I'm Black.
I voted for Obama in the Democratic Primary. I did not vot for Obama because he is Black. THere have been many Black candidates who have run for various offices throughout my life (Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Doug Wilder, Adrian Fenty, etc.) and I did not vote for or against them based on race.
I was ambivalent as to whom I would support in the Democratic nomination until I heard Bill Clinton compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, Gerraldine Ferraro's comments, and the Bosnia sniper shooting stuff.
I will probabaly not vote Republican because I have fundamental disagreement on a number of issues and they seem not only to discount Black voters but to alos provide comfort to people who hold antipathy toward Balcks. I did not vote for Hillary for the reasons I mentioned above. I would vote for Hillary over McCain though.
And I'm not racist.
The Importance of Black Voters, and the Stupidity of Ignoring Them
Jim Clyburn makes a very good point in the Washington Post today:
"We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter."
Clyburn is, unfortunately, spot on - and there's two reasons why the phenomenon he describes is such a problem.
First and foremost is the idea that black voters are, indeed, treated as less important than white voters. I would even take it a step further: black voters are not only considered unimportant, but are considered only as black voters and nothing else - a very subtly derogatory and dehumanizing characterization in that it implies African Americans are just one dimensional simpletons, rather than multi-dimensional humans.
For instance, though much of the African-American community is economically in the "working class," pundits and reporters use economic and other demographic distinctions only to describe white voters, while black voters are just "black voters" - as if the only issue they vote on is race. Chris Matthews gave us the best example of this when he publicly claimed there's some sort of difference between "regular people" and black people.
Of course, you might counter that in a general election, black voters have constituted about 12 percent of the total vote, while white voters have constituted about 79 percent of the total vote, and therefore when comparing demographic subsets, the black vote is less mathematically important than the white vote. Except, even that is a flawed way of looking at the electoral map. As Clyburn implies, if Democrats nominate a candidate like Clinton who is doing so poorly among black voters, there could be huge general election problems in a number of key swing states - problems that could create a general-election Race Chasm for the Democratic nominee.
Recall the Race Chasm graph that I published in In These Times a few weeks back. It shows how Hillary Clinton has been winning states whose populations are above 7 percent and below 17 percent black. If Democrats nominate a candidate who isn't well supported by the black community, and that community ends up not turning out to vote in the general election in strong numbers, those states in the Race Chasm like New Jersey and Pennsylvania could flip to the Republicans, and other states in the Race Chasm like Ohio, Florida, Missouri and Virginia could remain in the Republican column (NOTE: I'm in no way saying that Clinton cannot eventually rebuild her support among black voters in a general election, just like I don't believe Obama cannot strengthen his white support in a general election - all I'm saying is that Clinton's current weakness among black voters is at least as important a factor in this election as Obama's current weakness among some white demographics).
Put another way, the black vote - though only 12 percent of the total popular vote - can make the key difference in the key swing states, meaning Clyburn is absolutely right: It is not only subtly racist to generally downplay the importance of the black vote, but it is also mathematically absurd, because the black vote will likely be a decisive factor in the general election.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
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
And you are a reasonable gentleperson indeed.
I am confident Senator Obama will be our nominee and he will beat McCain. Do not listen to the day to day crap coming from the repuglican freepers and the MSM. No one knows until voting day.
Keep the faith my friend.
BTW - I am white and I proudly cast my vote for Senator Obama. I too used to really like the Clintons a lot until they showed who they really are and what they are about.
I would suggest the 92% black voter figure, the sort of thing associated with what is generally accepted as a "rigged" vote were it to issue from Russia, former members of the Soviet bloc, any number of countries usually designated "third world" and more figuratively "banana republics" militates strongly in favor of retitling your piece "The Stupidity of Black Voters and the Importance of Ignoring Them."
Stop, please stop, being a hypocrite.
Matt - you are a racist and a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. You make no sense in your racist rants.
Go back to the freeper site where you belong and crawl back under that rock you came out from under.
You are pathetic.
America votes in an Alzheimer's patient who thinks he is is a movie, a simple minded war mongering dyspeptic, a coke sniffing deserter, a sex crazed draft dodger, and you have the nerve to begin to suggest that Black people are stupid? Fuck around, and we will give you your collaborator McI'lltalk.
He won't make the least little difference one way or the other for Blacks, but he sure will finish the destruction of your world that Bush has been carrying on.
Call us stupid if you want, but it is still true about who laughs last.
I agree with Nommo. In fact, I am a big fan. I think your posts are right on the mark and I am white.
What kills me is that the very same people who have been shouting that Obama's use of the word "Bitter" was an intolerable insult to white working class voters have no compunction about saying that those same voters are racists who won't vote for a black man.
I guess they don't think that's insulting.
There are many of those "bitter" folks right here.
In the end, if Barack Obama is ahead in popular vote, elected delegates and states won at the end of June 3rd - and the superdelegates (override the will of the people and) replace him with Hillary Clinton, black voters may well defect to John McCain just to teach the good old boys in the Democratic party a real lesson. Should McCain then win, Republicans would have no coice but to take a step back and say "hey, black America made the difference in this election, and now we have to do everything we possibly can to keep them voting Republican". That's the real danger that the Democratic party establishment faces right now.
That's why it ain't gonna happen Mr. Solo. The DNC is not going to overturn the will of the people. Over 1 million new registered democrats. That has not happened since 1960 and the party wants to win so they are not going to do it. Plus, I would venture to guess the DNC is pretty damn sick of the Clintons right now.
The top cities with at least a 30% African American population, according to wikipedia, are Detroit, Gary (Indiana) Birmingham (Alabama), Jackson (Mississippi), New Orleans, Baltimore, Memphis, Atlanta, Washington D.C.
None of those cities, with a depressed African American turnout in November, will switch the state. The red ones are red regardless.
Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee always go red in modern presidential elections, and Democrats certainly do not rely on those states to deliver the necessary 270 electoral votes it takes to win. D.C. is also Democrat regardless.
In an election that only matters "within" a state, like a U.S. senate race, the black vote clearly matters more. In 2006, Missouri's Democratic nominee Claire McCaskill defeated the Republican incumbent James Talent in the U.S. senate race. It was one of the last races decided that night across the country, and we were all waiting on the black boxes from urban St. Louis to get her over the top. And they did, thankfully.
But Missouri doesn't decide the presidency.
We're talking about components of the Democratic constituency. If Clinton's the nominee and a percentage of the black constituency stay away, they make a McCain victory easier. If Obama's the nominee and just 5% to 7% of the other, much larger part of the Democratic constituency stay away (or vote McCain), they're absolutely guaranteeing a McCain victory. That's the difference in terms of the math involved.
"In an election that only matters "within" a state, like a U.S. senate race, the black vote clearly matters more."
Although I understand your reasoning in trying to look at the results of the general election, how about a change of perspective? The black vote matters because blacks are voting citizens, just like all votes matter. Talking about Democrat, Republican, and Independent votes is fine, because it names a political perspective. But once you start talking about the black vote (or female, or working class white vote), you play into the very language this article is talking about. Being black is not a political perspective. It's a problem for all of us if any "group" feels disenfranchised to vote because they are being ignored.
I disagree. Based on HRC own electoral map she will need to win PA, FL, MI, and OH. Well I got news for you, even a slight depression in Black turnout in these states will spell her doom (w/o it she will have no chance in FL and OH). She will have no chance in Missouri and Virginia and she will likely loose Wisconsin all the mentioned states are purple states.
And if the Black votes depression is more significant, it is concievable that she could loose NJ and Maryland (ask Kathleen Kennedy Townsend)
Does that "slight depression in Black turnout" in PA (the first of the states you mention) translate into Blacks voting...what? 95-100% Obama in the first instance? Of are you honestly suggesting if HRC wins the DNC, those 92% will stay home?
Either way, Blacks are voting BLACK and nothing else. This is something our country simply DOES NOT NEED!
And it this becomes the case, the McCain DESERVES the presidency...and our black population DESERVES everything that flows from this!
The media will cover Sharpton if he says that he may advocate not supporting the nominee should the winner be Clinton in this case, which would could actually make either sitting out or writing in Obama a real possibility come November. I think what's missed here is that it's not Barack Obama's fault that Florida and Michigan were "disenfranchised", I blame Howard Dean because if he cannot enforce the rules, he can never be believed again, plain and simple. How does Clinton then blame Obama if Michigan and Florida's delegations aren't seated? This is all she has left and she needs an equally compelling argument against the threat of black voters sitting this one out. This is her card, and NOBODY is calling her out on it. I also ask, how irrational is this: Clinton voters won't vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee? That is completely irrational. Obama has given them no reason whatsoever to vote against him in the general election. Any way I'm pleased at these developments because what this primary season is proving is that if Barack Obama is not elected president in November, it won't be because of Republicans, it will be because of refined or not so refined racist white "Democrats". But this has to happen and the Democratic party deserves to be held hostage as the base of the party (black people) cash in their chips and nominate the person of their choice.
I am SO happy to see this story staying alive!
The SC primary was the turning point in the Black community. I am Black and an Obama supporter since February '07. When I made my decision, Obama was a long shot and most of my friends/family weren't impressed.
I canvassed in SC and there was no race-based loyalty there. People were interested in hearing about him but most were skeptics. You can argue that Bill Clinton got a bum rap, but you cannot argue that he lost a lot of respect within the Black community after SC. I can assure you that he has.
For many reasons, political participation has been low in the Black community. We tune out and stay home in large numbers. But the Democrats can't afford for that to happen this year. The unity that Obama talks about is obviously not here yet. We still have a problem with partisan and racial divides.
Blacks are 12% of this population and have been loyal to the Democrats. We can't afford to have the low numbers that we've had in 2000 and 2004. If the norm is 50% of Blacks staying home, can you imagine what will happen if Clinton is the nominee? The Dems lose. The math just doesn't add up. We need a candidate who will bring out the Black and young voters in record numbers. They will make the difference and are the key in several swing states...Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, etc.,
Hillary and Bill Clinton have insulted not only black voters but all intelligent voters with their campaign of smears and racist innuendo. One wonders how any self respecting black person could still be associated with them.
There is a saying that we used to hear growing up. "It is not whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game." This is one of those times when the adage applies.
If Sen. Clinton is perceived as playing dirty politics in the primary season, then there may be repercussions in the general election. It is hard to ignore the clips of her and the former president on TV saying things that can only be interpreted as playing dirty.
Our best leaders, historically, have been those who, like Eisenhower and JFK, could rise above partisan politics and concentrate on the good of all. Men like these were not just Republican or Democrat, not even just good Americans, but they were good men. Eisenhower could remember leading a united force against Hitler. JFK could conceive of a united world standing up to Kruschev. "I am a Berliner" was more than just a demonstration of his language skills.
If Sen. Clinton cannot even behave as part of a united Democratic party, what does that say about her prospects in the fall election?
If Sen. McCain is perfectly happy to use Karl Rove and his dirty tricks against the Democrats, does he really expect to be the leader of a united nation, happy to follow him and his immoral cadre?
You can play the race card all night long, but the Republican party didn't need the black vote to win the last two elections.
That was 8 years ago before Bush went to an illegal war, and f'd up the country. This is a different time chimpface.
"the Republican party didn't need the black vote to win the last two elections."
But, see, most people here aren't republicans. We're talking about the Democratic party and the Democratic party CANNOT win national elections without the black vote. Republicans win with racism, sexism, xenophobia and lies.
Comparing the demographics important to Republicans to those for Democrats is like comparing apples and oranges.
It's not a race card when candidates are making statements that point to exactly what the analysis says. Sirota is right to bring us back to reality reminding us that we cannot exclude any one group for political expedience.
I wish more commentators, reporters, pundits, and politicians would focus on the fact that these issues - the potential "disenfranchisement" of a majority of legitimate, Democratic voters - is of critical importance for ALL of us, not just those that are Black.
Certainly, Senator Obama does have the overwhelming support of the Black community. But when that honor still belonged to Senator Clinton, hundreds of thousands of diverse and energized Americans became active participants in his campaign. To ignore ANY of our votes, to engage in any discussion of possible "rule changing" or 3rd quarter goal-post adjustment, to validate any imagined back-room "steal", is to threaten the disenfranchisement of all of us who trusted in the process so sacred to this country we love.
Losing in a fair fight is one thing. But this? This refusal of our Party Leaders to accept the math is deeply damaging. One must wonder why they can't find the courage to stand up together and lead us!?
The question is, how far will it be allowed to go? How deep will the losses cut before it is over?
We blacks are more aware of the dynamics since we are at the literal and figuretive spear point of the omissions or commissions of political actions. In ways, thanks to MALCOLM and Martin, we are more internationalist in our outlook and loyalties than the parochial nativists amongst the general population.
The Democrats who have lived off the patronage to select high profile personnages in our community will find that "those people" are a niche unto themselves than representative of the trends occuring throughout our world. There is existence beyond these shores. We are nolonger captive hostaged-petitioners to an economic or politcal system that is condescending and patronizing, if not out right callous.
Despite the demagogued hype about cross-cultural antagonisms with the latino community and illegal workers, there are informal cultural bonds that will become a genetic relationship due to the proximity of our shared circumstances. We're seeing a blaspanol culture arising inspite of the marginal tensions.
As woud be said in the "Treasure of the Sierra Madres", we don't need your stinkin'party. We've lived with and under the deprivations of Republican malignant neglect and Democrat patronizing triangulation. We've survived to realize new and better horizons for which we don't have to kneel to a litmus test that is just another configuration of the poll taxes of the past.
Abagad-Diablo@excite.com
Oops! The media's slip is showing.
Correct on slip showing...It's too easy to dismiss the sudden sleazing of Obama as merely "extending the race for ratings" though that surely plays a part. It is the intended destruction of a decent, straight arrow candidate, Obama. This is stinking just like the Iraq war buildup of 2003 in the mdeia outlets. They are bragging about it now with the recent revelations of the Pentagon team. It's tough if you don't like that, by the way. You don't count. I'm saying Obama, all the way..eight years of a fresh start and no less is what we need.
Perhaps it is time to ask just what have the Clintons really done for African-Americans. I invite anyone to list just what they have accomplished or even tried to accomplish to have earned the historical devotion of African-Americans.
Okay. Name one thing.
Just as the Republicans have scammed the Christains for years with empty promises, so have the Clintons. Or did the Clintons ever really promise black people anything at all?
I've often been puzzled by this Clinton- driven proclaimation of black devotion to the Clintons. Bill's policies made both poor whites and blacks poorer. Bill Clinton's cops program was directed primarily at inner city blacks with, probably, fatal consequences for Sean Bell.
At last the fascade is off this couple. They are elite bigots, maybe, yes, even closet racists. They have used black voters. Bill is no more than a good-ol'-southern boy huckster scamming blacks and privately chuckling to himself. Yet he thinks black people owe him and his wife alot.
For what, I ask you. For What?
I have been asking that question right here for months. uheardme is telling you just what is going to happen. I have been far from the only one asking.
You will NEVER get an answer to your question.
Clyburn has shown his own cards- he supports Obama without officially stating so- a la Carter and Sharpton. It's a very nefarious approach- nail the opponent, support your candidate...and your candidate isn't responsible for your actions. It's interesting that just before Carter met with Hamas he stated he would not endorse a candidate. Sharpton admitted that he could help Obama more if he didn't formally endorse Barack.
I am intrigued by the Lincoln debate offer: Imagine these two speaking extemporaneously sans moderators. At a time when the race is essentially a dead heat, I can't imagine not debating.
In the end, it's about electing a great president.
Obama needs to start winning, he should debate (Otherwise he will be painted as weak and afeared) and he must try to settle the Florida and Michigan fiascos honorably (If not, there will always be a question mark about the race).
Clinton has to keep winning, speak from her heart (Forget about talking points and triangulation), and she must be truthful (Another boneheaded "Bosnia" and she's out).
These are two amazing candidates. I, for one, am still hopeful for an O/C or C/O ticket.
I believe parsing the demographics, weighing voter import etc... is wrong. Every vote is important. Or, did we learn nothing from the 2000 election?
You must have missed that Clyburn said that he believed that Clinton would be the nominee the first time he scolded Bill Clinton to "chill out". At that time it seemed inevitable that Hillary would have this nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday. So, Clyburn was trying to be impartial.
However, as a representative for his voting district, he also has a responsibility to reflect the feelings of those he represents. I am sure he is getting an earful, being part of the AA community myself. It is painful watching the talking heads voice opinions that are not yours and yet you have no outlet to get your voice heard. If not for Clyburn, I don't think Democrats would know there is a real problem brewing between the Clintons and the Black community.
I do feel taken for granted and refuse to "go along for the ride". I would have no problem voting for McCain, just like the working class white voters. And I am not the only one.
And just because people "know" WHO the Clintons are DOES NOT mean they ACCEPT what they are, EVEN THOUGH OBAMA(being a gentleman) REFUSES TO REMIND US OF ALL THEIR TROUBLES. The Republicans will have no problem with that one.
The Clintons don't know what gentleman-like behavior is if it hit them in the face. They are just interested in POWER, POWER, AND MORE POWER. And I am not up for that.
Posted April 26, 2008 | 03:14 PM (EST)