Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama has moved heaven and earth to keep race out of his campaign. He had no choice. He knew that if he gave even the faintest hint of a tilt toward black voters his campaign would be DOA. While early polls consistently showed that a crushing majority of whites said that competence, ability and experience, not race, are the only things they consider in voting for a candidate, he also knew that race still might be the great X Factor for him in the presidential contest.
Privately, many in the Obama camp worried that many of the whites who loudly professed to be color-blind might develop collective amnesia on Election Day and punch the ticket for McCain. What they didn't consider was that many white Democrats would punch the ticket for Clinton instead, and then make it clear that if she didn't win they'd stay home or punch the ticket for McCain.
The overwhelming rejection of Obama by blue collar, rural, and non-college educated (and many college educated whites too) in West Virginia, all Democrats, is no longer cause for private worry for Obama but grave public fear. It follows close on the rejection of Obama by blue collar whites in Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio. The pile of racist incidents that plague the Obama campaign, and the continued narrowing of his base to blacks, students, and upper-crust college educated whites are further strong cautionary warning signals for him and the Democrats.
Team Obama counters that he can snatch blue collar white Democrats and thus is electable with these three arguments. Obama won five of 12 primaries that included Wyoming and Idaho with a majority of white votes. He has gotten out front on the racial issue by mildly acknowledging that some whites won't vote for a black man yet that hasn't slowed his campaign. And, that the economy is in such lousy shape, and voters are so disgusted with their economic hurt and blame Bush for it, that this will trump the residual racial fears and distrust among Hillary Democratic blue collar whites toward him. The three arguments are shaky at best.
In exit polls in the key states he lost and even the one that he won, North Carolina, whites by double digit figures that ranged as high as twenty five percent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, flatly said that color does matter, and that means they are unlikely to vote for Obama. And, these are all Democratic voters.
The five states he won, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska are not in play for the Democrats. Republicans outnumber Democrats in these states by lopsided margins. The states that he lost and even possibly the one he won, North Carolina, are far different. They are in play for the Democrats. If he loses them his chance of bagging the White House is nil.
The argument that Bush has so mangled the economy that scores of Hillary Democrats will ultimately back him makes some sense. Polls consistently show that Americans, no matter what color, are anxious, fearful, and angry about the economic meltdown. And many do finger point Bush policies for it. But in nine of eleven opinion polls in the 2004 presidential election, voters also said that the most important concern for them was the economy. In some cities and counties in the crucial battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the economy had virtually collapsed. Plant closings, high oil prices, and high consumer debt caused deep economic misery for thousands of workers even then. Job gains that year throughout the country were far lower during the summer of 2004 than Bush had repeatedly claimed, and economists expected.
The economy, though, didn't crash. The Federal Reserve micromanaged interest rates, and there was a relatively low inflation rate, and the expansion of the retail and service industries bolstered Bush's boast that his administration had created thousands of new jobs, and his tax policies had kept overall unemployment low. This was the powerful spur that Bush used to spin news, even bad economic news, as a gain. McCain is and will continue to do the same. Also, the economic pain in 2008 as in 2004 is not even. In other words not everyone is hurting. In polls a near majority of voters in the Southwest and the West rate the economy as good. Those are the GOP stronghold states and voters are even less likely to break rank and vote for Obama even if their economic worries trumped their racial qualms about him.
West Virginia was more than a symbolic, meaningless win for Clinton and loss for Obama. No Democrat has won the White House in the past near century without winning West Virginia. The chilling Obama loss in the state and the continued rejection of his candidacy by rural and blue collar whites make the Democrat's Obama gamble riskier than ever.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As someone pointed out above, around 40% of the Democrats that won WV in the primaries or the general, still lost in the general. It's not as static or telling as it seems.
Responding to these tirades is something I never thought I would ever do - it's not my style. But I can't remain silent when I hear such garbage. Go back to your History lessons. Why is West Virginia so important? NO Democrat has won the presidency without WV like forever. (By the way, did you ever pay attention to your history lessons? I'm not even sure they teach it any more when I hear and read so many things that make me think it's another thing that parents don't think belong in the curriculum any more.) Black America represents about 12% of our population - that is not the percentager of them that votes - and women (white, black or green) represent more than 50%. They have just as much right to be heard as anyone - except that America is more misogynistic than anyone will admit.
Barack Obama is an accomplished young man who has achieved great positive notoriety in just a few years. NO! his time HAS NOT come so far - he's got a while to go. He has spent three minutes in the Senate of the United States. Our country deserves a much-more rounded politician than that - and don't think that he's not a politician and a crafty one with lots of chutzpah at that.
I like all the things that "ARTHURIDE" had to say and would like to add my AMEN.
Well, she used to sleep with a former president. And she's white. That's better than black as evidenced by the fact that she won among white voters.
If not now, when?
Are you sure about the sleeping thing....cause....
Right, she still sleeps with him. :)
I thought the problem, the most extensive oppression around the world was sexism.
Will someone please explain this logic to me: Obama can't win because of racism, but Clinton can win despite sexism?
Earl, as a black man, I am totally offended by the tone of your post! Let me ask you something: What if MLK had followed the advice of someone like you? Ironically this is the type of attitude people like Rev. Wright espouse; that the world cannot change. You're still living in the 60's...time to move on, brotha. This is what Obama's candidacy is all about. Moving past all the divisions.
Obama has won fair and square! If the only states that count are "blue" states or "swing" states, why do the democrats even bother having primaries there? Why don't we just declare ourselves a 20 state party and be done with it?
You seem to be saying the SD should overrule the popular vote, the delegate count, to say nothing of fairness and nominate Clinton. But I ask you, what would happen to all those "blue and swing states" without the black vote? Because I guarantee you Hillary cannot win if black people stay home. Just a fact.
I've talked to too many people who won't vote for a black president. Racism is rampant.
Wrong what's risky is taking the nomination away from the person who has won the most delegates the most states and the popular vote who happens to be AA and wh ohappens to win AA vote by 90% in some areas. Imagine telling them so you voted for this guy and he is leading in all the math but we are going to give it to Hilary because well she can win the white working class vote that she has to SPLIT with McCain 50/50 at least. See if she can get into the white house then. Ohio that Kerry lost if AA had come out in large numbers he would have won it. Imagine angering them so that they stay home and see how well you do in crucial states where they might be the swing vote. Thats why Hilary will not get the nomination its NOT the working class vote that gives the dem the white house they dont even win that vote in the majority its the AA vote that they win 80% or more of. Not to mention something else about Hilary that no one wants to talk abot her HIGH negatives and the fact that she wll galvanize the republican base to come out and vote against her. obama can galvanaize the AA and youth base to come out and VOTE for him Hilary inadvertently gets them to vote for the other guy.
Carol
Does anyone but me wonder if Mr. Hutchinson would lose his profession if Americans proved themselves color blind enough to elect a biracial President? That maybe he and a lot of other people are profiting from the division in our society, and the race hatred?
Nope. You're not.
Hutchinson is a Clinton supporter. If Sharpton endorsed Obama, he's ram Sharpton, too!
Be ye not afraid--bible
Obama is a bet we can't afford not to take.
Obama's biggest loss against Hillary is 41%. But Hillary lost Idaho by 62%, Washington D.C. by 52%, the Virgin Islands by over 70%, Kansas and Nebraska by over 40%, and several other competitions by over 35%.
Why is West Virginia's margin of loss such a big issue? There is much more media hype here than there is substance. If it weren't for the fact that no other state has their primary this week, WVA would be a complete non-issue.
They have 5 electoral vote. Virginia has a good chance of going blue but we are suppose to pass up Virginias electoral votes that is 3 times that of WV simply because no democrat have won the white house without winning WV. I meam give me a break please. Obama has a strategy for winning in November shocking but apparently they think he needs WV his strategy is that he can expand the map by bringing more states into play. But thats not Obama's only strenght he also carries two demographics that if they come out in large numbers which they have in the primary for him he can tip some of these states. No one says this on the media because i guess young folks are not important only white blue collar workers with no degree are important for democrats but Obama won the youth vote in NC by 49 points. If he can get high turnouts among the young he can tip some of these states in the democratic column.
Carol
It's okay-- we're going to redraw the map. And we're going to work on West Virginia!!!
Obama/Edwards 08
Grave public fear? For losing by 40 points?
What about Hillary's loss of Idaho by 62%?
Or Hillary's loss of Hawaii by 52%?
Or Hillary's loss of Alaska by 50%?
Or Hillary's loss in Kansas by 48%? Washington D.C. by 52%? The Virgin Islands by over 70%?
Don't post this crap. West Virginia is not America. America has spoken.
tallgordon needs a lesson on political demography. Hawaii is traditionally Democrat but is tilting toward the GOP as seen in its Governor--A Republican. Alaska always votes GOP. Kansas always votes GOP. DC is primarily Black but has no representative in Congress or the electoral college, nor does the Virgin Islands. None of the states Hillary lost would be won by Obama in the general election. Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama will remain in the Republican column if Obama heads the ticket--with only a chance that Colorado, Iowa, and Louisiana slipping into the Blue states if Hillary heads the ticket. Obama is a fluke, and will pick up traditional blue states NH, VT, MA, CA--as would Hillary. The states most like to abandon the Democrats are Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New York, and Washington now tired out from the rants of Team Obama. As a Democrat I will try hard to keep Iowa GOP if Obama heads the ticket, as he has no experience, and the presidency is not for OJT (on-the-job-training) for a man married to a woman who has never been proud to be an American.
Wow, thank you, arthuride. What a fascinating political science lesson that was.
You know, here I've been thinking this whole time that Hillary's campaign was poorly planned and poorly run, but you've shown me the light. In reality, Hillary ran a brilliant campaign, which somehow managed to win every single one of the important states while simultaneously managing to lose every single one of the unimportant states.
DE-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L, is there a class, with Terry McCauliffe and Lanny Davis, that you Hillary Clinton folks take so that all of you spew the same nonsense?
arthuride,
IF you are a democrat who is going to vote for McCain, bye. Your girl Hillary, with her race baiting LOST! Now, you can keep it up on her and the GOP's behalf.
You don't know what you are talking about at all. NY is not at all likely to flip republican, Obama leads McCain there by 17 points in current polls. In Iowa, both dems are beating McCain currently, Obama by 8%, HRC by 1%. Obama also currently leads McCain in CO by 3 points, which HRC actually loses. Louissiana is not going Dem if hill is the nominee either. She currently trails McCain there by 22%. You're assumptions are wrong based on current polls, and in many of the swing states Obama is very competitive with McCain. Obama is beating McCain in PA, and is within 1 point of him in Michigan and Florida. Its true he gets his ass kicked in WV, but if he comes out with a victory in the other swing states where hes gaining on McCain, he can win without it.
Hlary loses to McCain in WV and Kentucky so they are not exactly thrilled with the idea of a woman president either. Obama can put states in the south like Virigina and North Carolina into play Hilary can't do that. He can put WI into a play Hilary cant do that in a poll with Indiana Obama beats McCain but Hilary loses to Mcain another red state. If all those red states stay red how do you souppose democrats will win they have to flip some red states. New York, CA, NJ, MA, are all going blue. PA Obama and HIlary both beat McCain. Ohio Obama loses to McCain by 1 Hilary beats MCain. Hilary's other strong point is FLorida a state where Obama never campaigned. See Obama can win Hilary's state even Oiho that he lost by 1 point he can win she cant win his. NC she cant win Virgina she can't win she got trounced there. The fact of the matter is she got trounced many more times by larger margins than he did. He lost Ohio by 10 PA by 10 she lost NC by 14 Virginia by 29. Illinois by 35, Georgia by 35.
Carol
Please stop torturing logic. The screaming is keeping me awake.
Wow, Earl. Seriously. I can understand supporting your candidate. But just to flat-out imply that a black man can't be president? Not because of his policies, mind you, just because he's BLACK?
What a grave disservice you do your community.
I do believe it is cause for concern, but "grave public fear"? I think that is overstating it a bit. I have always thought that Obama can in fact win the general, but that it will be close even over such a terrible Republican candidate as McCain (unlike a lot of Obama supporters who think it will be a cakewalk). But I do think that although it will be a hard battle due to issues such as this, Obama can still prevail given all the various forces at work (incredible voter turnout, huge numbers of new youth voters, at least 51% of the American population ending up having the good sense to choose change and integrity over more-of-the-same and vacuousness, etc. etc. etc.)
Mr. Hutchinson: I have tried to read your posts objectively and give some credence to your ideas. However, this one, IMO, is the most disgusting of the lot. If blacks had adopted your premises all these years, you and they would still be in chains.
So....... because SOME Americans (some WHITE Americans) refuse to vote for a candidate, especially on the basis of race, the Democratic Party should allow itself to be held hostage for fear of losing their votes? Despite the fact that millions of other whites and members of every other ethnic groups have united to support him? Despite millions who want this presidential election to be about much, much more than any one race or the other? Who in their right minds would even WANT their votes, if only purchased through racial divisiveness? Oh, yeah.... I forgot. America does have a history of politicians who were elected based on pandering to race-hatred. And, that history is not pretty.
I completely disagree with you. No Democrat has won the WH in the near past century without West Virgina? Then, Democrats, Independents, and crossover Republicans will just have to show West Virginia (and any other states who make it plain that race is more important to them than bettering our country) that Obama CAN and WILL win the Presidency with or without them and YOU. SHAME ON YOU, MR. HUTCHINSON!!!!!!!!!
So, what are you saying? A black man can't be President? The same strong arm tactics used throughout the ages to keep a particular ethnic group or gender out of power is at play here. The Clintons are using poor, uneducated blocks of people as pawns in a veiled attempt to obtain power through fear voting. The Republicans are egging in on. it is sinister and dishonest. There is a reason that Obama is getting the educated vote ... it has to do with being educated. Maybe the reason that Democrats have had such a hard time winning the White House has to do with their short-sighted attention on the electorial map as it now stands. Time to nominate a candidate that has the vision and just maybe, the ability to change that map. Time to end the reliance on West Virginia and people more concerned about race than with issues that could better their lives. "Go West Young Man" ... time for the Democrats to move forward.
That is a riskier gamble I am willing to take, as well as the majority of Democrats! A greater risk would be to allow the same kind of gridlock to continue in Washington and risk nothing getting done. The most risk would come with nominating a polarizing figure like Senator Clinton who has already had 40% of American voters say they would never support her or vote for her and over 80% say she wasn't to be trusted. Obviously, we take risk with any and every candidate, because as Senator Obama said he is an imperfect messenger. We can't please ALL the people, ALL the time, but hopefully, we will be able to please MOST of the people MOST of the time, if they give Senator Obama leadership the chance to make a difference. Really, we don't have any other acceptable choice.
GraceNeeded arguest that 40% of American voters say they would never support Clinton or vote for her--yet statistics also show that over 52.5% of American voters say they will never support Obama or vote for him. The answer is plain: McCain wins as neither Clinton nor Obama can separately, individually, alone restore and unify the Democratic Party--the Democratic Party dies with Obama's nomination (or did you forget that the South -- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc -- use to be in the past Democratic states--all of which went GOP and have stayed Red since then? McCain will have more Red states than either Clinton or Obama will have Blue States and the Democratic Party will cease to exist.
So, Mr. Hutchinson, why do you hate Obama again??
I somehow have managed to forget..
Thanks for your response.
Earl Ofay blows it again, parroting the Hillary talking points without even bothering to take them out of the original wrapper.
If you overlay the counties, not just in WV but nationwide, where Hillary scored significantly higher than Obama on top of a map of Appalachia, you will see an ENORMOUS correlation. So Barack's blue collar issue is only with hillbillies from southwest New York across PA, OH, and on down into NE Mississippi. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194870.php
And if you read MY column today, you'll see me demolish the WV as Presidential Swing state argument with facts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-collis/how-obama-won-tuesday_b_101669.html
Every last Earl Ofay article about this election has been wrong. Every last one of my articles has been right.
Who you gonna trust?
JP
Hmmm? I doubt Chip Collins uses this type of derogatory terminology.
There really should be a scorecard JP. Earl never seems to mind getting everything wrong.
Mr. Hutchinson, allow me to make this point. After reading your article you point out that Obama has trouble appealling to less affluent, non-college educated white people. Then you attack "the economy trumps racism" argument by claiming that the economy is uneven. My point is uneven for whom? In other words, hasn't the economy been harshest on those very same people that Obama is having trouble with? And conversely hasn't the economy been kindest (for the most part) on the well educated and affluent that Obama does well with? Yes the economy is uneven, but if you break it down, it boosts "the economy trumps racism" argument that Obama and his campaign is making.
PS
White voters too closed minded to vote for a black person are largely Republican and won't vote for a Dem in the general anyway. So, who cares what white racists think! White racists are in the minority, Earl. It's a new day, Earl. Obama is going to get the nomination so stop this nonsense and start supporting our candidate. PLEASE.
Young people of all races prefer Obama and they are voting in record numbers.
What an absurd and untrue argument--"Young people of all races prefer Obama and they are voting in record numbers"==where is this election being held? it is even too early for absentee voting--everywhere. As for "young people of all races" preferring Obama--did you get that from YouTube? as I teach young people of all races and find that less than 20% support Obama--unless they are in the Japanese city of Obama--and then they do so because of the name, not the man. Young people are more interested in football/soccer or other sports, not candidates or politics. We held two parties--one with political party overtones and representatives, and another with a live band--the band had 102 young people attend it, and only 3 went to the political discussion. Your logic, like your math, DBriz boarders on idiocy.
Posted May 14, 2008 | 10:42 AM (EST)