GOP Strategist Says Racism Would Give McCain 15% Edge on Obama

It gives me no satisfaction to report on what a GOP strategist recently told Politico's Roger Simon, as he reports tonight. I have said for months that race is a far bigger factor in the Obama-Clinton contest than most liberals will admit -- I mean, a significant number of whites who will not vote for a black man -- and will loom even larger in the general election. Simon says the "prominent" strategist predicted that McCain would get a 15% bump in his direction because of racism in a contest against Obama this fall.

That would explain the odd national polls that show McCain, or Bush II as he might be known, equaling or topping Obama in a face-to-face contest. It's true that there are similar poll numbers right now for a McCain-Clinton battle. But there is a long tradition of people telling pollsters one thing and voting quite differently in the privacy of the voting booth -- when race is a factor.

Simon cites an AP poll that revealed this month that fully 8% of the respondents said they would have real trouble voting for an African-American. That was always my belief, and why I had to laugh when liberals attacked Gov. Ed Rendell when he suggested that some in Pennsylvania will not vote for a black man. He was speaking the truth, but some, in the heady early 2008 Obama days, refused to believe it.

Politico's Simon says that he had asked the Republican leader whether taxes, or the economy, or the war, or like that, would be the key issue this fall, and the GOP guy replied: "You're missing the most important one," he said. "Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain."

That could be shaved down a bit, making a McCain-Obama contest a real tossup, given the latter's many strengths and the unpopularity of McCain's views with most. But I've always wondered if the real reason the Clintons think Obama is "unelectable" -- beyond the need to justify her own candidacy -- is not the ability to handle the 3 a.m. phone call, but the color of his skin.

It got little attention, but Tom McMahon, mayor of Reading, Pa., told USA Today yesterday, referring to his state, "We have a great heritage. America was started here, but sometimes we're a little too steeped in our tradition." McMahon says he got some angry calls when he announced his endorsement of Obama: "I think there's a bit of racism below the surface," he explained.

Some suggest that the 8% or whatever represent simply rightwing Republicans who would never vote for a Democrat, anyway. But to believe that only furthers the myth that racism is not a factor among a number of good old longterm Democrats -- or seemingly liberal college students.

None of this is meant to throw cold water on an Obama nomination. And if Obama wins or comes close on Tuesday then this theory will get largely shot down. But if he runs well behind -- especially if behind the latest polls and exit polls -- then the "race" within the "race" may take center stage.

Read the Politico story.
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald, Arianna H and others.

Comments

[Americanium]

What if every black person were to quit the Arm Forces?

What would America say?

[army193]

Well Obama picked up 4% in male count and 2% in the female count per the results from Ohio since Clinton used OH like PA...

[CatfishJohn]

...t none other than the dark-hearted conservative curmudgeon robert novak bluntly and accurately said, 1 year ago- "leave it to the quiche abnnd brie ( and in this case latte) democrats in a year when any white male candidate would win by 10 points after this bush failure and mess to nominate a black or a woman"....add i t he corporate owned and pro-mccain and "business first "slant of the MSM and mr. novak very well may prove to be propehtic. less than 8 years ago, america and the MSM media shrugged when bush stole the election via his brother and klatehrine harris illegally disqualifying 58,000 leaglly registered blacks in fla. form voting form a trumped up list of texas felons with similar names..so, all fo a sudden today'sAmerica is on the precipice of a black man beign elected???....stupefying lack of judgement here...edwards, biden, richardson each would have been sure winners...

[THEhillbilly]

"That could be shaved down a bit, making a McCain-Obama contest a real tossup, given the latter's many strengths ..."

News flash: Oration, regardless of how pretty and well rehearsed, is only one strength.

[generationyes]

Whiteness is another.

[cdub1991]

Let me raise a radical notion.

Maybe the Obama people can actually add?

They did the math on the delegate counts and so far they've been right. They did the math on small donations from large numbers of people and they were right. Why is everyone so certain they haven't done some math on this? Of course there is a hard core racist core in America. A fair proportion of those are already voting Republican. The question is how many are in the ranks of the Democrats and the independents and is there any way to see where they might concentrate on the electoral college map. It might be that some states are beyond reach, so you write them off.

The Republicans are a minority party. They can't win without the former conservative Democrats and independents. Some of those will vote Obama because of the current regime. Some won't, so can't depend on that. But the other factor in play is the increased registration and probable turnout due to the Obama phenomenon. The balance of hardcore racists are spread throughout the country and not focused enough to determine outcome in entire states, except in states already conceded. (This is Obama Math--not mine.) Their numbers can be offset by the new voters.

I just don't believe that the balance of whites in this country are so racist that they would never consider voting for a Black man. (There's more to that thought, but it won't fit in this note).

[JJK]

There's a lot of "opinion" in this post and so I can't evaluate the validity of what the "GOP strategist" is suggesting, other than to observe that it has been the "Conventional Wisdom" among pollsters for decades that many outside of the African American community are not honest in their response to polls when it comes to racially sensitive votes or issues. On the surface, then, I worry about that 15% number, but have no way of assessing its validity.

However, one thing is 100% clear to me: if Barack Obama is the nominee, the United States will, like it or not, be having "an honest discussion about race" either before November 4th or shortly thereafter.

[Durango]

Is this a great country or what?

Of course. That is what the the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party has been based on since 1968. Racism.

Why do you think they are so popular in the South?

What do you think States Rights is?

How about School Vouchers? And any number of other clever code words the Republicans have come up with over the years.

Racism is as American as apple pie. More so since racism was here before apples.

[Xspackle]

Bingo.

It's about time we exposed the hypocricy and cowardice of all of those coded bullshit 'strategies'.

I get the feeling here in Pennsylvania that the 'working man' vote, and the 'ethnic white woman' vote, and the Jesus-freak trucker vote, for that matter, has been playing games with this issue for far too long, and ought to be called on it. If you want to make decisions based on the color of someone's skin, at least don't be a wimp about it. Come out in the open, and then let us see how well your arguments hold up.

Seriously. And will someone tell Pat Buchannan that he's not fooling anyone any more? Does he have some dirt on someone at MSNBC or something?

[generationyes]

Amen to all that, brother. Especially the Pat Buchanan thing.

[BitJam]

You claim that if Clinton outperforms the polls in mostly-white Pennsylvania, it will show that racism really is an issue among Democrats. Have you forgotten about mostly-white Wisconsin? Obama was up by an average of 7% in the polls (according to Pollster.com) yet he won Wisconsin by over 17% (according to RCP). He outperformed the polls by over 10%! He has also significantly outperformed the polls in other mostly-white states. If Clinton significantly outperforms the polls in PA then the only conclusion we can draw is that the polls sucked this year (which we already knew). The only way it would indicate that racism is an issue is if you can explain why Obama overcame your alleged racism bias in other mostly-white states and then beat the polls by significant margins.

I posted a comment similar to this over an hour ago but it never showed up.

[Xspackle]

Wisconsin is not Pennsylvania. White voters in Wisconsis, by and large, come from a much different cultural heritage (more scandinavian, for instance) than Pennsylvania, which is heavily Scots-Irish, Welsh, and Slavic. It ain't the same bunch of white folks, in other words.

[BitJam]

Explain Maine.

My point is that the polls have been wildly off this year. In general, Obama has been doing better than Clinton in outperforming the poll predictions. If you take Greg Mitchell's model seriously then you would have to say that there was some sort of anti-woman bias (or whatever) that explains why Obama outperformed Clinton in many mostly-white states.

There is no doubt that the demographics are different in different states. Mitchell's model was assuming that racist bias was the ONLY reason Clinton would outperform the poll predictions in Pennsylvania despite the fact that the polls have been wildly off in many other states. Simply stating the obvious (that the demographics vary) does not help Mitchell's case. It makes it worse because you are saying that even if by some incredibly lucky chance, Mitchell is correct about PA, this result can't be used to predict what happens in any other state.

If you use "outperforming the polls" as an indication of some sort of bias then the current facts say that there is a bias AGAINST Clinton and in FAVOR of Obama even if Clinton outperforms the polls in PA. If you just pick and choose the data you use, ignoring the data that doesn't fit your model, then your results are meaningless because you can "prove" almost anything you want.

[wakeupeverybody]

Not mostly white, mostly prejudiced PA. Did you miss the part about the Gov. stating that a black man could not win in that state? Geeze, wake up.

[aaronburr]

A very good analysis, Mr. Mitchell. It will not be popular but unfortunately it is probably spot on. The Harold Ford Jr. case in the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee is an extremely good analogy. Harold Ford - a far superior candidate in both qualifications and experience - polled even or ahead of Bob Corker right up until the last week then ended up losing by three points; it wasn’t even very close.

There is a high possibility of a similar outcome in an Obama vs. McCain general election match up. Polling is very tricky on issues involving race because people tend to tell pollsters something different than what actually happens when they pull the lever in the voting booth.

[colleen2]

Gender is a much larger negative factor than race and being Bill Clinton's wife is an insurmountable obstacle.

[Mattylock]

What is your evidence that gender is a much larger negative factor than race? I'll go with you on your second proposition. Were white women subjected to lynchings, beatings, involuntary servitude, being bred like horses, children ripped away from mother's breasts, fathers ripped away from families, or even the back of the bus? While I agree that gender is an issue in this country, white women have not suffered a fraction of the injustices heaped upon black Americans. You weren't voting but you also weren't working the cotton fields. I just don't get how people come to this conclusion.

[galters]

Even though 90% of African-Americans support Obama (how's that for racism?), he IS unelectable because he's black. The only reason he's pulled through in the red states is because the Republicans know he is the weaker of the two candidates. Forget about Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary the weaker candidate. That was a ploy to scare Democrats into supporting Obama when, in fact, Obama is the weakest link. Do you seriously think Limaugh would be stupid enough to "help" Democrats by telling them who is the "better" candidate to beat the Republicans?

[Mattylock]

Well what was it when 90% of African-Americans supported Bill Clinton? Reverse racism? Get a clue.

[galters]

Well African-Americans are predominately Democrats--that's fine. It's conspicuous, though, when whites are roughly 50/50 between Obama and Clinton while blacks favor Obama 9 to 1.

[BatedBreath]

Most of the bigots would never vote for a woman or a Democrat, either.

[Charles TW]

What an extraordinary election we have before us! At the very point in time when the most self proclaimed righteous society is confronted with issues that, in a very real sense, could effect its very survival, that society has to choose for its next president from: a woman, a black man, and a white man who rose from the political graveyard to seek the most demanding job in the world at an age when the vast majority of his contemporaries will be seven years into hopefully blissful retirement.
Talking about chickens coming home to roost! The day after election day, the true content of the American character will be on display for the world to see. Just think. We could find ourselves not only mired even more deeply in a war with Iraq, but waging an even more damnable war with Iran, or, ours or even the global economy could plunge into unimaginable chaos because we would rather risk "senior moments" than bear the thought of a woman or a black man taking up residency in the White House. Never before in the history of the world has the true nature of democracy and the soul of a nation been so sorely tried.

[23000Days]

My vote for the huff-po pick, charles!

[moda31]

you had to wonder if that is a big part of their argument? really? i think if obama is indeed the nominee, it'll be very telling of just how much has changed about race relations in this country. i think a lot of interesting questions will be raised, and frankly it'll be pretty scary for a lot of people to really take a deep look at this country. i think that deep down most people really do want to make progress on some of these issues, or want to think that we have, but when it really comes down to it are many of the people who like obama really ready to cast their vote for him and not just for the idea that he could be successful in his quest to be president? we'll find out. there are people that of course will never vote for him, that's the case for all candidates. people have their reasons and rationalizations for why they prefer one candidate over the other, but if we're perfectly honest with ourselves we know that race does play some role, at either the conscious or subconscious level. what we don't know is the degree to which it matters, and it should be interesting to see just how ready people really are to take an honest look at their thoughts and feelings whatever they may be.

[PioneerKing]

Racism will give Sen. McCain a 30% edge.
Just take a look at this. Why would anyone make the assumptions that this church raises is evidence of the ignorance and racism that is pervasive in American society.
Sen. Obama's background is that of a Kenyan African-male and American White-female not an Asian which is what Arabs are considered.
The members of this church don't even realize that Arabs are race conscious and largely dislike black Africans even if they are Muslims.
These people should be asking why the Bush administration allowed plane loads of Arabs related to Osama bin Laden to be whisked out of the country right after 9/11 during the time that there were flight restrictions.
Also this church should be concerned with the Halliburton/Bush-Cheney-McCain/Saudi-Arab connections.
Most of all these people should be wondering why the Bush-Cheney/McCain administration has not caught Osama bin Laden.
The reason Obama won't win in PA or IN and did not win in OH and TX is the racisim.
McCain would beat Obama by 33% in Nov - but McCain would also beat Clinton by 18% in Nov.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/15948849/detail.html

[ajax2]

"The reason Obama won't win in PA or IN and did not win in OH and TX ..."
False statement, bad research.