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.
"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.
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.
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.
The lady's got class. It's low, but she's got lots of it.
Anyone getting sick of this game?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8
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?
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.
I guess calling it a game shows the mentality that could lead you down that road.
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.
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.
I see the intelligence of whites and the determination of an African American......