn't fit to lead this country. He's too cosmopolitan, too out of touch, too divorced from "our experiences," and just too black. New York Magazine's John Heilemann has more:

The racial undertones of this assault are subtle but undeniable, as Obama himself suggested when he asserted last week that his opponents are trying to make voters “scared” of him because he “doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency.” They’re most glaring in “Troops,” which features footage of Obama sinking a three-pointer in Kuwait, despite the fact that the shot took place at a military base, which undermines the ad’s argument. But the spot’s deeper aim is to foster an unconscious simile: Obama as a blinged-up, camera-hungry, NBA shooting guard, Allen Iverson with a Harvard Law degree. Am I reaching? Consider this: Would the ad have featured footage of Obama on a golf course draining a hole-in-one? “No, it wouldn’t,” laughs a GOP media savant. “The racial angle is the first thing I thought of when I saw that ad. It fits into the celebrity stuff, too.” (For McCain, that impolitic, pro-Obama Ludacris track was manna from hip-hop heaven.)

Heilmann quotes some unnamed Democrats who are chomping at the bit to fight back. Obama's response show's “shades of Swift Boat,” one organizer says. But as The American Prospect's Adam Serwer points out in his smart analysis of McCain's new approach, Obama's race and his hope-based narrative place him in a very tenuous position. Many white people see his campaign as proof that these types of racism no longer exist. Therefore, calling attention to the attacks could backfire:

For the most part, most white people's experience with race isn't one of racial discrimination. They can only relate to racial discrimination in the abstract. What white people can relate to is the fear of being unjustly accused of racism. This is the larger half. This is why allegations of racism often provoke more outrage than actual racism, because most of the country can relate to one (the accusation of racism) easier than the other (actual racism). For this reason, in a political conflict over race, the McCain campaign has the advantage, because saying the race card has been played is actually the ultimate race card.

Serwer goes on to argue that the Obama campaign should avoid discussing race as much as possible and instead attempt to pivot back to the stark policy contrasts between the two candidates.

But in America, race can never be ignored. And if managed tactfully, Obama can revive the stinging rebuttal he developed in his much-heralded speech on race back in March: his embrace of multi-racial economic populism. Whether or not he can find an economic message that works is yet to be seen. But this seems to be the approach that would allow him to beat back McCain's race-baiting while focusing on policy. And that's the best of both worlds.

Obama Camp Calls Out NYT Article On Racial Trends

Adam Doster — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:59:16 -0700

In an article in today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney reported on new polling purportedly showing that racial attitudes remain unchanged by Barack Obama's campaign and that the Illinois Senator is struggling to appeal to white Americans. We even highlighted it in the Early Bird, assuming the analysis was fundamentally fair. But as the folks at Obama headquarters have noted, what Nagourney left out was just as important as what he included. Via TPM, which received a detailed critique of the piece from Obama's press camp:

"The NYT story about their poll ignores multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests."

The campaign offered some "straightforward points from their data" that were omitted from the story. Among these factoids:

More white voters say Obama cares about people like them than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23 percent.

Obama's 31 percent favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain's 34 percent level.

White voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America's image in the world by a two-to-one margin over the Republican nominee.

Obama is winning by six points against McCain while he only trails among white voters by nine points --- a margin smaller than independent expert on voting patterns, Ruy Texiera, said would give Obama a "solid win."

As Talk Left points out, the key finding in the poll should have been McCain's ties to the Bush economic polices. Sixty-three percent of respondents said McCain would continue that agenda, while only 20 percent said they approve of it.

Teixeira On Obama's White Voter "Problem"

Adam Doster — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:45:13 -0700

We've done our part to dispel the rumor that Barack Obama's candidacy will be doomed by his disadvantage among white working class voters -- particularly those in Appalachia. But if you want further proof, look no further than this analysis from Brookings Institution fellow Ruy Teixeira, who co-authored the new paper (pdf) "The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class." New York Times reporter John Harwood asked Teixeira how much support Obama will need to generate among this demographic group to upend John McCain. The answer is encouraging to say the least:

Mr. Obama, who leads the delegate count, “is clocking in where he needs to be” with white, working-class voters to win the White House in November, Mr. Teixeira said. [...]

Al Gore lost working-class white voters by 17 percentage points in 2000, even while winning the national popular vote. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts lost them by 23 points in 2004, while running within three points of President Bush over all. Mr. Teixeira suggests that Mr. Obama can win the presidency if he comes within 10 to 12 percentage points of Mr. McCain with these voters, as Democratic candidates for the House did in the 2006 midterm election.

In recent national polls, that is exactly what Mr. Obama is doing. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Mr. Obama trailing by 12 percentage points with working-class whites; a poll by Quinnipiac University, showed him trailing by seven points. In each survey, Mr. Obama led over all by seven points.

“Yes, he has a problem,” Mr. Teixeira said. “But it’s a solvable problem.”

Trib Public Editor On The Defensive -- And Rightfully So

Adam Doster — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:43:16 -0700

Chicago Tribune public editor Timothy McNulty took to the op-ed page this morning to defend the paper's decision in recent weeks to run two controversial pieces of journalism. First came Kathleen Parker's syndicated column, headlined "The Bubba Vote," in which she attempted to divine America's "patriot divide" using the white supremacist playbook:

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of [West Virginian Josh] Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald described it as "one of the most repellent columns one will ever read." Steve Benen likened Parker's views to those of the nativist Know Nothing movement in the 1860s. Blogger Hilzoy asserted that those publications who ran the piece "should be ashamed of themselves."

McNulty responds to such objections by claiming: "I would rather see it on the op-ed page so that people can hold it to the light and repudiate the notion rather than deal with it as a whispering campaign." But this notion of Obama's lack of full-blooded Americaness ceased being a whispering campaign months ago! Sure, it started as one pushed virally by conservatives who found the critique more nimble and socially acceptable than explicit racism, but it's a meme that's filtered into our national discourse and has dogged Obama throughout the entire campaign. By printing trash like that in its op-ed pages, the Tribune isn't vetting this point of view -- it's legitimizing it. Parker's toxic analysis has no place in a major, respected publication.

(Click "Read More" to continue ...)

McNulty also defends the Kentucky primary preview piece we critiqued on Monday.

Those statements reflect racist views, but does that mean the news media shouldn't report them?

Of course not; it is far better to honestly relate what people are saying and thinking—even if the sentiments expressed are racist—than to hide or pretend those attitudes don't exist.

McNulty is right in saying that such views should be documented. But context always helps as well, something the story failed to provide.

New Poll Undermines Claim That Obama Has "White Voter" Problem

Adam Doster — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:22:51 -0700

Nestled in the Los Angeles Times' recap of Hillary Clinton's big West Virginia win last night is more evidence that the Clinton campaign is pivoting away from an argument based on electoral math to one that emphasizes her purported appeal to white voters:

But Clinton is no longer resting her candidacy on the delegate count. She hopes to persuade party leaders, who hold the balance of power, that she would be the more electable candidate against McCain, based on her support among white, blue-collar voters who have not embraced Obama's candidacy in the same way as black, more affluent and better-educated voters.

"The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states," Clinton said Tuesday night.

However, Talking Point Memo's Greg Sargent flags a new Quinnipiac poll that undermines Clinton's argument that Obama's relative lack of support from working class white voters will be a fatal flaw in the general election. The survey finds that both Hillary and Barack trail John McCain by an identical seven-point margin among white voters with no college experience.

As Daily Kos' DHinMI has convincingly argued, Obama struggles in Appalachia -- not among the white populace at large. In fact, Obama and Clinton trail McCain among all white voters by seven points as well, which would be an improvement over recent Democratic nominees. Josh laid out those figures in a recent post:

In 2000, Gore lost to Bush among white voters by 13 percent. In 2004, Kerry lost among this demographic by 17 percent. Bill Clinton also lost the overall white vote in his successfull 1992 and 1996 campaigns, but by much slimmer margins. However, he didn't really attract a greater share of the white electorate than his Democratic successors; rather, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole won a lesser percentage, thanks to Ross Perot.

If you combine those numbers with the probable rise in turnout among black voters and young voters of all races, Obama doesn't look nearly as vulnerable as the Clinton campaign would have us believe.

Enough About The White Voters!

Josh Kalven — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:42:03 -0700

Since the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting the media -- particularly the cable news talking heads -- to adopt an extremely flawed narrative: that her success among white working class voters in battleground state primaries calls into question Barack Obama's electability in the general election. The resulting conventional wisdom is that Obama has a "problem" with white voters.

Well, as we and numerous others have noted, using demographic voting trends from the Democratic primary as evidence of how either candidate would perform among certain groups in the general election is utterly nonsensical.

But more importantly, national polling data simply doesn't back up the claim that Obama should be concerned about his appeal among the white electorate. In fact, the data suggests the exact opposite: that Clinton may have a problem with black voters.

(More after the jump ...)

It's certainly true that, in head-to-head matchups with John McCain, the data does show white working class voters far more willing to vote for Clinton than Obama. Indeed, an April 26 Newsweek poll shows Clinton and McCain splitting "working class/poor whites" 47-46 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, among the same demographic, McCain beats Obama by 18 points.

But this discrepancy has little effect on either candidate's performance among all white voters (McCain beats Obama by 14 and Clinton by 10 in the Newsweek poll) or the total electorate (both Democratic candidates beat McCain by three points).

Other nationwide polls also fail to give Clinton a significant edge among all white voters. Take the April 27 Rasmussen tracking poll, which found that "among White voters, McCain leads Obama by twelve and Clinton by eleven."

That both Democratic candidates appear to be losing the white vote by over 10 percent nationally is not surprising when viewed in the context of the last two presidential elections. In 2000, Gore lost to Bush among white voters by 13 percent. In 2004, Kerry lost among this demographic by 17 percent. Bill Clinton also lost the overall white vote in his successfull 1992 and 1996 campaigns, but by much slimmer margins. However, he didn't really attract a greater share of the white electorate than his Democratic successors; rather, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole won a lesser percentage, thanks to Ross Perot.

My point here is that -- despite all the hubbub over Obama's performance among the white working class in certain primaries -- current polling indicates that both he and Clinton are on track to take a similar share of the overall white electorate as the past four Democratic presidential candidates.

But the latest Rasmussen survey and other national polls do provide evidence of a large contrast among black voters. Once again, check out Rasmussen's April 27 findings: "Among African-American voters, Obama dominates but Clinton attracts just 59% support."

This is the demographic trend that the pundits should be paying attention to when trying to discern which of these candidates is more electable in the general election. That Clinton may only garner around two-thirds of the black vote against a Republican candidate is astonishing from a historical perspective. Indeed, in each of the past four presidential elections, the Democratic candidates have, to use Rasmussen's language, "dominated" the black vote:

1992: Bill Clinton attracted 83 percent of African-American voters (who represented 8 percent of the overall electorate).

1996: Bill Clinton attracted 84 precent of African-American voters (who represented 10 percent of the overall electorate).

2000: Al Gore attracted 90 percent of African-American voters (who represented 10 percent of the overall electorate).

2004: John Kerry attracted 88 percent of African-American voters (who represented 11 percent of the overall electorate).

This weekend in The New York Times, columnist Charles Blow pointed out that the Clinton campaign's "racially tinged comments and questions about [Obama's] character" have had a disastrous effect on Hillary's standing among African-Americans (h/t Al Giordano). As his chart shows, since July 2007, her approval rating among blacks has dropped 36 points and her disapproval has climbed 14 points. During the same period, Obama's approval and disapproval ratings among whites have both increased by 5 percentage points. If Obama's standing among the white working class were as big a problem as the talking heads tells us it is, wouldn't it be reflected in these numbers?

Blow spells out the ramifications of this data for Clinton:

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.

Getting that support could now be tricky.

In short: "It's the black vote, stupid."

Blurring King's Legacy

Adam Doster — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:58:58 -0700

Today marks 40 years since Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. In commemoration of this solemn anniversary, The American Prospect's Kai Wright penned a thoughtful essay about the civil rights leader's forgotten, radical legacy:

His "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is in fact a blunt rejection of letting the establishment set the terms of social change. "The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation," he wrote, later adding, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

Shame that quotation rarely makes it into the sort of King remembrances that will mark today's 40th anniversary of his assassination. Generations after the man's murder, our efforts to look back on his life too often say more about our own racial fantasies and avoidances than they do about his much-discussed dream. And they obscure a deeply radical worldview that remains urgently important to Americans' lives. Today, I don't mourn King's death so much as I do his abandoned ideas.

We're as guilty of this tendency here in Chicago as anywhere else; we name colleges and streets after the civil rights legend, but forget his denunciations of racism, materialism, and militarism.

Our inability to break down patterns of residential segregation is perhaps the most obvious and frustrating example of this tendency.

(More after the jump ...)

Of course, it was King who moved into a cheap tenement in Lawndale and led two courageous marches protesting discriminatory housing policies in Chicago's all-white neighborhoods and suburbs. It was during his march in Marquette Park when he encountered the most vitriolic racism of his life, calling the city's makeup “a system of internal colonialism not unlike the exploitation of the Congo by Belgium.”

The violence he endured was invaluable; the furor over these demonstrations led city leaders to support the creation of an organization dedicated to promoting open housing in the Chicago area and paved the way for Congress to pass a national fair housing law in 1968.

Sadly, 40 years later, some argue the city is no less segregated now than when King first visited. The Chicago Reporter covered this topic in 2006:

Still, Chicago remains among the nation’s cities with the highest rates of segregation between blacks and whites. In fact, black Chicagoans are more concentrated in heavily populated black areas now than they were in the years leading up to King’s Chicago campaign. The number of communities that were at least 90 percent black tripled between 1960 and 2000. And the percentage of the city’s black residents living in those communities grew from 41 percent to 55 percent ...

“I see it more like a slow drip than progress,” said John Logan, professor of sociology at Brown University in Providence, R.I. “It’s sort of like a water torture. You might be expecting and hoping for substantial change, but you’re being tortured by how slow it is.”

To build healthy, multi-ethnic, economically diverse communities, it's going to take smart government policy, citizen pressure, and honest soul-searching from all of us about the issues we tend to ignore the most: race and class. It's what King would have wanted.