Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
A few weeks ago, I published an article in In These Times showing how Hillary Clinton has been winning states almost exclusively in the Race Chasm - states whose populations are more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent black. The results of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania - a state whose demographics fall squarely in the Race Chasm - continue the trend.
I have hypothesized that the Race Chasm exists because of racial politics. Specifically, in states where there is almost no black population, black-white racial politics has little traction because it isn't part of the political dialect. In states where there is a very large black population, the black vote can offset a racially motivated white vote. But in the Race Chasm, the black vote is too small to offset a racially motivated white vote.
So how prevalent was race as a factor in voting in Pennsylvania? The exit polls suggest that when Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) previously said race would be a huge factor, he was absolutely correct. Specifically, page 4 and 5 of the CNN exit poll show a whopping 19 percent of Pennsylvania voters said race was an important factor in their vote, with Clinton winning almost 60 percent of that segment. Broken down further, 13 percent of the white vote said race was a major factor in their vote, with Clinton winning 75 percent of that group.
These are big numbers, especially considering the fact that these numbers only represent voters who are willing to admit to pollsters they are voting on race. The real number is probably much higher, because some voters may not want to disclose such taboo voting habits.
Let me reiterate something I wrote in my original Race Chasm analysis:
Clearly, race is not the only force moving votes. Demographic groups -- white, black or any other -- do not vote as monoliths. Additionally, the Race Chasm does not mean every white voter who votes against Obama nor every black voter who supports Obama is racially motivated.
However, considering the exit polling and the fact that Pennsylvania falls squarely in the demographic Race Chasm, it is clear that those who continue to pretend race is not a major factor in this campaign are deliberately averting their eyes from a very powerful force in the Democratic primary.
UPDATE: I should have added this into the original article. Some folks say that even discussing the Race Chasm is good or bad for one or another of the candidates in the primary or general election. That may or may not be true - but I don't really care. Political junkies tend to forget that the whole world does not revolve around the next election - and that yes - I know it's hard for some people to fathom - but some issues like racism are much bigger and more important than whatever election cycle we may be in. Racism is something that has been a part of American life for, oh, two centuries. If this presidential race is becoming a vehicle to talk about and confront and expose that racism, then that's a good thing - regardless of whichever candidates some think it may help or hurt.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
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
One thing Demos are always willing to demonstrate
is the Willingness to lose an Election for a Principle.
Quote: "If this presidential race is becoming a vehicle to talk about and confront and expose that racism, then that's a good thing - regardless of whichever candidates some think it may help or hurt."
As a general principle, I would agree. But what if, by insisting on having the discussion now, rather than later, we help convert Obama into the black candidate and sink his chances? We've had so many discussions on race. We can't let this one wait a bit?
Yea, the race chasm exists. What an effing heartbreaker. The country's "original sin" in perpetuity.
Yes it is. But, since the problem persists, it's not just that.
You could not be more correct. I worked as a volunteer for Obama here in PA. The number of phone calls I made and the number of doors I knocked on where their only reason that they wouldn't vote for Obama was he was black blew my mind. I was shocked at the number of people that came right out and said "I can't vote for a black guy". I always asked why?, what was the issue? 90% of the time there wasn't one. It was just that he was black. I went back to the office one day and sat there amazed that the community I live in is so racist and backwards. I knew racism existed here and maybe a little more than other places. I guess to me the most disturbing factor was that people were so open with it. They seemed to not think twice about telling me why they would'nt vote for him, that is scarier than anything else. The lower income, less educated people were her biggest supporters here. They were also the most openly racist people I interacted with. You wouldn't in good conscience allow these people to pick out a puppy for you, yet they may be the folks that pick our next president. I actually expected a loss in PA that in itself didn't surprise me. What did surprise me though is the fact that my community is a place that I'm now ashamed to call home.
biffer: Did you also find out why blacks have been voting in well-nigh monolithic fashion at 90% to 10% for Obama and against Clinton? Or, you think only whites are racists?
I'll bet that you are thinking about how Black people vote for the first time in your life.
readerK, think about this for a moment if you can. How many black folks voted for Bill Clinton in 92 and 96? And, contrary to the jokingly absurd notion, he wasn't America's first "black president". How many blacks voted for John Kerry? So your "little theory"doesn't hold water. As for the large number of blacks voting for Obama, look at it this way. They're just trying to negate the white racists who are voting against him just because he is black. Seems fair to me
I'm basing my observations on my county and my community alone, not on the country as a whole. The county that I live in is 97.6% white therefore I would guess the number of African American voters in the that remaining 2.4% voted in the majority for Obama. I can say though that 2 of the higher profile African Americans from our community supported Hillary Clinton. Are African American voters voting in record numbers for Obama clearly they are. The subject of my original post though is just how saddened I was at the number of people in my community that are voting based strictly on race as per David's article. Look I hear people saying this wasn't the case and making this out to be a non-issue. I was on the front lines of this PA primary, I talked to these people and it most certainly was factor. Unfortunately looking at the local numbers it seems like it was an even bigger factor than I thought.
So, you are concerned about 2.4% of the voters in
your community who are not voting the way you'd like,
because the first time they have the chance to vote for
a member of their own race for president, they do so.
Really? Just a suggestion, well intended: Get over it.
We need to pull ourselves together. Yes, it's shocking the racism that still exists. But, as is obvious from the fact Sen. Obama is winning, racism is fortunately not the only response out there. The time for change has come. I firmly believe that the support is there to nominate Obama and vote him into office. And that will go a long way toward dissipating a fair amount of the racism that is left. People who can't imagine the unimaginable suddenly find it a lot easier to do so once the imaginable is before their eyes. We can't reach into people's minds and change the way they think, but we can change the world we live in, and let the minds of those we disagree with find their own ways of adapting to that changed world. It's time.
It says something pretty good about US that Obama is doing better than
many expected among white voters. It says something not so good that
it might well not be enough to make a difference in November. One of
the things this may demonstrate, yet again, as if we needed it, is the
effect of Electoral College voting on Presidential Vote results: small,
rural voter populations have a disproportionate say in the outcome.
Those wise-guy Founding Fathers wanted it this way. Don't like it? FIX IT!
Sirota -- I definitely think you are on to something. What do "you" think we can about the race chasm?
I accept the fact that there are some people we can just write-off. I realize there are some people who will not vote to elect a black man as president of the United States. I'm wondering what we can do to peel off that bunch that is still reachable?
Quote: "Political junkies tend to forget that the whole world does not revolve around the next election - and that yes ... some issues like racism are much bigger and more important than whatever election cycle we may be in."
I understand what you're saying. But, I assume you can also understand that for some of us there are reasons to support Obama's candidacy which, rightly or wrongly, lead us to feel that now may not be the time for an airing of whether racism is involved in something as multi-determined as the outcome of a primary. Racism has been around for a long time. Surely we can postpone picking over the PA primary results for another month or so.
And the reason is this: Dealing with something like racism tends to proceed in fits and starts. Sometimes public thinking leads our institutions; sometimes an institution is wrenched ahead by some action and public thinking follows. Was everyone ready for women's suffrage when it came? No. But ready or not, suffrage arrived, and who but a few cranks would argue against it now?
I believe not only that Sen. Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate, but that his very nomination will change who we are and how we think of ourselves. It won't end racism, but it would be a leap forward. One that not all of us are ready for, perhaps, but I'll bet that many who don't think they're ready will find that they are.
I knew it! I knew it wouldn't be 12 hours and one of the Obamabots would be blaming his loss on racism. That's right, all us Democrats are the biggest racists ever. I already read on this site last night that he lost because of fraud. Bwaaahaaahaaa!
She still is going to lose. Why the gloating?
Re: the quote from your original posting on this: "Clearly, race is not the only force moving votes. Demographic groups -- white, black or any other -- do not vote as monoliths" -- You may want to amend that statement. If one thing has been shown by the poll numbers, it is that blacks as a demographic group have indeed been voting as a monolith in this primary. When 90 percent of blacks vote against Hillary, I really don't know how you can avoid the obvious: if that's not racialized voting, I don't know what is.
Since, the "Race" issue has come to the forefront (like we knew it would) I have only one question:
Of the remaining Democratic Super-delegates, how many are black v. white?
This may help explain the delay in their decision...or maybe not? Let's see the math.
Part 2...
15% of the voters were black. Those blacks split 90-10 for Obama. (10% of that pool bucked their ethnicity, in gross disproportion to statewide overall results.)
58% of the voters were female. Those females split 59-41 for HIllary. (41% of that pool bucked their gender, in sync with statewide overall results.)
More subtle...
Of whites who said race did NOT matter (66% of all voters), these self-described "color-blind" whites voted 60-40 for Clinton. No real news.
But of blacks who said race did NOT matter (9% of all voters), these self-described "color-blind" blacks voted 92-8 for Obama.
*** Here's the race chasm. Had even the self-proclaimed color-blind Blacks NOT voted their color, and voted 55-45 for Hillary, Hillary would have picked up another 4%, Obama would have lost 4%, for an 8% swing. Hillary wins PA by 18%, and the national story-line gets a big shake-up. ***
Obama's blackness seems to matter more to blacks than whites. Blacks "voted their own" more than women voted their own or whites voted their own. Just sayin.
Personally, I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. But the overblown rhetoric on how inherently RACIST the whites are is simply NOT BORNE OUT BY THE STATS.
Blacks won't vote white more than whites won't vote black.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM posted 04/23/2008 at 16:16:32
Also, 'just sayin'...
Since about 85% of the folks in this country are white and the rest are not,
it doesn't matter hardly at all, as far as the outcome of the election, if
blacks vote for Obama, just as it didn't matter hardly at all if Massachusetts
voted for John Kerry. (It would have been nice if Tennessee voted for Al Gore,
but that's a different story.)
My aged jewish mother-in-law waited her entire life to vote for a jewish
candidate, who turned out to be Joe Lieberman. Such a deal! Do you think
she hesitated, even for a moment?
The 'problem' is not blacks voting for Obama, it's whites NOT voting for Obama.
Also a 'problem', women not voting for Clinton. A majority of voters, nation-wide,
are women (55%-60%). If they want Hillary to be President, she WILL BE elected.
And if whites are so f*cking stupid as to NOT vote
for Obama because blacks ARE voting for him,
then we deserve whatever Doddering John brings US.
Likewise, women voting for HRC, men NOT, 'just because'.
Hmm! Just who have blacks been voting for since blacks have had the right to vote?
Been wondering if black women voters are included in the female or the black vote? Likewise for men, I guess... Anybody?
Yes, indeed they are.
ReasonIsMyReligion -- your contention that blacks vote purely on race falls apart when you compare Obama's run with that of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson as well as other races between black and white candidates. In Maryland's 2006 Senate primary white Ben Cardin beat black Kweisi Mfume (former head NAACP, strong black credentials). In that general election Cardin beat black Michael Steele in a state with a heavy black population. Remember also when this race began Hillary was leading Obama among black voters. At that time the media was asking whether Obama was black enough to win the black vote.
As a group historically discriminated against on the basis of something as inane and inconsequential as skin color -- blacks more than any other group know the stupidity of judging character or qualification on the basis of race. As the originators of white supremacy (i.e., belief that white people are superior) you must concede that race in the context of this election is far more significant to whites than it is to blacks (in terms of determining how one will vote). There is still a substantial percentage of white people who believe white is superior and black is inferior.
Black people like voters of every persuasion believe Obama offers the fresh perspective on leadership that we need and Hillary offers politics as usual. The fact that Obama is African-American and his candidacy will be a historic first is just icing it's not the cake.
and any argument that women vote based on gender also falls apart if you consider Carol Mosley-Braun and Liddy Dole/
But you are changing the subject. We are talking about this election. Blacks are clearly voting based on race more than whites are and more than women are voting based on gender.
Identity politics is not the same thing as racism. Those black voters would have voted for the white candidate if there wasn't a candidate on the ballot with whom they identified racially. Those women would have voted for a male candidate of there wasn't a female candidate on the ballot. How do we know? Because they voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The difference is the 16% who said they would not vote for a candidate because of his race. That's not identity politics. That's racism and a whole different ballgame. The more interesting to ask the people who identified race as a primary factor is whether they would vote for Hillary in the fall if she is the nominee against John McCain. I don't think she keeps all the voters she won yesterday.
only 12 percent of African American voters would answer the question. It is a stupid question that means nothing.
Whining that Obama keeps losing white voters because they are racist is not only a loser argument, but it is divisive and costing him votes. It will cost him mine in the GE, where I will not vote for the democrat for the first time in my life.
I will not because I can not reward his yanking out that race card and slapping it down the second he lost NH. He painted the Clintons as racist and to me that is unforgivable. He could have been the black candidate who transcended race. He was off to a good start. However he chose to exploit race instead.
In addition, his sexist comments were a call out to men of all ethnicities. I can not stand Obama and I know that a lot of women feel the same way because they told me over and over.
"Blacks won't vote white more than whites won't vote black."
We have for over 200 years....or, I should say, since we were allowed to vote. What was that, nineteen sixty something? Anyway, I don't think the high percentage of blacks voting for Obama has to do with him being black, as it has to do with him being Original, New and Different. There has NEVER been a presidential candidate like Barack Obama. From the grass root ground swell and $5 donations, to the rallies that resemble rock concerts, rather than political gatherings. Honestly, I was thrilled when I first heard Hillary Clinton was running for president. I couldn't wait for her and Bill to get this country back on track...out of debt...out of Iraq! I didn't think Barack was anything more than a skinny little upstart who thinks too highly of himself. But, I kept listening and I kept watching. My observations have led me to vote for and support Barack Obama. If he loses the nomination, I will suck it up and vote for Hillary because, I honestly believe there is a greater chance that John McCain, more than anyone else, will take us into war with Iran. That's just how serious this is to me. Jabs aside, I don't vote for color, I vote for the best interest of myself and my family. ok?
that is you. The statistics have to make you wonder though if 93 percent of black men really really are not voting on race and gender. Frankly I think that Obama's sexist comments, the latest being "she threw the sink, the china and the silver...." is meant to appeal to males of all races.
You are supposed to vote exactly that way unless, of course, you are Black. Then you should just be happy to vote at all. I wonder if you wonder how it is that Biden and Edwards have been touted here often and particularly as superior candidates. Unfortunately only a very few people picked up on that. I think that the white people need to spend a little more time figuring out how the hell they are voting for and not worry so much about what Black people are doing. But if you must know, we are just trying to all the same stuff that anyone else is doing. Nothing special or particular about it. Looking for the best deal as house of glass points out. We are driven by a different set of illusions, though.
But of course, they'd have to recognize the humanity first to see that.
Well, given the US overall is 12% black... 6-17% might better be called "typical" than a "chasm."
Re "Additionally, the Race Chasm does not mean every white voter who votes against Obama nor every black voter who supports Obama is racially motivated." True for whites. UNTRUE for blacks. Follow me through the CNN PA Dem exit poll:
CNN's exit polls show a huge majority of PA's blacks voted for Obama. Surprised?
Blacks vote black, more than women vote woman, or whites vote white.
Checkidout in Part 2...
Wedge issues continue to haunt American politics. Race and gender and Guns, Gays, and God. Nobody worries about the holocaust in Iraq or global warming or the economy. Democrats are almost as bigoted and sexist as are the Republicans. If people would just vote their pocketbook, we would have a liberal and progressive society. The middle class and the lower classes would vote for universal health care and would want to end wars for profit by multinational corporations. Because of the racial mix in America, the wedge issues and the Southern strategy has caused progressive, peace-loving candidates to lose. Now you can throw in the gender issue, too. Remember, Blacks were not given the vote until after the Civil War. Women couldn't vote until the twentieth century.
Hopefully in the general we can hope the pocketbook predominates, if they can still crawl to the polls after this primary.
Huzzah.
Worth a repeat: "If people would just vote their pocketbook, we would have a liberal and progressive society. "
race was a factor in Penn--90% of blacks voted black--a high number indicating black racism--nationally their vote won't matter--McCan't will win--
Posted April 23, 2008 | 10:00 AM (EST)