While Congressman Artur Davis's stunning loss in his quest to win the Alabama Democratic Gubernatorial nomination was a sad turn for one black man, it was a great moment for black voters. It revealed a heightened level of political sophistication among black primary voters who rejected Davis's "I-don't-need-to-spend-time-on-them-'cause-I-know-they'll-be-with-me" approach to campaigning. black Alabamans did not simply genuflect before a polished black candidate. He gave them nothing; they returned the favor. Davis has ambitiously positioned himself for higher office for some time. In so doing, he took his base for granted. That's the best way to lose an election.
Davis tried to replicate Barack Obama's coalition campaigning by de-emphasizing race. In running from race, he ran from reality -- and a chance to win, as black voters comprise 60 percent of Alabama's Democratic primary electorate. I don't think any reasonable person would expect Artur Davis, Barack Obama, or any other black elected official to legislate or govern with a "black only" philosophy. It's not unreasonable, however, to expect a black candidate to conduct him- or herself with a particularly sensitivity and understanding of the intersection of race and public policy. By acting like that intersection does not exist, Davis told black voters that they and the unique race-based problems facing black Alabamans, in some ways, do not exist.
He legislated in Congress with an eye toward the entire state, sometimes to the detriment of his constituents. Particularly notable was his vote against the health care reform bill passed by Congress this spring. That stupid move revealed a disconnect between his political aspirations and the needs of the voters in his district and throughout the state -- one of the poorest and least insured in the nation. And in unnecessarily stiff-arming black leadership throughout the state in an attempt to win White Democratic voters, he also showed himself to be just another craven politician.
While Davis's loss is largely his own fault, we can not ignore Alabama's conservative culture. At it's core, conservatism is about resistance to changes to the racial, economic, and social status quo. No matter how cute Davis tried to play it, how conservative he tried to portray himself, or how much he tried to fit in, his blackness represented a significant challenge to Alabama's conservative orthodoxy.
His defeat also appears to reveal some remnants of the "Wilder Effect." The New York Times reported that he led his opponent, Ron Sparks, by as much as 10 percentage points in some late polls. However, he got routed by 24 points, winning just 38 percent of the vote. He could have lost that badly by just being a real liberal, so a 34-point swing cannot simply be attributed to just his campaign strategy. Swings like that do not happen without a major screw up by the leader -- a "macaca moment" for example. That didn't happen in this race.
Artur Davis's loss should be a signal to candidates of all stripes. Ambition is fine, but do not take your base for granted. Doing so could have a harmful impact on your electoral goals.
Michael Fauntroy is an associate professor of public policy at George Mason University. He specializes in race and politics and blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.
Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MikeFauntroy
Greg Jones
National Director
Blacks4Barack
My thinking is that Artur's ego got ahead of himself. He thought he could win a statewide race in a state where it's nigh onto impossible for a Dem to win statewide anymore. He let the sun get in eyes and failed to look at Obama's numbers in Alabama. That should have been his guidepost for his future plans.
Pity he could have had a long and fruitful career in the House.
Yeah, there is something
Siegelman, Siegelman, Siegelman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, the primary system in Alabama which draws large numbers of white Republicans into Democratic primaries and large numbers of white Democrats into Republican primaries based on who controls the county they live in. I explained that more in depth in comments posted to this Davis article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/why-alabama-democrats-rej_b_597584.html?show_comment_id=49225029#comment_49225029
Second, it was simply all the enemies he's made all these years coming full circle. Davis still won the black vote. He still got between 50-60% of it. The thing is, to win the primary he need at least 75% or more of the black vote to counter the 75% or more of the white vote that Sparks was expecting and got.
Davis was not elected to Congress on black support. Not hardly. Artur Davis was elected to Congress because of bloc voting for him among Republican whites who lived in the 7th Congressional District and who vote in Democratic primaries for local races who when combined with roughly 45-50% of the black vote and AIPAC money were able to give Davis the election over Earl Hilliard.
Davis never played by the rules set by the black political establishment in Alabama and when he gave them a chance to take him out by calling out the big players they did.
It's Alabama power politics you're seeing here and nothing really more profound.
While Davis did abandon his base with his vote against health care, his decision to not court the black political coalitions was neither an error nor his downfall. That very decision was the key to his election to Congress.
This article spells out the coalitions at issue: http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/18725
Of the groups listed, the ADC and it's leader Joe Reed are not what they appear to be. In Alabama Reed is known to run the ADC with Reed's interests first, period.
Here is an article that gives a hint of why the ADC was not important to Davis or to black voters in Alabama. http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/6457/artur-davis-vs-the-adc
Each of the coalitions has their own power brokerage story behind it. But the bottom line is that Davis won seat in Congress by standing against these corrupt coalitions. His refusal to kowtow is not the reason he lost but you are correct about his error in not connecting with his base. That seemed to be something totally missing from Davis' ability.
The loss for Alabama and the U.S. is that Davis abandoned his place in the House. That seat could have been his for a very long time.
All throughout the campaign various stories would come up about how Davis was running even with Sparks with white voters and in the white counties and all not and this was taken as evidence that Alabama was somehow ready to overcome its past and do something totally unexpected and would be trumpted by Davis's supporters as evidence that it was inevitable and that change was finally coming to Alabama.
Sparks ended up getting more than 70% of the white vote and in some counties managed numbers better than Hillary Clinton did against Obama. It was going to be hard for Davis but it was possible but he shot himself in the foot by openly challenging Reed.
They were gunning for him anyway. He didn't have to go out of his way to help them with it. He did. He paid the price.
First you argue that Davis lost because the whites didn't vote for him and then you argue Davis lost because he challenged Reed.
Challenging Reed was not his downfall. Challenging Reed is one of the moves that got him elected to the House. Reed is powerful only in his own mind and in the minds of ppolitical hacks.
Davis' most clearly articulated downfall was his vote against HealthCare Reform but there were other issues that are more difficult to identify and they have to do with his personality and his inability to work with and communicate with his constituents and supporters and also with his horrendous lack of ability in selecting staff who understand that he and they work for the people. Those were issues that came back to bite Davis.
The difference between the polls and the actual vote tally in the Bradley loss was in absentee ballots, which were aggressively solicited by the Republicans.
The voting in the voting booths actually matched the polls pretty closely.
Why should Davis cared about his constituents? He was already on the fast track to fame and fortune! Why should he do anything other than court the voters that he had not gotten before? One reason alone stands out. The man was incapable of forging common ground between the black and white constituents he claimed to desire to serve.
In the end that looks like one group was being pandered to and another was being ignored. The result was that neither group saw anything in a candidate that would help them. His idiotic vote against health care smacked more of self enrichment than anything else unless it was his arrogant dismissal of his constituent concerns.
He got many more votes than he deserved.
Sounds like the current occupant of the white house.
A couple of points:
1. Not just black voters in Alabama took a look at his Health Care vote and turned against him. I have no problem with a Black Man as Governor, just as I have no problem with Barack Obama as my President. The issue, is the man policies. And in this regard, Artur Davis proved to everyone, black or white, that he was not the right kind of candidate.
2. He did not only stiff arm Black Leadership ( saying "thanks, but no thanks"), but he also pushed the whole Democratic Machinery away, saying " I don't really need your help. As an answer, he got 33% of the primary vote. He obviously did not get my vote.
The lesson here: It's not Anti-incumbency. It's do the right things, the promised things, and don't try to pander to an electorate or base that only exists in your mind. If we want Health Care, WE ALL WANT Health Care, no matter what the pundits in the news are saying.
I think Sparks is the best chance the Dems in Alabama have. Davis would have been competitive against Moore and maybe James after his "We Speak English" ad. He would have been trounced by the rest.
Sparks has the advantage of being on the right side of a hot issue and he can do something that no Republican candidate will be able to do. He can promise to keep all state services intact without having to raise taxes. Byrne is already talking about budget cuts which are never popular in Alabama and Bentley is almost as far right as Moore and that would turnoff many of the same voters James would.
Don Siegelman won on a single issue campaign in 1998 and Alabamians have never been known for deciding elections based on serious discussions of issues. Sparks can win if he can frame the campaign with his issue set and right now he has the time to start doing that while the Republicans are figuring out who will get spot 2 in their runoff.
I would have been more than happy to vote for Artur Davis, and planned to. Right up until the vote against health care. I was watching Ron Sparks, but I didn't think he could win. I had talked to Davis' office on several occasions while I was calling to push public option, then to push for a yes vote on ANYTHING. (I've been a labor and delivery nurse in this state. We HAVE to have universal, quality health care.) I told them that the Dems in South Alabama would not support him if he voted against HCR. Either they didn't believe me, or didn't care. It's his loss. Not ours.
Personally, I'm for Ron Sparks. I'd rather have a Progressive governor than a Blue Dog, Republican-lite governor. And if the Repubs have to shoot it out, we could see Sparks as governor.
I think white politicans also need to understand this. For example, it is noteworthy how African Americans suffer from the complications diabetes at greater rates than whites (actually pretty shocking). I would expect any politican to say this is unacceptable, and to proposal and work toward policies that can change this. A group of our fellow Americans need some focused help, support, and resources here--let's do it.
So maybe off and outside the point of this article Mr. Fountroy, but do you believe that President Obama understands the "intersection of race and public policy"? Of course you may have answered this question on your website, so I need to check on that.