New Report: The Race Chasm and the Clinton Firewall

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

In my newspaper column on Friday, I touched on a little-explored phenomenon in the 2008 presidential race. Amid all the punditry and intricate television graphics showing delegate counts and precinct voting trends, almost no one has bothered to look at the overwhelming dynamic that deals with race. Specifically, while Barack Obama has won states with both almost no black population and and very large black populations, he has had trouble winning states with a modestly sized black populations. How pronounced is this trend? I answer that question in a new In These Times investigation about what I call the Race Chasm -- a trend that has been almost completely missed by the media. You can find the piece here, or at the backup location here (In These Times servers crashed from traffic to the piece this morning). This chasm is the key pillar of Hillary Clinton's much-vaunted "firewall."

As you can see from the key graph included with the piece, the states Hillary Clinton has won have been mostly those with black populations above 6 percent and below 17 percent of the states' population. In all, 75 percent of Clinton states have this demography. Obama has been only able to eke out three victories in these Race Chasm states (as an FYI -- the graph omits 9 states for very obvious reasons elucidated in the In These Times article).

Why is this trend so pronounced? There's no scientific answer to that question, but as I say in the In These Times piece, it probably has something to do with the state of black-white racial politics.

In super-white states, black-white racial politics barely exists, and therefore racism or subtle race-coded messages are not all that devastating a weapon against a black candidate -- especially in a Democratic primary. In states with large black populations, black-white politics is very intense, but in a Democratic primary, the black vote can offset a racially motivated white vote. But in the states in between, black-white politics is equally as intense, but the black population is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.

This isn't to say that race is the only factor, nor that every white person voting against Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton is a racist or racially motivated -- not at all. However, over the course of 33 separate elections, a trend like this is significant -- and probably explains why the Clinton campaign has been working hard to keep the race issue at the forefront of the campaign. Barely a week goes by without some Clinton surrogate -- or, in last week's case, Clinton herself -- reminding the electorate of Obama's ethnicity. That's not an accident -- that is an effort to maximize the Race Chasm, especially with Pennsylvania, Indiana and Kentucky coming up.

Last week, New York Times columnist Bill Kristol said, "The last thing we need now is a heated national conversation about race." But really, the last thing we need are more wealthy white pundits sitting in the comfortable confines of their plush Washington, D.C. offices telling us that race shouldn't be talked about. As the Race Chasm shows, now is precisely the time we need a national conversation about the divisions that still afflict our society and culture.

Read the whole In These Times article here, or at the backup location here. As I said, this phenomenon has not yet been reported on in any comprehensive way. But I think you will agree that the graph is a troubling image showing just how powerful the race issue has become in the 2008 election.

UPDATE: I appeared on Jay Marvin's AM 760 drive-time radio show here in Colorado to discuss the Race Chasm. You can listen here.

Comments

[EJ99]

I LOVE this article - was reading it this morning. Please promote it to the recommended list!

[cynara]

I don't see California or Texas on your chart. Of course, in these states a third large voting block is thrown into the mix, Latinos. The Latino vote pushed Hillary over the top in both states (at least popular vote wise).

[Mesaywar]

Aha, the dynamics were a little different in California and Texas, but, the approach was the same. In those states however, moreso in Texas, there was the not so quiet stoking of racial conflict between Black and Latino voters. Don't you remember the stories about the respected Latino organizer in Texas who gave interviews detailing why Latinos will not vote for a Black candidate, and got into trouble for it? That made news because the got her bogotry on tape. what didn't make the news was the Clinton's for us/Obama's for them tone that pervaded the race in South Texas. To be honest though, Clinton's race strategy of pitting Blacks against Latinos was undercut slightly by younger, more progressive Latino voters coming out for Obama.

[cynara]

My statement:
"The Latino vote pushed Hillary over the top in both states (at least popular vote wise)." referred to the statistics projected by the exit polls.

I think, at least based on ancedotal evidence in my own area, that Obama did much better with young Latino voters than older Latino voters. And the reason for this is not so much racism as it is political awareness. Statistically, younger Latino voters tend to be second generation and gravitate towards English language media, which has had an enormous amount of coverage of the presidential race. Older Latino voter are more likely to be first generation, and gravitate towards Spanish language television - Univision or Telemundo, both of which have done a very poor job of covering this race. Since coverage of the presidential race has been dismal in the Spanish Language media, older Latino voters tend to be less familiar with Obama, and therefore, less comfortable voting for him. All Latino voters are familiar with Bill Clintons presidency, and are more comfortable with the idea of voting for Clinton. Well, at least they are familiar with the fact that the economy was better during the Clinton presidency. The fact that the Clintons championed NAFTA, passed welfare reform, gave favorite nation trading status to China, and made immigration laws much tougher seems to be lost on many Latino and blue collar workers.

[Doofus]

I see you include Massachusetts among your 'Race Chasm' states, which might seem
all the more logical because Clinton won even the primary though both MA Senators and the
Governor endorsed Obama, among other prominent Demos. That'd best be considered a fluke,
owing to some latent Clinton popularity from back in the day. There is no way that Obama
would lose to McCain in November, other than a surprise run by Ted Kennedy. I'd wonder
if the same case might also be made for Rhode Island.

[Mesaywar]

Absolutely spot-on, again.

Since reading your post, and listening to your interview on with Jay Marvin on Friday, and these today,...it all makes a lot more sense.

[nazgul]

All of which goes to explain the significance of Hillary getting chummy with Richard Mellon Scaife of the Pittsburgh Tribune in order to discuss....(drum roll)....Jeremiah Wright!!!

The lady's got class. It's low, but she's got lots of it.

[standforpeace]

Social scientists have a theory that explains this -- it's called racial threat. Prejudice is triggered when whites see Blacks as a threat to their power or privilege. A Black candidate in a white setting might not trigger feelings of racial threat because of the lack of history of Black/white conflict in those settings and because the candidate would make deracialized appeals to whites. Racial threat is not going to make a difference in states with large Black populations like South Carolina and Missisipppi. First, as the writer asserts the large Black population can overcome any white backlash. Also in Mississippi and South Carolina many white voters responded to the threat that they perceived as Blacks finally won the right to vote by realigning themselves with the Republicans. There are now fewer white voters in the Democratic primaries there; those most susceptible to feelings of racial threat reserve their backlash for the general election and vote Republican. That leaves voters in the states like Ohio where the percentage of Blacks is closer to the national average as most likely to be both motivated by racial threat and in a position to do something about it during the primaries. Having said that, Obama is having much more success with white voters than analysts predicted, and is likely to pick up many more votes in the general election. One thing that Obama has demonstrated is the more folks get to know him, the more they like him. That holds across racial groups.

[qwr]

I agree, with the proviso that in states such as Mississippi, the black vote can overcome the white majority in a Democratic primary, but it cannot overcome in the general election or in statewide elections. Look at a state such as Mississippi, with one of the largest AfAm populations in the union, and look at their Senators. Whites vote as a solid block and always enforce their majority power.

[kareneliza]

Or to put it in simpler terms, people in majority-white states tend not to be especially racist because they don't grow up hearing racist comments, since there's nobody around for people to make racist comments about (speaking as someone who grew up in rural Maine). People are not born with prejudice and hatred; either they learn it from the people around them, or they don't.

[jhNY]

In a piece that appeared on this site yesterday, a man named Wilentz offered up something titled 'Obama First To Play the Race Card', to pretty much nobody's taste, if the comments appended were an indicator. But it illustrated how easily another narrative regarding race in the campaign might be constructed, but with an opposite conclusion.

[mommadona]

Anyone else getting sick of the "parsing" phenomena that seems to be the embedded 'weapon of choice' for the 'divide and conquer' crowd?

Anyone getting sick of this game?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8

[altohone]

I hope that at this point everybody knows the Clintons will use race for political advantage.

I'm not sure I buy all the conclusions in this post since the causation seems to be based on little more than an educated guess, but it is interesting. A little info on how Limbaugh voters may be skewing those numbers would be interesting too.

Considering your regular niche isn't the world of racial politics though, and considering that Hillary is now selling herself as a populist running against "Washington insiders", I would have expected a post from the David Sirota exposing this latest deception of Democratic voters.

I mean, c'mon David. The very notion was scoffed at by the pundit from Politico on Face the Nation.
How can you not respond?

Where is all the fire from your earlier posts about the DLC?

David, Bush got away with calling himself a compassionate conservative when he is neither.
Hillary's voting record stands in stark contrast to her current claims.
History is repeating itself, and the liar stepped onto your turf. Please don't tell me you wrote your book only to shelve it in the name of party unity?

[feelfree]

Hillary Clinton has kept race at the forefront in the primary? For real?

I thought Barack Obama did that when he distanced himself from the Civil Rights community/leadership and issues so that he could. show white voters that he was not one of them. Just as he through Wright under the bus when he called him "angry". He also did it when he said nothing during Jena 6 and Jackson and others called him out on his silence.

Obama has used race to curry favor with white voters. It lead his supporters and surrogates to describe him a the candidate who "transcends race" or who is the "postracial candidate". It is a calculated strategy using race to his political advantage.

Don't be mad at the Clintons for taking Obama up on his own game.

[altohone]

Thinking a post-racial campaign is in the same category is disheartening.

I guess calling it a game shows the mentality that could lead you down that road.

[feelfree]

Ask a black teenaged boy if he's living in a "post-racial" society. In fact ask any black person if the color of their skin doesn't affect their opportunities for employment, health care, housing, mortagage rate, or justice. It is "disheartening" that YOU PEOPLE throw these terms around as if its based on some type of reality for black Americans.

Obama and his supporters have used race in the most sinister manner to date. You're living in a lala land pretending racial inequality and white privilege don't exist.

[altohone]

Way to miss the point.

We're not out to insist there is a new reality.
We're out to forge a new reality where the Clinton's tactics are seen as the politics of yesteryear... where racial divisions aren't exploited for political gain.

You can play the neocon card as often as you want.
Repeating something doesn't make it true though, and your inability to substantiate your claims is blatantly obvious. Right now, your comment looks like it's right out of the politics 101 book... accuse your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing in an attempt to minimize the backlash.

[cyndeewi]

Why does this campaign have to be about race. I would like for Obama to win just based on what he has to say about the economy, etc. I have listed to Hillary as well. To be perfectly honest I am a Huckabee fan. As a black american I hate this race issue coming up all the time.

Obama is white as well as black. People call him African American but both bloods run strong in his veins. I see the intelligence of whites and the determination of an African American. This is why to me Obama is so different.

[Aywaller]

". . .the intelligence of whites and the determination of an African American" ???

Intelligence is not the exclusive province of whites, nor are African Americans singularly determined. And I would only remind you that Obama's mixed heritage is not at all unusual, even among us "ordinary" black folk. My people are from Tennessee and I and my children are a caramel color because, in part, my great, great, great grandmother's owner decided to have more children with her than with his wife. Despite this "mixed" heritage, I am, and have always been, Black.

This campaign has to be about race because Barack Obama is the first black man to have a realistic chance to become president of these United States of America (with apologies to Jesse Jackson). As a black american, I am glad that--finally--people are talking about race. I only wish that the "talk" were more constructive and less destructive.

[blaqntelligence]

I hate to nit-pick but I wonder about this statement:

I see the intelligence of whites and the determination of an African American......

[lynnn]

Obama being multiracial is a thought that is too complicated for the media. The Cable talking heads are just that, talking heads w/out a brain.

[jazzman]

It's too complicated for most lower income, less educated whites in the rust belts of America. They see darkened skin - they see a negro. The complexity of an Obama, as expressed in his book, "Dreams of My Father," isn't going to penetrate the consciousness of people who don't even read.

[tedbear]

I somehow don't think it is the media primarily. Maybe even Obama doesn't want the race thing expanded upon. Of course Hillary and Bill NEED THE RACE CARD AND YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO, WINNING IS THEIR GAME, NO MATTER WHAT.

[jhamm1]

Perhaps these figures are merely incidental, for, as an Ohioan, I can state with almost complete certainty that a significant contribution to Obama's loss had resulted directly from a significant number of REpublicans who decided to vote for Hillary Clinton with hopes of relieving McCain of the burden of going up against a stronger candidate.

[Gma11]

And the fake-NAFTA charges coming too late to rebut them.