Reply With Quote
If this is such a big problem in the Democratic party, how can Obama get past race in the general election when he'll have to compete against the more "orthodox" Republicans?
Don't know if this has already been posted...
=========================================
le: Sorry to say, race is back as factor in Democratic contest
By Morton Kondracke
A major Ohio political leader recently told me: “Obama will never carry Ohio. Some people call it the Bradley effect, but how do you think the guys who work at the GM plant in Youngstown are going to vote? For a black? I don’t think so.”
I didn’t believe it, but sure enough, race — nearly a forgotten factor in the Democratic presidential contest during Sen. Barack Obama’s long run of primary victories — evidently came back to help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton win Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on Tuesday.
And, unfortunately, it could be a factor again in Pennsylvania and — if Obama survives Clinton’s renewed onslaught to win the Democratic nomination — in the general election.
The “Bradley effect” — the tendency of voters to tell pollsters they’ll vote for an African-American candidate, then vote against him in the booth — certainly was evident in Ohio and Texas. Clinton outperformed pre-election polls by 3 points in Ohio, 1.5 in Texas and 8.3 in Rhode Island.
Moreover, exit polls in Ohio showed that fully 20 percent of primary voters acknowledged that “the race of the candidate” was “important” in deciding their vote. And Clinton won this group by a big margin — 59 percent to 39 percent.
Clearly, this represents white prejudice against Obama because he is an African-American and not the racial solidarity that regularly wins him 90 percent of the African-American vote.
It was the Ohio equivalent of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s observation in early February that, “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”
The Clinton campaign didn’t overtly stir up racial animosity in Ohio or Texas. It didn’t have to.
Rather, the Democratic contest was “racialized” back in January, when Clinton compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, and when her husband, Bill, likened Obama’s South Carolina primary victory to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s.
Before that, Obama was seeking to run as a “post-racial” candidate — the political equivalent of Tiger Woods.
Ever since the Clintons elevated the racial issue, however, blacks have been lining up strongly behind Obama and whites, to varying degrees, behind Clinton.
To be sure, Obama has been able to carry white males in many states, including working-class white males in some, enabling him to win 12 straight contests after Super Tuesday and amass a delegate lead over Clinton — perhaps an insurmountable one.
But the brilliant elections analyst Jay Cost, blogging for RealClearPolitics.com, has developed a convincing theory about the Democratic racial factor: Obama wins in states with majority-black Democratic turnout, like South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana and in states with few blacks, like Wisconsin, Washington and Vermont.
He also has won in states with mixed populations where white family income is high, such as Maryland and Virginia.
But Clinton, Cost contends, wins in states where blacks cons ute a major minority, but where average white income is lower, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Ohio.
So, in largely white Wisconsin, Obama carried white males by a margin of 63 percent to 34 percent. But in Ohio, Clinton won, 58 percent to 39 percent.
And Clinton has been winning in states with large Hispanic populations, like California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Hispanics and African-Americans often regard themselves as rivals for jobs, advancement and the status as America’s foremost minority.
In Texas, Latinos, 34 percent of the electorate, supported Clinton by a margin of 67 percent to 31 percent. Nineteen percent of voters said that a candidate’s race was an important factor, and Clinton carried this group by 52 percent to 47 percent.
In Rhode Island, another heavily working-class state, race was important to 20 percent of the electorate, and this group went 56 percent for Clinton.
But race is a factor and is likely to remain one, aiding Clinton in Pennsylvania and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
McCain is too decent ever to raise the issue, and the Republican National Committee is unlikely to repeat its counterproductive effort to race-bait former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D) in Tennessee last year.
But if bottom-feeding slugs are willing to send out Internet messages lying about Obama’s religion, there’s probably nothing they won’t stoop to.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.
LINK: http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/lo...ml?start:int=0
If this is such a big problem in the Democratic party, how can Obama get past race in the general election when he'll have to compete against the more "orthodox" Republicans?
Ehhh...being Black doesn't hurt him near as much as having the middle name of ing Hussein does...
A guy named Hussein who intends to pull us out of Iraq....I can't imagine why anyone would have issues with that at this particular time.
I know...but pulling us out of Iraq is such a popular idea...which is why W got re-elected.
So what's you guys next great idea...
When we go to war with Iran you guys going to put up a nominee named Khomeni who wants us to pull out of Iran?
How brilliant...I wonder why the Democrats didn't come up with a candidate named Hitler who wanted to pull us out of Germany during WWII...would have been brilliant.
I know, I know...we're the stupid ones.
Bush got re-elected because people like me realized too late that the Iraq war was started on false pretenses of WMDs (where the are they, dammit?). That and the fact that people of Ohio really, really care that those damn gays don't get married. Rove was brilliant for recognizing and exploiting that.
Plus, Kerry never inspired moderates like me to change our votes. He was a bad candidate.
How is it Obama's fault that he was born with the name he was born? The guy is a ing Christian. What more do you want?
And to think...all those years during the Coldwar you guys could have had a constant hold on power if only'd you come up with the brilliant idea of getting a candidate named Stalin who wanted to let the Soviets have their way with Europe.
What's funny is watching you guys scratch your heads unable to comprehend why people just don't get you.
It doesn't matter if we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons now...it's too late to change that decision.
Secondly...maybe some people just aren't that gung ho about the idea of pulling out of Iraq and creating Afghanistan part 2. Maybe it literally has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the fact that the majority of voters realize the abject stupidity of an immediate pull out from Iraq...since W was able to win re-election against a similar candidate...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
Enjoy the following the party line. How's balancing the budget going for the Republicans? That's right, it's ok to not do that anymore because the Party Chiefs don't agree with that anymore.
Only sheep vote for a candidate based on party alone (Democrat or Republican).
Race is a factor when the voters admit to it during the exit polling. It can obviously be seen as a factor when both party candidates are advocating the same damn policy for Iraq (pulling out).
I guess we should stay there until we create Vietnam part 2 instead.
Bottom line, if you think Obama would be faring better in this election if he was white...
You're wrong. In fact he's probably doing better with the anti-ameri...er Democratic voting base because he is named Hussein and wants us to leave Iraq...just like Saddam.
Sin,
Every single white Democratic Presidential Candidate who intended to pull us out of Iraq.
It's really not the same policy, Hilary is not nearly as determined for a mandatory pullout by x date....or at least she hasn't been as vocal about it as Obama. Beyond that she's a woman, so it's not like it's a Black man VS a White man conflict.
Don't get me wrong...there are people voting against Obama because he's black...but there are also plenty of people voting for him because he is black. And there are people voting for Hilary because she's a woman etc.
But I honestly believe his name is a bigger factor that anything during this period of war.
I don't particularly like McCain, but make no mistake about it, the primary reason I am voting for him is because he doesn't want to pull us out of Iraq.
If he was black and the other two were white who wanted us out of the war cut and run style...I'd still be voting for him.
And as for Vietnam...pulling out of Iraq guarantees it will be another Vietnam...or worse.
So anybody against the Iraq war is anti-American? Brilliant. I'll tell that to the over 60% of the country also against the war. Guess we have to check reason, logic and intelligence out the door when we join Whott-brand Patriotism (TM).
It's still irrational prejudice if it's because of name or race. The guy is a Christian. He was given his father's name. Even still, his father was an atheist. What the more is he supposed to do?
Whottt-brand Patriotism: disown every part of your heritage to be an American.
Not expect to be elected President?
You act like I am denying him his cons utional rights or something.
More like Democrat Brand stupidity, find a guy named Hitler when we are at war with Germany and expect him to get elected President.
Yeap...it's exactly like that.
And btw, if that part of his heritage is that important to him at this particular moment in time...then...consider the concerns proven.
Prejudiced reason to not get elected.
It's his father's name.
Every Muslim is supposed to change their religion and name to prove their loyalty to America?
Wait a minute... I thought the neo-cons told me weren't at war with Islam, only "radical Islam"? So, we really are waging a Crusade on the Muslims (the same way they say their waging a jihad on us)? So, when the neo-cons told me we were above that and that we were supposed to be above their fear-mongering ways, that was all a lie? And we should adjust our cons ution to say "freedom of religion, except for Islam or any religion that doesn't fit our flavor of the month"? I thought we weren't supposed to change our way of life because they attached us. Wait... that was just bull to sell the us on the war, too? Right. Ok. Cool... I'm on the same page now. Got it.
Um...I hate to break the news to you, but every single vote cast for any candidate in this and every election is going to be due to some form of prejudice.
But in this particular case, it's not nearly as simple and color blind as...well, he's black.
Failure to see that is clearly being blind and prone to huge oversimplification.
In 2004 a white guy wanting to pull us out of Iraq was beaten out by the guy who took us into Iraq.
Coming up with a guy named Hussein who wants to do the same thing and failing to see that is a going to be a negative, or not expecting it to be one...is ing political moronity.
twhott.
Hi pinky...still wearing the mark of when you made a complete and utter ass of yourself I see. Way to go...you're a credit to the board.
I'm pretty sure now freedom of religion doesn't mean actual freedom of religion... it's freedom of religion, where religion is defined as your particular flavor of Christianity.
So much for that bull on the Statue of Liberty about "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
That's just PR bull to make us look better to the other countries. We're really in the business of Christianizing those lame-ass Brownies (TM).
This is all pedantic because he's ing Christian!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
