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.
Loading comments…
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
Thanks for this post! I am a black woman and I don't think the Clintons are racist at all. I do think they will have a hard time getting the black vote if Bill Clinton continues to complain about the race card when he was the one that compared Obama to Jackson just because they are both black. The black vote isvery very important in battleground states and many in the mainstream mostly white media have ignored that in their attempt to pretend Hillary actually has a chance to win. I hope the Clintons will stop trying the dived the party and support Obama after he wins in June!!
Mr. Sirota, when you get a chance, please ask the Democratic Governors of Ohio (Gov. Strickland) and Pennslyvania (Gov. Rendell) whether they WILL NOT campaign for Senator Obama WHEN he is the nominee come June.
In addition to ignoring the role of the African Americans in this campaign, the media has also ignored the fact that the results in Ohio and Penn depended on the role or the 2 governors and the Democratic Party Machine in those states.
The Democratic Party Machine in Ohio and Pennslyvania was used to rigorously support Senator Clinton in her taregting of voters, access to media, local resources, and ultimate wins. For the most part Senator Obama has been able to put up those electoral results in spite of the fact that he was operating outside the party machine and relying on grass-roots voluneers. Imagine the success he will have when he is able to combine both his grass-roots operation and the Dem Party machine.
I can say franklly that in Ohio, the party machine was used to undermine Senator Obama efforts to reach registered Democrats and was even used against the local activist base in the state. The strong-arming of these activist has left many of them angry and less-inclined to help out Senator Clinton - the party should be worried about this.
I'm from Ohio. And the sad thing about Gov. Strickland is that Obama campaigned for him when he was running for Governor. So while he has every right to pick the candidate he wants, it would be VERY odd if he did not pull out all the stops for Obama if he happens to be the nominee in the fall.
My man, Eddie has already said he'd campaign very hard for Barack WHEN he becomes the nominee. If not, I'll walk right down to the state capitol, here in Harrisburg, to voice my opinion...
Pundits totally ignoring by the role of the black vote if Hillary was the nominee has been really a revelation of how many sub-consciously regard blacks as second-class citizens.
I even heard one commentator on NPR say that Obama has not won anything since Ohio and Texas (what about MS and WY?).
Somehow, pundits seem to forget that at the begining, Senator Clinton had a higher percentage of support among blacks than Senator Obama.
However, as Candidate Obama got his name out and proved himself to the black community, then a majority started supporting him.
In fact a fair anlysis would examine why Obama's support among blacks has increased drastically to 92%!! Such an anlysis would show that each time people perceive that Senator Obama is being treated unfairly, then support among black people increase even further.
I even know some black Republicans who are so disgusted by the unfair treatment of Senator Obama that they are changing their registration to vote for him.
Pundits, most of whom make a lot of money and/or come from priviledged backgrounds tspent the past three weeks convincing the nation how "elite" Obama is.
The lack of appreciation of cicumstances faced by blacks was a key fact in demonizing Rev Wright without putting the full sermon he gave in context.
The problem is clear: most of commentators and opinion makers in the media and politics are not black so they have limited understanding of the State of Black America
Clyburn is on a mission to portray the Clintons as racist, so I take no heed of what he has to say in that regard. As for dissing blacks, I don't think that is the case. But if you are voting for a black man just because he is a black man, that is wrong and Clyburn should point that out too. He should encourage them and everyone for that matter, to vote for who is the most qualified candidate.
Please do not conviniently forget that when this campaign begun, Senator Clinton had more support among black people than Senator Obama - there goes your wrong argument that the reason for blacks to vote for Obama is because of his color.
Are you also suggesting that the reason black people have voted for white Democratic candiates (including the Clintons) all these years is because all these caucasians were secretly black (the one-drop rule)
That is why he IS speaking out. He is encouraging everyone to vote for the most qualified candidate. There is a reason why Obama is in the lead in every way. Clyburn is saying just that. He is trying to come in between all of the lies the MSM is telling. He is trying to change the narrative before the lies go too far.
He's not saying the Clintons are racist. He's saying that the AA vote is just as important to the general election nominee as any other vote. The nominee can't win without African Americans. Period! He is warning the Cllintons that their negaive campaining is mobilizing the AA vote and is guaranteeing a massive backlash among the AA community if they continue. Myself being an AA knows this to be true. I am already not going to vote for Clinton if this thing is given to her. I know hundreds of my friends and family members that will do the same.
Everyone better believe me. Don't take this for granted. We will not vote for Clinton if Obama is ahead in every way and is not given this nomination. Clinton will lose without our vote. I don't think people are taking this seriously. If not, then say hello to President McCain.
Even a fool can tell truth. And in this case, he is telling the truth and yet not a fool. Furthermore, if you are black and voting for a black man to be in power, and your sole reason, even, happens to be because you want to see your people come into power, I see nothing wrong with that, considering the subjugation and humiliation and loss of so much agency under our history that blacks have suffered. So I don't think one (meaning you) should be quite so confident in assuming morals for lives you have not led. Also, watch the attack ad hominem, you seem to be confident that if you can impugn Clyburn's motives, you also, thus, invalidate his point. Even a student of fundamental argument would not assert as much.
Nezua says.......
"If you are black and voting for a black man to be in power, and you sole reason happens to be because you want to see your people come into power"
Are you implying that when white men were voted into the white house, white people came into power. I don't think there are many poor white folks who would agree with you. I hope this is not the trend of what people are thinking, and using this as a reason not to vote for him. This is just another reason why there is such an urgent need to heal in this nation.
There is a serious need to address the problems that are in this country. Washington has turned their backs on the poor and the middle class, and focused their attentions on what is best for corporations. This type of decision disenfrancised a large segment of the population for people of all ethnic origins. Obama realizes this, which is why he has support from Native americans, white people, African American, and others. There is no benefits to looking out for just yourself, the benefits come when you look out for everyone. This seems to be what Obama is doing.
Do not think that Obama would be so narrow minded.
Okay, you are missing the point. This post is a reaction to the reality that all the talk in the air happens to be about how Obama has to resolve this "problem" the has with making certain voting blocs happy. By the way, I too live in the Pacific North West. And there is no comparison of who the support is mostly for here! I was at the Pit to see Obama [ http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989F9C00170098DFF0/ ] and I was at the South Eugene High School to see Hillary [ http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989F9C00170098EAE5/ ] and the videos say it all. Nobody is denying that there are women working hard for Hillary! And nobody wants to take anything away from that. That's not the point. The point is that HIllary's problem with blacks is being ignored and it's all being framed as Obama's problem with certain groups of voters. THUS, this article. Jeeeez.
All the black people I know who are voting in the primaries look very deeply into each candidate. They actually hold Obama to a higher standard than other candidates before they will vote for him, because they believe he needs to be perceived as exceptionally better than the rest in order for his race not to be held against him. That they are almost all voting for him is due, they claim, to his overwhelming superiority as a candidate, and they support this view by citing his policies, history, and claims.
Everyone should vote for who they believe will be best, but I'm sick of the double standard and the assumption that "blacks" are one gestalt too stupid to do anything but vote based on skintone.
The people I know who are voting for Hillary give the same cardboard cutout reasons for supporting her, primarily "I have to support her because I'm a woman" and "we owe the Clintons". They admit to knowing little about Obama. And every single one of them dismisses my questions when I ask what they think of her policies, judgment, and history. They claim that bad judgments she has made were for political reasons, to preserve her electability, and shouldn't be counted against her.
Personally, I consider putting political expediency ahead of what's best for a nation to be exactly the kind of behavior we shouldn't excuse or reward in a potential president, but that's just me.
"The Importance of Rural and Working Class Voters, and the Stupidity of Ignoring Them." How come I don't see this headline? Where are the headlines about how we mustn't alienate the rural and working class voter?" - Right on!
First of all, the Clinton's, both Bill and Hillary, have fought for civil rights issues all their lives, so I'm not sure who you're referring to as "ignoring black voters" ?? Doesn't make sense.
Personally, what I find very interesting is the demographics of her grassroot volunteers here in the Pacific Northwest, where I live. Guess what? It's lots of young, twenty-something WOMEN who are giving Hillary their all! And let me tell you, they are Thrilled, and they are a force to be reckoned with. So how come the mainstream media keeps yack-yack-yacking about how Obama is pulling in younger voters, or cries and says "don't ignore black voters," yet says NOTHING about how much Hillary has a huge and growing faction of IDEALISTIC, hard-working young WOMEN who are very excited about their candidate..? That isn't news??!!!
It's just too bad there's such a high tolerance for ignoring "certain" voter segments...in short, David, no segment of the voting public should be overlooked or ignored, and really, we all need to be a little more open-minded in our thinking.
"So how come the mainstream media keeps yack-yack-yacking about how Obama is pulling in younger voters, or cries and says "don't ignore black voters," yet says NOTHING about how much Hillary has a huge and growing faction of IDEALISTIC, hard-working young WOMEN who are very excited about their candidate..? "
Because Obama has a vast number of young, idealistic young women too. In fact, he has a larger number of them than Senator Clinton.
colbertnationfan, the problem with your statement is that black people live in rural areas and they are the working class also. Instead of the media coding stuff why don't they just say "white voters"?
unfortunately, all statistics available show that HRC is NOT winning a majority of womens votes, when the women considered are under the age of 45. you may see lots of 20 something women (and having worked on camapigns, there are always lots of 20 somethings working, older people are too busy and too tired, me included, to help out in large numbers), but without women over the age of 45, HRC has a very small constituency in this race. That is not to diminish those women, their votes count just as much as anyone else, but I hope that they can remember that they only count as much as everyone elses as well.
By the way, for the record, women have been voting less and less democratic (43% voted for GBW in 2000, 48% voted for GBW in 2004) while african alericans have been a most loyal constituency, with voter loyalty in the high 80 and 90 percents.
I keep saying if Clinton had gotten just half of the AA vote, she'd be ahead or possibly declared the nominee right now. But ooooooo no, Mrs Clinton took the AA vote for granted and because of that Sen Obama is leading in del and votes.
I too was offended by the spin of "Obama's white vote problem" while ignoring "Clintons black vote problem" especially after Bill's comments in SC and most recent rant and lie. Everyone just assumes "well blacks will vote for Clinton regardless". That's quite presumptive as Clyburn pointed out. It's a shame what has happened to Bill Clinton. The Clinton's aren't entitled to the White House.
(and that's coming from a white guy)
Reporting on the importance of the African American vote is never going to happen until WMSM outlets like MSNBC and CNN employ producers, pundits and journalists who are interested and allowed to report from that perspective. African American Media outlets have been reporting this for some time... but their base is African American and no one out in WMSM is listening.
CNN does a better job sometimes because they have Roland Martin as a regular pundit and CNN allows him to bring that perspective into political panels. It is a far better situation that Eugene Robinson, Clarence Page, Michelle Bernard, Farai Chideya and Bob Herbert showing up here and there to be over-talked by Chis Matthews, David Gregory and Joe Scarborough. Even if they bring the subject up, the show host doesn't get it because it is all about working class whites for them. The best thing that could have happened is for Jim Clyburn to be a spokesperson for this - maybe Monday we'll see some feedback on some of these shows that makes some sense.
What's to report? Black people vote for Obama. Happy now?
You, typical white person, are the reason Blacks and other minorities should start demanding and supporting a SERIOUS SEPARATE news and entertainment media.
"The Importance of Rural and Working Class Voters, and the Stupidity of Ignoring Them." How come I don't see this headline? Where are the headlines about how we mustn't alienate the rural and working class voter? Are these Americans unimportant?
African Americans and rich white liberals would have been enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy if Obama were not in this race. These groups are naturally anti-McCain. On the other hand, rural and working class voters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Obama's too liberal for them. His foreign policy image doesn't work for them. He doesn't represent their values.
Clinton brings together more than African Americans, liberals, and rural and working class voters. She brings women and Latinos, too. African Americans make up less than 13 percent of the population. Women make up more than half of the population. Where's this headline: "The Importance of Women Voters, and the Stupidity of Ignoring Them"? And Latinos represent a larger share of the population than do African Americans.
Clinton brings the big tent.
And then there's this irony: If the interests of the black voter are indeed important (and clearly they are), then it would be stupid to put McCain in a position to not only win the White House, but to enjoy a mandate.
Keep telling yourself that working-class white republicans will vote for Hillary over John McCain.
There have been previous post about this topic and a current post by Jackson Williams about the White working class, Catholics, and Women.
"On the other hand, rural and working class voters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Obama's too liberal for them. His foreign policy image doesn't work for them. He doesn't represent their values"
None of what you said above is factually true, so what you're really saying is that they won't vote for Obama because he is Black. Obama is no more liberal than Clinton. The biggest policy differnence comes in the form of health care which Clinton's policy is MORE liberal. As far foreign policy, over 60% of the country wants out of Iraq now. However, I noticed you said "IMAGE" doesn't work for them, which again brings me to the point that you are basically saying these people are racist.
As far as your claim that Clinton brings together African American voters, that is just blatantly wrong. She assumed at the beginning of this election that Black folks were going to vote for her no matter what so she, her husband, and their surrogates could race bait all they want. Well she is wrong and her damage will not be undone.
Lastly to say "wher eis the headline" about women voters or working class voters (which you really mean WHITE women voters or WHITE working class voters)...if you haven't seen those headlines then your head must've been in the sand for the past 6 weeks while the media covered that ad nauseum.
Clinton is still under the mistaken belief that blacks will vote for her in the general election no matter what. Her supporters have said over and over again that blacks have no where to go. She will also give a pass to the white $75,000+ liberal latte/espresso drinking Obama supporters who may get upset.
Well there are many black $75,000+ latte/espresso drinking Obama supporters who have excelled under Bush and the crooked Republican Congress (pre Jan '07). If they are disrespected by the democratic party, a certain percentage in this group who vote in all elections in high numbers could easily vote for McCain without really blinking an eye.
Well stated. Good luck getting folks here to understand your realist attitude.
meileen....you ain't lying! It is like night of the living obamadead on this site. They refuse to consider anything that isn't obamalike.
Realist attidude give me a break white rural class will vote for McCain over any democrat period.Half the country cannot stand your girl and will not vote for her know matter how much you keep deluding yourself.The one groupthat democrats can count on is the African American vote and with expanding the electorate like Obama does it will only benefit the party as a whole.But you white rural voters dont understand what is your own interest, case in point you voted for bush not once but twice.You people are a joke.
wwsword, rural blue collar voters are what the MSM is been talking about, how Obama can't seem to get their vote over Clinton has been the headlines in the past couple of weeks. This article is in response to that.
You are also assuming that the Black voters will vote democratic no mater what, big assumption. But say I give you that, the blue collar vote Hillary is been getting are traditional democractic (union voters) but Obama is getting non traditional indepedent blue collar voters. He won this group in PA by a larger margin (The voters that changed thier party affiliation recently and new voters).
I think you got it backward, Obama actually expands the democratic base, he is the one one bringing new voters to the party. The other thing you got wrong is that in terms of electorate size, blacks makes a larger electorate than Hispanics. Yes Hispanic population is now slightly larger but they are not all citizens and as a result a significant segment can not vote, yet. The other thing is a significant portion of them vote (not a majority) republican, remeber 2004 election?
Replace the word "black" in your last paragraph with "white rural voters" and you will even be more correct. And one last thing, Blacks voted for Gov Rendell over a Black republican opponent few years ago so it is silly to say Blacks are voting for Obama simply because he is black the records just does not back that up.
America, I fear, is becoming a nation of ethnic enclaves. Until we can put our own prejudices towards those who are different away, never to see the light of day, we will never become the nation that prospers and go willingly into the future. The first step, very first step, is to get rid of those who purport to lead us who so willingly use race and division to their own personal gain. It must start somewhere, and this time, during a election, is the best time to start, as they say, "taking out the trash". As Nancy Raygun use to say, "Just say No!", except instead of drugs, let's turn it against those who choose to use manipulation for their own personal agenda and greed!
Nobuks, I strongly agree with your comments!
But if Hillary gets the nomination, Obama is going to do all he can to swing his supporters behind her.
He's already said so - as witness his `I believe in reconciliation and redemption` response yesterday.
Given a McCain presidency would mean NO healthcare for 40 million Americans and NO spending on education - it would mean the Corridor of Shame lives on for at least four more years - is it realistic to think that many African Americans would stay home or vote McCain?
A poll held by blackamericaweb.com this week had at LEAST 40% of black people saying that they would stay home is Clinton is the nominee
Was this a scientific poll, or just an on line thing? If it was a survey conducted with rigorous polling methodology, and the results are that 40% of AA voters will stay home if Clinton is the nominee, then that's a REAL problem for her campaign. On the other hand, if it's just one of those on line, anyone-can-vote kind of polls, it probably doesn't mean all that much.
Pay Attention!
Have you missed the previous comments?
Yes, I, an African American woman, would not stay home, I WOULD VOTE FOR MCCAIN! Especially, since Hillary admires his Commander-in-Chief skills SO MUCH.
We have a saying in our community: I can show you better than I can tell you. Watch and wait.
"is it realistic to think that many African Americans would stay home or vote McCain?"
Yes. Lots of black folks are pissed. Many will either stay home, vote for McCain, or write-in a vote. While many were surprised at the "overreaction" of the MLK/LBJ comments, nobody bothered to report on the many news stories that emerged before those comments. Check out Jack and Jill's Clinton incident tracker if you'd like more info; they've been keeping track.
Perhaps some are just recognizing the "Corridor of Shame" that you mention because under Bush's rule it has hit very close to home. However, that Corridor of Shame has existed for many people in this country for a long time.
I'm going to write in my neighbor for President.
He's done as much for the country as Obama and he's nicer.
How about writing in your own name? Nope, you'll probably spell that wrong with the intelligence you possess!
See Blake Fleetwood's Profile
This is all dreamland stuff. The idea that there is a new form of politics.
For most of the 20th Century, American Catholics, a 64 million strong demographic, were reliable Democratic voters
But since 1972, Catholics have gone both ways and have ended up supporting the popular vote winner in every presidential election
Most demographic groups do not reliably vote for the presidential winner. Blacks, union members, women (lately) and Jews always support Democrats, White Protestants and Evangelicals support Republicans. This is not going to change much.
However, since Catholics support the winner more than most groups, how they will vote determines who the winner will be.
Catholics swing more than the national average. Between 1972 and 1976 (when Jimmy Carter won the Presidency) the Republican share of the vote dropped 13 % while the Catholic share dropped by 18 points. The Catholic shift was 5% points higher than the general shift.
In 1980 when Republican Reagan won, Republicans gained 3% overall while they gained 7% among Catholics.
Up through 2004 Bush’s margin among Catholics was greater than his increase among all voters in Ohio, Florida, Colorado and New Jersey.
Catholics that go to Mass regularly vote Republican and those while those who go irregularly, vote democratic.--- which is similar to church goers and church skippers in general.
Blacks will vote for Obama or Hillary. You can depend of that. The presidential winner will be the candidate that wins the white male working class Catholic vote.
"Blacks will vote for Obama or Hillary. You can depend of that. The presidential winner will be the candidate that wins the white male working class Catholic vote."
If you believe that Black folks will reward Hillary's despicable behavior and the racist behavior her campaign has used with their vote then you are truly mistaken. Clinton and the Democratic Party can take the Black vote for granted at their own peril. The only reason you are able to put together an analysis shows White working class Catholic voters as the swing vote is because in the PAST the Black vote automatically went to the Democrat. But...it's not going to be that easy this time. I doubt that many Black folks will vote for McCain, but you can kiss record turnout that Clinton will need goodbye.
What about all those Congressmen and women, Governors and Senators that depend on the Black vote to win their elections? I think control of the congress may be in the balance as well.
UCLA.....you really don't know what you are talking about, do you. THE CLINTONS ARE NOT RACISTS. However, the Obama came is well-known for playing the race card. My god, lay off the kool-aid.
I wonder how many thus far unregistered black voters in cities like St. Petersburg and Colombus will turn out to vote for the first African-American candidate for president? Enough, I suspect, to overcome the hidden white-bias vote. Enough to carry Florida and Ohio and Michigan. Supposed rather than 12% of the electorate the black vote was 18% or 20% and it went 98% for Obama. There are a lot of people who have been waiting their entire lives for this opportunity -- perhaps believing that it made no difference to their lives who won. I'm sure we'll see some tears of joy when they vote election day.
About friggin time. First let me say that this is why I read this blogger. He is spot on. I'll make a couple of quick points I think he forgot. First, there are not great African American issues to discuss this election cycle, at least none that are dominating. What I mean is that issues of the war, issues of the ecconomy (at least in part) are basically class issues rather than racial ones. We aren't discussing Affirmative Action anymore, the old system (proposed by Dole and Nixon if you can believe that) is dead, a class based system is going to take its place. I don't hear blacks talking about issues in terms of race this cycle. On the other hand I do hear women, specifically white women, speaking in terms of gender. Equal pay and the absurd statement McCain has made on the issue as well as the despicable ruling by the Court as well as the Court itself are seriously discussed issues. The next President decides Roe. Fact.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
