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
is the Willingness to lose an Election for a Principle.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
But of course, they'd have to recognize the humanity first to see that.
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.
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.
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...
Worth a repeat: "If people would just vote their pocketbook, we would have a liberal and progressive society. "
I ask this question seriously as it is my view that a big problem in discussing race is how people define and understands terms.
Now an african american man is running for head of the biggest institution there is. Now it is very important that he not exploit race. Unfortunately he chose to go there when he started calling everyone who will not vote for him racist. It has happened time after time and even people who were ready to support him in the GE will no longer. People do not appreciate being called racist.
Sexism -- amongst MEN -- is alive and well in America. Certainly in PA.
Women who said gender was NOT important (44% of total) voted 52-48 for HILLARY. Reflective of overall results. Call it gender-blind.
Notable: Men who said gender was NOT important (34% of total) voted 52-48 for OBAMA. Hmmm. Are 10% of those men fibbing to the pollsters?
For women who say gender WAS important (14%), they voted 77-23 for Hillary. So, some looked at Hillary's gender, and said, "Nah, I'm going with the guy anyway."
Notable: For men who said gender WAS important (6%), they voted 60-40 for..... Hillary. Goooo male feminists! (Me included. Gotta make daughter proud.)
But, as pointed out elsewhere, race consciousness, was more dominant... certainly if you were a black voter (15% of total). 90-10 for Obama, who's black, by the way.
Catholics can be very discriminating about what type of persons they will accept for friends and neighbors and representatives. When I married a Protestant that was considered a "mixed" marriage. When my mother's sister married an Italian Catholic rather than an Irish Catholic that was considered a mixed marriage.
I wonder whether there was some calculation behind getting Geraldine Anne Ferraro Geraldine to call out Obama and whether we have just seen the payoff. It was not exactly playing the race card - more like playing a heritage card for the approval of a group of people who consider cultural heritage very important.
Black people.
The way for Obama to deal with it is probably to surround himself Catholics of a wide variety of types - especially blue collar catholics - who have clear Catholic charm.
http://www.usccb.org/saac/factsheet.shtml
Did you either go to, or watch the Masses held during the recent papal visit? You really ought to get out more.
Some of your other comments are dead-on, however. I am a 51 year-old, Black, lapsed-Catholic-turned-Protestant, educated from kiindergarten to high school by an order of Black nuns in the Jim Crow South. I am 27 years married to a lapsed, Italian-American Catholic from upstate NY for 27 years. When we married, I was Protestant, giving double meaning to the whole "mixed marriage" meme. "Very discriminating" is hardly what I would call it.