Events Prove Race Chasm Article Correct

Earlier this week, I published this In These Times piece about what I called the Race Chasm, and how it relates to the Clinton campaign's strategy. I made some fairly bold assertions in the article, which some readers questioned. So in the interest of fact-checking myself post facto, let's take a look at events of this week and whether they prove the major assertions of the article.

The Race Chasm - Still There?

The first assertion I made was that the Race Chasm does indeed exist, and that states whose populations are above 7 percent but below 17 percent black have been very difficult for Obama to win. Now, in a series of polls, we see that chasm again in advance of the upcoming primaries. Here's what I'm talking about, excerpting from Politicalwire and Bloomberg News:

SurveyUSA - Obama Not Competitive in Kentucky: A new SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky shows Sen. Hillary Clinton crushing Sen. Barack Obama, 58% to 29%, in the closed Democratic primary to be held on May 20.

PPP Poll - Obama Holds Huge Lead in North Carolina: The latest Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 54% to 36%.

Bloomberg News: Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region -- where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary -- suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Recall that Kentucky and Indiana is in the Race Chasm demographic (a new poll shows Clinton leading in Indiana, by the way), and North Carolina is outside the Race Chasm. The difference between Kentucky and North Carolina is especially striking considering their relative geographic proximity. That comparison alone suggests the Race Chasm is at work. More generally, these polls suggest that there's a solid chance the Race Chasm will continue affecting the primary campaign, especially with the Clinton campaign pushing the Jeremiah Wright story.

Race and "Electability" Arguments - Connected?

Let's just review what I wrote in my article on Monday:

Clinton has two reasons to try to highlight race and maximize the Race Chasm, both related to the second pillar of her firewall: the superdelegates...In trying to maximize the Race Chasm by focusing on race-tinged issues, Clinton is tacitly making an "electability" argument to superdelegates...Part of that "electability" argument hinges on portraying Obama as "unelectable" -- and what better way to do that than stoke as many race-focused controversies as possible? It is a standard primary tactic: Launch a line of attack -- in this case, the "Wright controversy" -- and then claim the attack will be used by Republicans to defeat an opponent -- in this case Obama -- should he become the general election candidate.

This was no genius insight, of course. It's just an honest reading of what's going on. Yet some readers who emailed me took offense to this, saying that Clinton wouldn't meld the race issue into an "electability" argument with superdelegates. Yet, that is precisely what Clinton operative Harold Ickes said the Clinton campaign is now doing. In a story out on Tuesday - just a day after my article came out -- TPM reported that Ickes acknowledged the race-tinged Wright "controversy" is "a key topic in discussions with uncommitted super-delegates over whether Obama is electable in a general election."

The rest of the campaign media has now jumped all over the story. I hate to say I told them so...but I told them so.

One final note -- I'm not writing this follow-up post to gloat, but just to explore whether my assertions hold true with changing events (and let's be clear -- things could change further and the trends I identified, while correct in the historical context, may certainly cease). That's something way too many commentators refuse to do -- which is why political analysis in the media is so vapid. But, alas, that's a subject for another day.

Comments

[PioneerKing]

So what's your point? Everyone has always known that "blue collar," Americans will not vote for a black canidate. Or have you forgotten the Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee?

[feelfree]

Wright has more to do with the incredibly crass remarks rather than race. The latte crowd keeps calling the Clintons racists. Well that's a goddamn lie and they know it. At every term Obama's campaign and is supporters are complaining about racist tactics and its turning off people who might have supported him if he's the nominee. The latte crowd already thinks working class people are bigots and stupid and here is a blog that SOUGHT information to support his assertions and then says aha I was right.

[GrainOSand]

I have heard no one call the Clinton's racists --opportunists, morally bankrupt, void of integrity, devilishly ambitious --yes, but not racist.

The problem with generalities is that can paint innocents with a guilty brush. There are bigots amongst the working calss as there are elitist among the professional class. The generalization I like is there are both evil and good people. Which a person is remains up to the person not the group they have been associated with.

[AllenD]

I don't think the Clintons are racists. Serial liars that will do and say anything to win an election, yes, racists, no.

[GrainOSand]

This is why I keep touting that this campaign is really not about the three candidates all of which have great health care benefits, have great jobs commanding big salaries, have homes not in the crosshairs of foreclosure, and who will be just fine --win or lose, after all is said and done. But will America be fine?

The campaign process seems to me to be more about the American people and a referendum asking are we truly one great nation or something far less great and far more divided?

The "blue collar" "whites" who claim they will not vote for Obama due to the Wright flap, I contend were not going to vote for him anyway and the Wright flap has become their convenient excuse so that they can continue to justify racist attitudes that would have existed/manifested no matter if the candidate had been Barack Obama, Colin Powell, or anybody who did not look like them. It"s a farce for a racist to talk about patriotism "imho".

The Archie Bunker character was indeed a racist but Carroll O"Connor the actor appeared to be a man of dignity and conscious. These people need to ask which they identify more with, the caricature or the man.

Americans are susceptible to self-hypnosis (denial), and until we snap out of it, the chasm grows ever wider and the real problems facing us also continue to grow because of an inability to muster the courage to change.

God help America.

[GrainOSand]

The Archie Bunker character was indeed a racist but Carroll O"Connor the actor appeared to be a man of dignity and "conscience". These people need to ask which they identify more with, the caricature or the man.

[V4Vigilance]

Given the vast difference between the nominee selection process and the general election, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can possibly correlate success or failure in one with success or failure in the other.

As for Ickes, he may be TRYING to "meld the race issue into an "electability" argument" but as it is with all the other lame "we're losing but we should be the nominee anyway" arguments being floated by the Clinton campaign, he doesn't seem to be swaying many super-delegates to Hillary these days.

OBAMA 08

[Doofus]

It seems you have discovered (or is it 'revealed') that Obama
is going to have trouble winning the 'Red' states. Prediction:
Clinton will also have trouble winning 'Red' states, but NOT
THE SAME ONES.

It's entirely possible that the Clinton campaign will try hard to
capitalize on, to take advantage of, this disparity, even to the
point of insisting that they will win more of these states than
Obama, OR that they will win more ELECTORAL VOTES from
these states than he would. Obama must prove them wrong.

It's perhaps 'unseemly' to make such claims, but hardly more
than that. Racism is a bitter truth, no getting around it. Making
a bigger deal out of it won't bring votes to Obama. As for me,
I'm still an Obama supporter & I am not voting for the Repo man.

[Doofus]

Well, actually, *mostly* the same ones.
See also... http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar07.html
Goes back to March 6, but shows either Obama or Clinton beat McCain in
the electoral vote count, but neither does well in the Red states.

[gloryoski]

Edit (?) : David in the first box, it would be less confusing if you actually said "Indiana'" in the third paragraph. I assume from below that's what you mean.

[Countess]

Your right on David and the question we have to ask ourselves is: How has this kind of filthy racial campaigning become acceptable within the democratic party?

[Computer Geek]

Exactly! This is totally against everything Dems are supposed to stand for. But yet the Democratic leadership is standing by and letting it happen. They are as despicable as Hillary at this point. Do the supers understand how this makes them look? Are they willing to throw away a good part of their constituency like this? Do they really grasp the portent of their actions by their non-action? I doubt it.

[nazgul]

Indeed.

[Jane]

So what about the US as a whole--is it between 7 and 17 per cent? And if so, does the race chasm exist?