[Update: Now I see that Armando is smearing me by misrepresenting my point in the post below. He’s done that before, and not just to me. It’s a long-standing pattern. The boy can’t stand being disagreed with. Anyway, for any TalkLeft fans who drop by here, my point was not that it is “silly” to discuss Obama’s failure to connect with white working class voters. My point is that comparing data from the Virginia and North Carolina primary results without taking other factors into account is disingenuous. I’m sure Mahablog regulars understood that, as they can read.]
Oliver Willis sheds light on the dreadful weakness in Barack Obama’s candidacy that others lack the guts to discuss: Obama gets too many votes.
Brilliant snark, that.
Today many people are comparing Hillary Clinton’s campaign to the scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail in which the Black Knight wants to keep fighting after his arms and legs are cut off. I think the analogy fits some of Clinton’s followers even more tightly than it does Clinton herself.
Pro-Clinton bloggers obsessively continue to look for chinks in Obama’s armor. One compares the North Carolina results with the Virginia primary of three months ago and notes, in classic concern troll fashion, that Obama has “lost support.” Why that might be is a complete mystery to the blogger, but the inference is that Obama is just plain running out of steam. Demographic and socio-economic differences between the two states,* plus the effects of Clinton’s ugly “kitchen sink” campaign, are not considered.
[*For example, 31.7 percent of Virginians have college degrees, while 23.4 percent of North Carolinians have college degrees. Obama tends to do better among college-educated voters.]
Apparently we’re supposed to believe that the politician who lost both states in a rout would be a better general election candidate than the politician who, you know, actually won.
In fact, the politician herself is making the same argument (via Pam):
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Yes, and I think we see what it is.
On the Hillary conference call, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin made the case for her electability in some of the most explicitly race-based terms I’ve heard yet.
Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented “progress” for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.
Translation: Obama may get more votes, but we get better votes (wink, nudge).
Armando wrote a bitterly whining post about “the problem” he thinks no one wants to talk about — “Barack Obama has trouble connecting with white working class voters.” He does, but I think that’s been talked about quite a bit. I believe I even addressed it awhile back. Then Armando says,
Discussing that concern is a mortal sin according to the Left blogs. I for one will not play the ostrich. I will consider the problem and ways Obama can solve it.
And that would have been fine, but in fact Armando does not “consider” the problem or ways Obama could solve it. He just whines.
Armando failed to actually discuss ways of solving it, or, for that matter, do anything besides complain about the perceived taboo of talking about Obama’s failure to appeal to White Voters, thus murdering the one saving grace of his post.
I hope Armando is ready to admit to the Clinton campaign’s colossal failure to appeal to black voters, which would be a more critical problem for a Democrat. As Steve M documents, Dems have been losing the white, male working class vote for a long time. For example:
According to CNN’s 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.
Do the Clintonistas seriously think their candidate would do better with white, less educated, working-class men than John McCain will do in November? Or that Dems can win in November without the enthusiastic support of African Americans?
And the fact is that Obama has won some states that are nearly all white, such as Wisconsin. David Sirota talks about the “race chasm.”
Recall the Race Chasm graph that I published in In These Times a few weeks back. It shows how Hillary Clinton has been winning states whose populations are above 7 percent and below 17 percent black. If Democrats nominate a candidate who isn’t well supported by the black community, and that community ends up not turning out to vote in the general election in strong numbers, those states in the Race Chasm like New Jersey and Pennsylvania could flip to the Republicans, and other states in the Race Chasm like Ohio, Florida, Missouri and Virginia could remain in the Republican column (NOTE: I’m in no way saying that Clinton cannot eventually rebuild her support among black voters in a general election, just like I don’t believe Obama cannot strengthen his white support in a general election – all I’m saying is that Clinton’s current weakness among black voters is at least as important a factor in this election as Obama’s current weakness among some white demographics).
Put another way, the black vote – though only 12 percent of the total popular vote – can make the key difference in the key swing states, meaning Clyburn is absolutely right: It is not only subtly racist to generally downplay the importance of the black vote, but it is also mathematically absurd, because the black vote will likely be a decisive factor in the general election.
Call it the problem the Clintonistas don’t want to talk about.
“Translation: Obama may get more votes but we get better votes (wink, nudge)”
I’m not sure there is any winking or nudging anymore. The HRC argument is and has been that only she can get the “white working class vote”. If the “white working class vote” won’t vote for an African American (only because he’s black) then they are not democrats, they are racists (who needs them). And even if you agree with such nonsense wouldn’t the reverse be true (that HRC can’t get the black vote 35% of the democratic base).
This is what has really pissed me off about HRC’s campaign. She has basically been running the republican “southern strategy” against a fellow democrat, to me that is unforgivable. Any illusion that Bubba was a good progressive president is long gone now. (Although I always looked at him as the best Republican President we ever had).
I have moderated my position on voting for HRC, now that she really, most certainly, defiantly can’t win I will vote for her is she is the nominee, if she wins it fair and square!
Armando just wants to pick fights with other bloggers, he doesn’t care about Obama’s chances in November. Picking fights is what he did at Daily Kos and that’s what he does now at TalkLeft. Hence the constant lies and bad faith about how everyone is ignoring the poor white voter issue. Like all concern trolls, he is best ignored.
“If the “white working class vote†won’t vote for an African American (only because he’s black) then they are not democrats,”
That’s right. They are Republicans.
Now, what’s wrong with the white working class voters who don’t want to vote for Obama for other reasons?
I don’t live in a world of trolls and concern trolls where people I disagree with are whining.
Best wishes in your world. Sounds like an ugly place to be.
nene,
“Now, what’s wrong with the white working class voters who don’t want to vote for Obama for other reasons?”
Not a thing, but IMO racism is a factor in the white working class demographic, as is the “low information” factor (e.g., the belief Obama is a Muslim). Those aren’t the only factors, but I do think there’s probably a lower ceiling for an African American candidate in that demographic than in any other. And note I’m from a white working class background myself.
I don’t live in a world of trolls and concern trolls where people I disagree with are whining.
Jerry, dear, you are a troll.
Could this really be true??
Penn didn’t know delegates were awarded proportionally.
Now we know why they focused on the big states.
“Anyway, for any TalkLeft fans who drop by here, my point was not that it is “silly†to discuss Obama’s failure to connect with white working class voters. My point is that comparing data from the Virginia and North Carolina primary results without taking other factors into account is disingenuous. I’m sure Mahablog regulars understood that, as they can read.”
Nice!
Could you please put this blog in audio form? cuz I can’t read.
DFL — I realize this is typical of the level of commentary at Talk Left, but we have higher standards here. Comments that consist of nothing but insults usually are deleted, and will be if any more are posted to this thread. See comment rules.
Why is it that it’s Obama’s failure to connect with white working class voters?..Why isn’t it white working class voters failing to understand the necessity for change, and connect with Obama as the only possible candidate to hopefully implement that change?
Swami, exactly. Armando’s whining notwithstanding, I have written about the white working class vote before. I think the deeper question is not “why can’t Obama appeal to those voters” but ““why do these voters buy the same BS every election”?
Stepping back a bit, why do we have to divide the electorate into discrete ethnic blocs and work with that frame at a fundamental level? White this, black that, women this, Nascar dads that, older women, young people, on and on and on. No wonder Obama’s message of unity is resonating. This divisive ethnic narrative helps those who benefit from the divisions, i.e. Republicans.
That’s the brilliance of Dean’s 50-state strategy – it inherently transcends and reframes the ethnic bloc narratives to a place where the Democrats can advocate for the general interest in a way that reveals equally to white women, black men, orange young folks, green over-50’s, what-the-F-ever bloc you want to talk about, that we all have fundamentally the same interest in electing a President who will uphold values that we all share in common – basic fairness, the constitutional separation of powers, never waging unnecessary wars, a role for government in helping the less fortunate, all those things that will highlight the differences between the Democrats who stand up for all Americans and Republicans who stand up for a very narrow slice of wealthy Americans shareholders.
It’s silly to read Armando.
I realize that Hillary’s got some whiz-bang calculation about who would make up a winning coalition, (no doubt one crafted by a demographic genius like Mark Penn) but I, for one, am not prepared to see the party do much to court the segment she’s talking about. They’re notoriously fickle, and prone to poaching by Real Men Republicans waving bloody shirts. I still haven’t forgiven them for giving us a string of GOP presidents going all the way back to Reagan.
How about instead we try a new coalition, involving people of all sorts of color, and even ones with education, and all those people who are really, really tired of being pandered to by DC pols?
why do we have to divide the electorate into discrete ethnic blocs and work with that frame at a fundamental level?
Because politicians exploit our insecurities through their rhetorical subtleties.
A point worth re-telling…Former New York Governor Mario Como once said that when his father arrived in America from Italy among the the first words he learned in English was the word ” nigger”. The point was to easily identify by physical characteristic somebody deemed lower by society in social standing then himself, and thereby elevating himself in his perceived social stature and assuaging his insecurities. Insecurity is “always” the operative emotion that creates division.
Obama was not my first choice and Clinton always gets the default point. But in Novembe I’m voting Democratic no matter who it is. I’m tired of the in-fighting. It’s time to start going after McCain. We will not survive if McCain becomes president. My fellow Democrats have to realize this — we must fight McCain and the GOP. Period. End of sentence. The GOP must not be able to appoint any more federal level judges or Supreme Court justices.
I have long thought that the trouble with Hillary and Bill is that they are great fighters and keep on like energizer bunnies. All Bill really managed to accomplish it seems looking back is that he fought on no matter what was thrown. But did that make a good presidency and was it good for the country? Yes Hillary is a great fighter. But we need some good thoughtful governance again which we have not had in many long years .
Numbers belong on things like bank statements and price tags. Everywhere else, from polls to unemployment figures to voter preferences, they become pure abstractions because we don’t know how they are arrived at. At the same time, we ‘believe’ them because, well, they’re numbers, mysterious and unfathomable (many of us have yet to recover from 4th grade fractions.)
The likes of Mr. Armando will continue to use and abuse them.
Numbers can be powerful enough to literally shut down the brain of most anybody. Foreinstance, Mr. Clinton puts Mr. Obama’s ‘victory’ down as merely because Mr. Obama has 4 times more campaign money to spend than Rodham. Rather than asking why Obama has more money than Rodham, we accept the 4:1 figure as a reason in itself.
So if HRC gets the nomination, black voters will vote for who?
Keep in mind, the Republicans like to do nasty things to black voters in general elections, like caging, which keeps many from voting.
So I think this racial point is overdone when it comes to the general elections. The Hispanic and Womans votes are equally important in a general election. While Obama has young voters, HRC seems to do do better with the elderly, who are greater in number and who vote in higher percentages.
Also, Obamas book Dreams From My Father is a disturbing read for any White Working Class voter. There is an element of Racial anger in there that would make those in rural areas a bit concerned.
I don’t care much who wins, none of them will bring any change for the better, but they might at least spin things so we feel better about being ripped off.