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.
What would America say?
News flash: Oration, regardless of how pretty and well rehearsed, is only one strength.
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).
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.
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.
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?
I posted a comment similar to this over an hour ago but it never showed up.
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.
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.
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.
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
False statement, bad research.