What Do Whites Want? Why The Papers Are Getting The Race Polls Wrong
So many race polls, so little insight.
Today's sober NY Times poll on the presidential election and race relations comes to the very same conclusions that the wacky Washington Post poll -- which turned into a game of "White People: So You Think You're Not Racist?"-- found last month: Blacks really love Obama and whites kinda like McCain.
Good work, fellas!
The Obama campaign hit back hard this morning, saying basically, "Hey! A lot of whites other than his grandma actually like him. And Michelle, too."
White liberals like Bill Scher back them up. Scher notes that although Obama trails McCain by 9 points, he is running much better among whites than John Kerry did in 2004, especially among working-class whites.
The Times headline --"Obama's Run Isn't Closing Divide On Race" -- is only half-right. In fact, the race polls on the race show that he may be running well enough among whites to secure enough votes to win. Why is the press not getting this?
Partly because, again big surprise, it's stuck in the past. Since the pivotal 1968 election, when Richard Nixon and George C. Wallace turned racial backlash into a Republican majority, the partisan divide has largely been a reflection of racial divide. Just as demagoguery on civil rights put African-Americans in the blue column, demagoguery on immigration has put Latinos and Asian Americans there for decades to come.
In 2008, another demographic shift is on. Obama's coalition could forge a new majority, one rooted in large part by racially progressive, not reactionary, politics. The MSM is still very late to the game here.
Instead they have conflated two huge stories in these polls. The first story is whether or not Obama is leading in the race for the presidency. Here the evidence points solidly to a new majority.
The second is what does the race for the presidency say about race? This is an aspirational story. News editors are making the same leap that many people of color have been making. (Which is not, in my opinion, a bad decision, even from the business/publishing side.)
They are jumping to this question: Would the election of Barack Obama improve race relations?
In both polls, whites are loudly saying, "No." Very few in the MSM have yet thought to ask, "Why?"
But there's where your real story is.
Originally published at Vibe.com.
This Jeff Chang is the author of Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation and editor of Total Chaos: The Art and Aesthetics of Hip-Hop, not the Taiwanese balladeer.
Follow Jeff Chang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zentronix
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
okay, let me see if i get it: white people who DON'T support obama are evil racist 'neocons' or 'rethugs' or 'bitter' or 'hillbilli
just checking..
You forgot "willfully ignorant".
Heh heh ... speaking of "willfully ignorant" ...
Um ... no. I don't recall anyone ever saying that. Perhaps you're a tad hypersensitive?
Nope. That only included white people that will only vote for McCain because they can't bring themselves to vote for the bi-racial guy (I'm looking at you "I've been a democrat all my life" West Virginians). Your description does cover them.
All other white voters for McCain aren't racist. And they should ignore any claims that they are such.
we need to move forward in history
Actually, the MSM doesn't even care if they get it or not. All they are really interested in is furthering their pet narratives and more importantly, keeping the race close for the inevitable ratings boost a close race will create...
Amen! Ratings, ratings, ratings since the news divisions are merely another part of the profit-making machines. "Journalism" is a dirty word for good reason -- they sold out years ago.
It is unfair to assume a decision by a white person to vote against Obama is based on race. Some people just happen to believe he is not a good choice for the job. Which is not to say McCain is that great either. I'll vote for Obama, if his supporters can try to stop attacking Ms. Clinton and concentrate on the issues.
BubbaC33,
Hey Bubba, do you really mean you will vote against Obama not because of the issues but because some of his misguided supporters attack Ms Clinton? By the way, can you honestly say that Ms. Clinton's supporters have not been vicious and mean in attacking Obama? While I reject hurtful attacks on Mrs Clinton,I think that since the end of the primary elections, the overwhelming supporters of Obama have tried to reach to to Clinton and her supporters to bring about unity in the Democratic party. However, It has been the die hard Clinton supporters that have kept up their unrelenting and baseless attacks and smears, not only on Sen. Obama, but also on Howard Dean, Nansi Pelosi and Haary Reed. Some of these attacks have even been more despicable than those coming from the McCain camp.
It is easy to tell that you are an Obama supporter, you distorted what I wrote. And then you wrote a basically dishonest posting.
Obama supporters have been much more likely to engage in spin and distortion concerning Ms. Clinton and her record. With a lot more hatred than the supporters of any other candidate. Despite what you have written, it has been Obama supporters who have continued to attack Ms. Clinton, as if unity was not of any importance.
And I did not write that I'd vote against Obama, I said I might not vote for him if his supporters, like you, continue to spin and distort.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry reid have shown no leadership in standing up to W-Bush and his assault on the American people. Time and time again Congress has rolled over and done whatever W wants done. And Reid and Pelosi have failed to show the courage necessary to fight a president with the lowest ratings of all time. Smears against them isn;t needed, Pelosi and Reid smear themselves with their inability to show any leadership.
The primaries have demonstrated that uneducated racist rural voters, like those of West Virginia and backwoods Pennsylvania, voted for Hillary NOT because she was a woman but merely because she was the only white candidate then available. They will vote for McCain in November because HE is now the only white candidate. There is nothing Hillary's presence in the campaign can do change that.
Racism in the South has also been largely confined to the uneducated classes for many years (e.g. the Klan). Only the Hispanics are up for grabs, because their interests are divided (Cubans vs. Mexican Hispanics). Educated white voters prefer Obama NOT because he is black but because they think he has the better program and can unite where the Clintons tried to divide. Bill Clinton's pandering to the Blacks, even moving his office to Harlem, obviously failed to pay off. Obama's most brilliant strategic move so far was to move the Democratic headquarters to Chicago.
This is yet another Obama supporter spinning the truth in an attempt to make Obama look good at the expense of the Clintons. Obama is a student of the politics of Richard Daley, perhaps you ought to google him and see what sort of political heritage gave us Obama.
Racists can be black or hispanic, or any ethnic group, not just uneducated white people. And it reveals your own bigotry when you write as if all racism is white and in the rural South.
"I'll vote for Obama, if his supporters can try to stop attacking Ms. Clinton and concentrate on the issues"
Stop whining. Your candidate lost. Get over it.
no, the real story that no one ever prints, is about the same mistake that you make; there is no monolithic white race.
italians don't equal irish don't equal french don't equal russian don't equal greek don't equal icelandic.
get a grip. all "white" polling is bogus.
Wow, a unique concept, I never really thought of that. Makes perfect sense to me and explains alot.
I am just so tired of this politics of division: black against whites, red states against blue states, yellow against brown, etc. This is the game that both political parties have always played, and here comes a man who talks about unity of all races and colors, and all of a sudden the old party structures are trembling, the media does not seem to be happy about it either.... We are here to elect a President, and it does not matter if he is black, brown, yellow or white. I think many people can get this, but I get the media needs stories all related to Obama; he seemed to have a women problem (it does not matter that he never did); a Latino problem (same comment as above); etc. What about McCain's problems? especially his history problems? It is as though there is only one candidate.
My question is: Why everybody expects more from Obama than from McCain? Everything that Obama does and says becomes "news" and have to be analyzed to the last word. I just wish we did not have to wait until November to elect the next President. We still have 3 months to go and it is not going to get any better. The only thing I know is that we need a President with common sense.
SilviaMaria:
Thank you so much for telling the truth! I think we are beginning to see the old game played out. Obama has to prove that he is twice-no make it ten times- better than any male white candidate. By the way some one needs to debunk the myth that fewer whites are supporting Obama compared to previous candidates. Bill Clinton lost the white vote twice, but won the presidency. Gore lost the white vote but won the presidency only to have the Supreme Court steal it from him. Even John Kerry, who by the way got more votes than both Clinton and Gore,lost the white vote but should have been president if Kenneth Black had not stolen Ohio. I never saw any headlines in the New York Times or the Washington Post, asking why Clinton, Gore, Kerry, could not seal the deal on white votes! By the way, where is the New York headline that asks why McCain can't win the African American and Hispanic vote? People in the MSM are sophisticated racist who hold Obama under different standards from white candidates.
So true.
Dalacious said he or she was for affirmative action before it affected his kids and he does not want to elevate those who only want to take his money. Seriously, you dont want to elevate ? I hate to break it to you but your not that powerful. Your feelings on race have no affect on the lives of others.
Take a look at this site
http://www
and then tell me there isn't a whole army of muddled, contemptible white racists out there in the US blogosphere. A troop of brown shirts.
richsmith.
I read the Article... Praised the Obama's as good people with bad behavior, essentiall
So speaking against the Obama's and where they came from, makes the speaker a Racist and a Brown Shirt?
I re-read to make sure, but NOTHING was said about either Obama's, Race, or Color!
So, richsmith, Dr of Spin, like the Obama's have done, you too bring in Race/Color where NONE is, except in your mind evidently.
The job of the corporate media is to decide what it wants you to think and then tell you thats what you actually do think.
The NYT has reporters who STILL want to help Hillary and Clinton Inc. -- and, along w/others in the elite NY Media/Adve
Dynasties MUST stick together -- and the bailed-out banks, etc. -- and future deals-in-waiting depend upon derailing the Obama train BEFORE or DURING the Convention.
The current propaganda along w/today's NYT front page making Barack's ethnicity a priority -- DAILY via Nagourney et al -- will be complemented by claims he is an anti-Semite and "Steppin Fetchit"-lite covers such as Messrs. Hertzberg, Blitt and Remnick's New Yorker faux-satire last Monday.
Fortunately, youngsters reminded us today what REAL satire is -- and it doesn't need to MOCK someone's patriotism or ethnicity/ethnic appearance to do it. Thank you JibJabbers for saving us from a DEPRESSING week, courtesy of the dying New York media establishment!
http://sen
NY Times poll? LOL, do you really need to wait for the Results??? . NO
It is not about Whites. It is the crooked reporters like Adam Nagourney of NYT. Take a look at what the Obama team came up with:
"The NYT story about their poll ignores multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests," the critique reads. It goes on to list "some straightforward points from their data that are omitted from the story."...
a) More white voters say Obama cares about people like them, than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23
b) On the essential issue in this campaign - bringing about change in Washington - Among white voters, Obama is seen as the change agent by 52% to 30%
c) Obama's 31% favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain's, which is at 34%.
d) By a 2 to 1 margin over McCain, white voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America's image in the world
e) "Racial dissension" around Mrs. Obama's 24% favorable rating among whites is an extremely odd description given that Mrs. McCain's favorable rating among white voters is 20%.
f) Enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy is roughly 2.5 times higher among white voters than is enthusiasm for McCain's.
g) Obama is winning by 6 points against McCain and the gap among white voters is only -9 --- a margin smaller than independent expert on voting patterns, Ruy Texiera, said would give Obama a " solid win."
Adam Ngourney knew exactly what he intended to accomplish:frame Obama as simply a black candidate who has been unable to attract whites. This frame is deceptive. How can Obama be both leading in the polls and at the same time be framed a is simply a black candidate who is attracting mainly black voters. By the way, they tried the same frame during the primaries but the facts kept contradicting them. This Black candidate who is not sealing the deal went on to win Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and others. Not exactly states with huge black populations. So why keep repeating this discredited theory? Who knows, may be they think repetition will begin to sow doubts among whites that Obama is not looking out for their interests. It is Interesting that this article, headlined on page one of the New York Times, followed on the heals of that despicable cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker. Is this really a coincidence? Makes you wonder.
The media knows the power they have to form and shape public opinion. Information assymetry is a source of profound power and they know it. I share your outrage but I doubt that it is because they don't understand. A huge problem with some of these polls is they are constructed to provide support to previously formed positions/ideas. Rarely are they challenged for validity, except to the extent that they confirm existing biases. There is some of the ignorance that you speak of. For example in the NYT poll the writer was unable to form an opinion using all of the available data and therefor used that which supports his existing bias.
I think it is disgraceful that the media is constitutionally protected because of the belief that they serve the public good; when they disavow that public good by purposefully acting to dissiminate misleading information, dissinformation, and propoganda in ways that make it difficult to hold them accountable. In the not too distant future there will be a rekoning.
The press is in its last throes.
it was choked to death by its corporate masters.
I think the Democratic party is hung up on race more than anyone. It is the most racist organization I have ever belonged to. In the 1950s and before, it was racist in a segrationist kind of way. Since the Democratic Party ran things in the South for more than a century -- it was literally the party of the slavery and the Confederacy -- you can't blame the Republicans. Even Lyndon Johnson came into power in the Senate not as a friend of blacks, but as a friend of the Southern segationists, who gave him his power and made him Majority Leader.
Now guilty Democrats are overcompensating by doing everything they can think of to punish whites for being white. I was for affirmative action as a youth, but now that it is my children being discriminated against. Why should I fight for the rights of people who only want to take my rights from me? Why should I fight for the economic elevation of those who only want to take my money? It makes no sense.
Of course, Mr. Chang is not a guilty white Democrat, so he must have a different motivation -- what could it be? Could it be the pile-on-whitey mentality?
That is Obama's problem in a nutshell: Obama may not personally choose to pile on whitey, but a LOT of his appointees and their minions will feel empowered to do so. Anyone who attended the Democratic conventions this year saw this mentality in full
I think you have wandered over to this site by accident. I think you were looking for alternateu
LBJ either sponsered or help pass 82 civil rights bills while in the senate. So you lie.
Upto 1964 and 68 the Democratic party was infested with dixiecrats (racist). They left the democratic party because they disgreed with civil right legislation passed by progressive Democrats and the few remaining Lincoln Republicans. They went to the party you are now a part of. The republican party. Now the republican party is full of racist. You left that out!
You have never been for affirmative action. No, no way!
The Democratic Party of the 1950's, better known as the Dixiecrats, became Republicans after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. As he predicted, the Democrats lost the south, and in 1964, with the signing of the Civil Rights Act followed by desegregation, the Democrats of the 1950s joined the Republican Party. But they were no longer the party of Lincoln; they were the party of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace and others like them, who stringently fought against the civil rights and equality of black Americans. Today, the Republicans of 2008 have continued in this legacy, which is evidenced by your post. .
When Senator Obama addressed the convention last year, he said, "There is no black America and white America. There is ONE America." Obviously, this threatened your sense of entitlement, which explains your interpretation of his comments, and similar comments made by others, as "piling on whitey." And to assume that "piling on whitey" will become the status quo merely by electing a black president reveals a bit more about you than it does about what America will become should Senator Obama become the President of the United States. If what you have written in your post is what you teach your children about race and humanity and our responsibility to one another as human beings, then you have done your children a great disservice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
