Things that Make you go Hmmm......Barack as Tom and/or Doug?

I noticed a depressingly-interesting trend when I was going over results from SuperDuperWhooper Tuesday and previously at the Election Center run by cnn.com:

Barack Obama handily won all state primaries where there were disproportionately high numbers of African-American residents.  (When I say "disproportionate", I mean numbers that exceed our 12-13% representation in the general population.) In some case, he took 95% of those votes (which I find unhealthy, bluntly, and not in the best interests of African-Americans given some of Barack Obama's positions, which he needs his feet to the fire held over, but that's a discussion for another time.)  

Unfortunately, had Black folks not rolled, Obama would have lost in every one of those Southern states.  That is because in each of those states, he lost the white Democratic vote.  Before folks get waxing rhapsodic on how it's the "old folks" who are responsible for this outcome:  other than in Georgia, where he won the 18-29 age group according to exit polls, Obama lost the white vote in all age groups.  Reviewing exit poll data on CNN confirms the undeniable reality (at least right now) in the South:  Barack Obama won South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia (all states with more than 25% Black population) because of an incredible turnout of Black voters who threw virtually all of their votes to him (I saw nothing less than 81%).  

That's not the depressingly interesting part, to me.  I already knew that was going to happen.

But before folks start hating on the South and Southern racism, this also appears to have been true in Delaware (where 21% of the population is Black, we are 35% of the registered Democrats, and were more than 25% of the voters on SuperDuperAssWhooper Tuesday giving Obama a stunning *90% of our votes.)  While Delaware did not attempt in its exit polls to measure the impact of race, taking into account that only 11,000 votes separated Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton in Delaware it would be foolish to overlook the significant impact of Black voters, their very large turn out (more than 25% of all votes cast in Delaware), and the lopsided weight those votes gave to Barack Obama's side of the ledger. In other words, even without the overt exit polls, it doesn't take more than basic mathematics to come to the conclusion that that if whites had given Obama the majority of their votes in Delaware, given what Black voters did the race would have been a complete blowout for him, instead of him winning by only 11,000 votes.

Of course, the obvious response (obvious in the sense that it's the first thing people say when the issue of racism and Barack Obama's candidacy comes up) is that "But Obama won in states don't have hardly any Black voters, so there!"  That is indeed true.  However, the truth of that appears to be masking something very important, which it would behoove Barack Obama and his ground game to think about and plan to attack - because there is something not so obvious afoot that can only hurt him in the general election.

Barack Obama won virtually all of the state caucuses/primaries where the state in question has a disproportionately low (in most cases, less than 5%) number of Black people actually living within it.

Thus, Obama won handsomely in Alaska (only 3.7% Black).
In Colorado. (4.1% Black.)
And in Idaho (0.7% Black).
In Iowa (2.5% Black)
And Kansas (6.0% Black).
Minnesota (4.5% Black).
Oklahoma (7.8% Black).
North Dakota. (0.8% Black)

Even, saints be praised, Utah (1% Black; I didn't know the Jazz had that much pull ;)).

Unfortunately, it is that data which first tipped me off to the depressingly-interesting part of the returns to date, because it is that data that caused me to ask the question:

If Barack kicked so much ass in these states where we just ain’t and where (for the most part) Republicans/Reagan Democrats were/are king, how on EARTH could he have lost in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California – liberal states; progressive states, big ole BLUE states??????

Trying to get an answer to that question, being the anal-retentive bunny rabbit that I am, I looked at the only data we have:  exit polls. Unfortunately, it was pondering those that led me to discover the depressingly-interesting part of all this:

Other than Barack Obama's home state of Illinois (which if he hadn't won, would have been truly horrifying for any candidate of any race or gender) Barack Obama has not yet won the popular vote in any state where whites and Blacks reside in fairly diverse circumstances; i.e. where the percentage of Black residents is commensurate with their presence in the general population, neither "too high" OR "too low".

In those states, Hillary Clinton won the primary; thanks to white, Latino (and, in the case of California) Asian voters, all of who gave her either a majority (whites) or, a de-jure supermajority (Latinos and, in CA, Asians) of their primary votes.

(Please feel free to look at the numbers, before you knee-jerk dismiss and/or naysay this.  I'm not writing this diary as a Hillary supporter - I'm writing this diary as an Obama supporter, because I think questions about why Super Tuesday went down the way it did are critical for the general election, in which I am almost certain we will face a McCain/Huckabee ticket.  I too, want Barack Obama to win.)

There are only three outliers to this trend, of Obama taking only those majority-white states where the Black population was disproportionately low, that I can see:  Arizona, New Mexico, and Connecticut, and all have unique demographics that appear to explain the result.

In Arizona (3.8% Black), you have an enormous Latino presence and, as has been diaried over and over, Latinos broke all over disproportionately for Hillary Clinton.  That's a no brainer, and I think explains what happened in Arizona where Latinos are 30% of the vote and nationally heavily favored Hillary Clinton (for whatever reasons).

New Mexico is similar to Arizona, with Latinos making up 34% of the electorate there.  This is obviously just from eyeballing, but it seems that the percentage of Latino voters with a preference for Hillary Clinton combined with the fact that Richardson was still on the ballot and got a large percentage of Latino votes despite his withdrawal to cancel out the majority of white voters who voted for Obama.  Since these separate majorities became, for all intents and purposes, a 'wash', the fact that Latinos in New Mexico did vote for Barack Obama in quite respectable numbers simply couldn't overcome the mathematical advantage that whites voting for Hillary Clinton had, in terms of population.  This theory may not be far fetched:  after all, there was only a 1,100 vote difference between Barack and Hillary in New Mexico.

Connecticut, which has a 10.2% Black population is distinguished both by its high wealth compared to the rest of the country and very high post-secondary education levels.  While, as northeastern states go, Connecticut had a somewhat rocky history race-relations wise (it was one of the last northeastern states to abolish slavery, doing so only in 1848) these two population characteristics tend to suggest, given how successfully Barack Obama has campaigned with "the elite" (and before folks start hatin’, I put myself in that category too at least as far as income and education go, even though you’ll still find me the whist table and cutting a rug just like I did before I got bougy), that these race-neutral probably cancelled out the "race effect", right?

Depressingly, yet interestingly, wrong.

From what I can tell (which is not just based on a guess from the seat of my pants; see below) Barack Obama didn’t win the white vote in Connecticut either. That means that Connecticut is not necessarily the outlier it seems at first, when compared to the trend of other states which have disproportionately low numbers of Black Americans within their borders.  Mathematically, any other explanation other than Black voters throwing a superduperwhooper majority of their votes to Barack Obama on Super Tuesday in numbers large enough to carry the day seems hard to find (although obviously I’m not a statistician).  Hard, at least, if what was reported by the exit polls is true:

<caption>Total Votes Cast in Connecticut - 350,588</caption>

Barack Obama	179,342
Hillary Clinton	164,831
John Edwards	3,408
Uncommitted	3,007

Using CNN’s exit poll data for Connecticut (which leaves a lot to be desired) one can at least try to estimate the demographics of the total voter pool.  So let’s try and do that:

<caption>Est. Breakdown of Total Votes- 350,588</caption>

Segment	% of Total	Est. Votes
White - Under 30	8% of electorate)	28,047
White – 31 to 44	17% of electorate	59,560
White – 45-59	31% of electorate	108,682
White – Over 60	26% of electorate	91,553
Black Voters	9% of electorate	31,552
Latino Voters	7% of electorate	24,541
All Others	3% of electorate	10,518

(CNN’s percentages actually come out to 101% but I’ve done this quick and dirty so bear with me!) From that quick and dirty calculation, one can look a little more deeply at where Barack Obama’s majority share of votes came from (IF the exit polls are an accurate reflection of what actually happened).

Let’s start with the only exit poll data that they bothered to collect/report out there where race was concered in Connecticut – exit polls for white voters.  Using the percentages which CNN has reported, this is how white votes theoretically broke down on Super Tuesday in Connecticut:

<caption>Obama’s Share of White Votes in Connecticut (Estimated)</caption>

Percentage of Votes	Est. Vote Count
54% of White Under 30	15,145
45% of White 31-44	26,802
45% of White 45-59	51,081
45% of White 60 & Over	44,645
Total Votes	137,673

Recognizing that this is truly an imperfect calculation wrought from imperfect data (so no need to holler too much about that as a means of deflecting from the uncomfortableness of the idea that Barack Obama is not presently winning the majority white votes anywhere in America where white folks and Black folks rub shoulders in proportionate numbers)) is already winning the white voting majorities majority white votes everywhere meme; I’d be all for an actual calculation if it’s available since this is as important to me as it probably is to you and would love to have my hunch proven wrong on this – you have no idea), this means that taking into account all of his white voters in Connecticut, Barack Obama got 41,669 votes in that state that were not cast by white people.

Although the remaining vote numbers get even more ephemeral, one can still try to guess where those came from.  IF (and this is indeed speculation) Latino voters gave Hillary the 55% percent or more of their votes they have given her everywhere else in the country (and I haven’t seen a percentage any lower than that anywhere), Barack Obama likely got, at most, 11,044 votes from that source.  Unfortunately, that would have still left him needing to pick up 30,655 votes from somewhere..  So, to be fair, let’s give him 50%/ ½ of all "Other" voters (for the record, I do not in any way support the media’s lumping Asians, Native Americans and all those in between into "Other"):  another 5,259 votes.
If those assumptions are true (and I admit that since Connnecticut did not exit poll enough non-white people to have any data, we’ll never know for sure) that means that, in all likelihood, 25,396 out of the estimated 31,552-strong pool of Black voters went out into their precincts in Connecticut and voted for Barack Hussein Obama (hey, I like his middle name!).  I feel some confidence in this, because this figure would have given him around 80.1% of the vote (the minimum number of Black votes that Barack Obama appears to have garnered everywhere he has ran).
I’ve been trying to find articles about whether Black turn out in Connecticut was higher or lower than average, with no luck so far.

When you play with these numbers as I have, it seems that yet again, Black voters were the margin of victory for him in that state:  same as they were in the Southern states.  Same as in Delaware, discussed above.

If what I am seeing is a fair read of the data indicating a true trend/pattern, rather than race paranoia and/or "race baiting" (a word getting misused beyond belief in this campaign), I don't see how Barack Obama's campaign doesn't take account of going forward, and affirmatively strategize around it.  This assumes that the campaign strategists are not, like far too many of the campaign's supporters who haunt the blogs, busy denying any and all concerns having to do with Barack Obama's electability in the name of "Obamamania" (silly silly name, that!) aka the historical destiny of choosing Barack Obama as our party's nominee.  And a frenzy Obamamania has indeed become for the most faithful.  (For the rest? A depressing but increasingly likely inevitability, since no realist can erase Hillary's strong potential to bring out the worst of the rabid right in opposition to the idea of her presidency in the general election -- even though it really is through no fault of her own, their hatred of her -- no matter what goes down in the primary season.  Obama has has momentum, and far fewer knee-jerk negatives with the other party members voting in November other than possibly race - and everyone knows it.  Thus, it is very likely than not that Barack Obama will become our nominee.  

Given this, we need to think long and hard about what will shift about the nature of the race when Hillary Clinton and all the other Democrats are no longer in this race, and the only choice the electorate faces in November is between electing a Black man for President and electing a white one, all qualifications for the job aside.

(I used to believe in the idea of the "best qualifications to be President" determining who became President; but then I lived through 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 and got realness slapped upside my now-greying head.)

One of the things that, IMO, must be carefully strategized through just like a military general is the possibility of the Bradley/Wilder effect, writ large on the entire country for the first time.  It is something that only a fool can ignore, when you know the numbers.  At least, only a fool that does not want to WIN ignores it.  So I do hope someone other than myself who is working to help Barack Obama successfully navigate this latest chapter in Black History (and, since I voted for him yesterday, I do indeed want him to navigate it successfully; no party line crossing for me, thanks!) notices this trending.  Because I'm not that smart, and if I noticed this trending just looking at the exit polls that actually tried to measure the impact of race (some states have so few Black folks they didn't even bother to ask these questions), and feel that it is a huge potential problem if/when John McCain gets the Republican nomination (and an even bigger one if McCain picks someone other than Mike Huckabee aka someone who will not galvanize Democrats to vote to prevent his insanity from running the country the same way that Hillary may galvanize Republicans to come out to defeat her) surely someone else must see it too.  

I'll end by saying that someone the other day asked if I enjoyed being "provocative" when it comes to discussions of race.  I originally took that question as asking me whether I enjoy stirring up racial shit for the sake of stirring up shit.  For the record, I don't, but if what I write provokes thought, I'm all for it.

Someone else, in a different discussion, lamented that I don't write very much about solutions.  That's a legitimate criticism, to me.  I do think there are solutions to the potential problems - I also think they will require Barack Obama to reexamine aspects of his platform.  Since this diary is long enough already, I'll write about those next time.

•  Wrong analysis

  Check correlation with Southern Baptist popoulation.

  by OCS89 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM PDT

  •  Someone Mentioned This Earlier Today

    But provided no link to any data.  Do you have some?

    I'm also not quite sure how you're going to explain away New York City with such data.....I was born and raised there and I have to tell you, the impact of Southern Baptists there (or in Jersey, or Massachussets, or California) is minuscule.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM PDT

    •  I can tell you Southern Baptists have very little

      impact in the CT as well.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:40:39 PM PDT

•  I'm white and I vote

  Go Obama

  by terryhutchinson on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:00:23 PM PDT

  •  See this is Just Silly

    As noted above, of course white people vote for Barack Obama.  The issue this diary confronts is whether the majority have, and will.  I don't know the answer any more than you do, but I do know that right now the primary data do not show such a clean break in his favor that the issue can be ignored when one looks towards the general.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM PDT

•  The issue is that we don't really know

  how divisions in a primary will translate into divisions in a general election.

  There was a SUSA head-to-head last month showing Obama almost losing to McCain in California, so you might be right to be worried. I have seen some discussion of Hillary and Obama needing one-another in the fall, and I think that might well be right: their coalitions are complementary and essential for winning in November.

  by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM PDT

  •  What I think helps Democrats in the fall

    I think Clinton voters and Obama voters like their candidate, rather than disliking the other candidate. So I think it's easier for those coalitions to unite in the general. Compare that to the GOP primary, where many have serious problems with John McCain as it relates to his conservatism. I dont think there are any of those deep, ideological disputes on the Democratic side, which makes me hopeful for the general.  

    by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:10:47 PM PDT

  •  It's a Real Conundrum

    For me, I'm not confident that that Hillary anywhere on the ticket will help Barack Obama any more than it would help Hillary herself.  The vitriol is just too entrenched and long-standing, and her name still continues to be red meat to the right in too many places.

    But they do need each other, once this primary contest is over.  Sometimes I cringe listening to both of them, knowing that.  Because I'm not confident that the Republicans are so demoralized that we don't have to worry about them in the fall.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM PDT

    •  I am one of those who believes

      that Hillary will hurt the races further down on the ballot. As much as I don't trust Whites, men especially, to stick with Obama, I think they will turn out in droves to take Hillary down. I suffer from being burned too many times in elections over the years, so I am dancing in the living room every time one of these unexpected (by me) results come in that show that Obama is pulling in the White votes.

      I will quickly add that I am an old-school feminist who doesn't appreciate the sexist attacks on Hillary. I just don't like her as a candidate and I really, really, want to win this next election.

      by blindyone on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:56:17 PM PDT

      •  I Don't Dig the Sexism Either

        Even though I consider myself a womanist (as I think most folks here at DailyKOS know).  It's pissed me off quite a bit.  

        I was torn between Edwards and Obama right up until Super Tuesday (since Edwards remained on the ballot here in California.)  But I admit that after the one-on-one debate in LA, I wondered if my previous dismissal out of hand of Hillary was unfair.  She was quite good.  Yet I keep wanting something I know I can't have:  for her to just say "I'm sorry; I fucked up" (in nicer language, obviously) when it comes to her decision on the AUMF.  I know that technically she's right about going with what she believed at the time, but it really does feel to me like she can't admit that perhaps she should have been more skeptical.  

        Unfortunately, we agree that folks will mobilize to take Hillary down.  Doubly so, I don't think it will be just men; I've heard horrible things said about Hillary Clinton from women, too.

        by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM PDT

    •  I think the Hillary hate is limited

      to the beltway media and the 20%ers, by and large. I've come to like her more as time goes on, though I still don't love her.

      I must be one of the few people who thinks we have two deeply flawed candidates (down from three).

      by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM PDT

  •  Someone Else

    On another forum also said that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need each other in the general, whichever one gets the nomination.  It's definitely an interesting hypothesis and much food for thought.

    OTOH, if they (largely through their partisans) don't stop chewing each other up and spitting on each other at such an acrimonious level, they will leave themselves no quarter for a united ticket or even playing a major role in the other's campaign:  there's a risk they will look hypocritical.

    Nonetheless, real food for thought.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:07:33 PM PDT

•  Did anyone really expect Obama to win NY?

  I mean, it's Hillary's homestate. I think it's impressive he did better in NY than she did in IL. I think in the Northeast and California, Hillary had a very strong organization in place for a longer time than Obama. Looking at some of the polls from early Jan, I think the late endorsements in those area, probably gave Obama a huge boost, but werent enough for a win.

  by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM PDT

  •  Fair Enough

    But even giving her homestate advantage in NY doesn't explain Jersey or Massachusetts (I'm leaving CA off because it is disproportionately Latino and it's an easy explanation for her win out here......)

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM PDT

    •  I think it was more organization than anything

      else. I think Obama wasnt counting on the Northeast that heavily. A month ago, no one would have expected Obama to do as well as he did in NJ or MA. I think Kennedy's endorsement and some recent campaign stops gave him a boost.  

      by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM PDT

      •  My husband was sure that

        Obama would win Massachusetts with his Harvard connections and the support of Kerry and Kennedy. I had my doubts.

        I was born in Mass and grew up there and in RI. There is longstanding distrust and resentment between American Blacks and working class Whites there. I've seen it in my own family over the years.

        Last June I was in Boston for my son's graduation and it is still kind of weird traveling on public transportation as an interracial couple back there when you get away from the city.

        As far as Harvard goes, many people in the area find Harvard, as an institution, arrogant and the Boston police are not as nice to the Harvard kids as the Cambridge cops are.

        One of Obama's major accomplishments was being chosen to be president of the Law Review. Recently, the first Latino, Andrew Crespo, was elected. That accomplishment impresses society as a whole more than it does the Irish guy on the corner in South Boston.

        by blindyone on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:14:12 PM PDT

        •  The Next Diary

          I was planning to talk more overtly about "tension", the recent Harvard study which I diaried about (but not here, I believe) which looked at residential diversity and concluded contrary to all our heart hopes that it actually caused less, not more, social capital, and how to combat it - because it can be combatted.

          But not by playing ostrich, as it seems just from some of the over-the-top adverse reactions to this diary some of Barack Obama's supporters are hell-bent to do.

          by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:30:38 PM PDT

          •  That sounds like another

            interesting take on things. I feel like I have been living at the intersection of class and race all mixed up with family for more than thirty years now. It probably has enriched my view of things but also limits it in some ways because I am so emotionally involved.

            We live in a community that is about 55% White, 40% Latino and the rest Asian, Black etc. It is a fairly affluent community with good schools and a low crime rate. What is interesting is that almost all of the lower income people here are Latino (though some families have been here for three or four generations) There are also affluent Latino families but the intergroup conflicts end up being class based more than race based. Blacks here are almost treated as "honorary Whites" because they are wealthy enough to fit in and because, as I think you are hinting above, there are so few of them.

            The really scary people, the ones who bring down your property values are not the few middle class Blacks but the low income Latinos, many of whom have been American citizens for generations. They are the ones that you don't want in class with your kids. The few Black kids are in the college prep or AP classes. Also, we have a really quaint little downtown area that is virtually abandoned by Whites after dark. Because of crime? No, because that is the working class part of town.

            What I am getting at is that little kernel of truth that you are attempting to bring to light that there is some perfect balance where Black people are fine with us Whites but if you get to a tipping point it becomes an issue.

            by blindyone on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:12:11 PM PDT

    •  On second thought, I dont know why he lost MA

      He did get Patrick's endorsement pretty early, and that probably should have helped with organization. NJ, I dont think the campaign paid much attention to until late. It was Hillary's backyard, the governor and one of the senators, and many other officials in the state had thrown their support to Clinton early on.

      by jj32 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:58:22 PM PDT

      •  yes

        gov. corzine and sen. menendez both worked for hillary, and in NJ, we have machine politics. the county party bosses have incredibly strong hand.

        by missreporter on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:34:25 PM PDT

•  Interesting take on this...

  I was actually just talking about this issue today with some acquaintances, and someone made pretty much the same point as you did.  Because of the source, I didn't put a lot of stock in what he was saying (I also remembered that Obama had done better in Georgia amongst white voters than most people expected he would).  

  Here is my question: Even if it is true, does it matter?  What states would Obama potentially lose because of this effect?  Ohio, maybe?  On the other hand, might it be possible for him to win in some previously red, predominantly white states (like Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, even Montana)?  

   

  by seabrook on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM PDT

  •  I Believe

    That a underlying message of the campaign is "anything is possible", so I think it is indeed possible - but as I noted at the end, I think the possibility is tied to him making some tweaks in his platform/approach to some issues.  I'll write about those the next time; this thing took hours to write unfortunately.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:46:50 PM PDT

    •  I agree with you that there is

      something there that could use a little more scrutiny and a better approach. I wish that I had some impressive plan that I could come up with here.

      Unfortunately, if this discussion is even approached people start to get emotional and try to stifle any and all comments. It was the same way when Hillary's pollster predicted that she would pull in a lot of support from Latinos.

      I worked as a bilingual teacher in the Los Angeles School District for almost a decade. I have relatives living in those tough neighborhoods like Lynwood, South LA and San Bernardino where there has been a gradual change from Black to Latino. I could write 30 diaries on the subject.

      Any discussion that there might be intergroup conflicts in the Southwest between Blacks and Latinos was shouted down as racist on this site. If Obama had more time, and thought it was important, he might have been able to reach out sooner.

      I still think that he made up a lot of ground, and I give Ted Kennedy, especially, some credit for that. It bodes well for his campaign as long as he has some folks who have credibility in those neighborhoods working on it.

      by blindyone on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM PDT

      •  I Know

        I've been there.  And yes, I saw what happened the few times folks tried to discuss the Black-Latino vote dynamics in connection with this election (happens in the immigration diaries too, so it didn't surprise me; what did surprise me, however, were the Latino Kossacks who were candid and honest about this, in an environment where clearly just being blunt was NOT welcome ...not even to many other Latino Kossacks.)

        by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM PDT

•  Women

  i think that the gender gap is part of the reason that your are seeing a depression in the "white vote". given that women make up a majority of the democratic electorate clinton dominating the women and especially white women will make a big difference. its hard to make a race only analysis when we know that gender is playing a role too.

  by Liberal Youth on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:16:57 PM PDT

  •  I Do Think Someone Should Look at Gender

    And see if that explains some of this.  But here's the problem; it can't possibly explain all of it unless you include only "white women" in your definition of "women", and I suspect you'd get some false negatives if you did that (for example, at least two very famous, progressive Black women - Maxine Waters and Maya Angelou - support Hillary Clinton.  Yet many others - including Barbara Lee -- support Barack Obama.

    Right now there aren't many stats about who we who are women of color are voting for.  Sheer math says that most Black women must be voting for Barack Obama, but considering that until the last quarter of 2007 huge numbers were staunch Hillary supporters, it's hard to say definitively.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM PDT

    •  ca

      i looked at the racial/gender splits in california as the african american vote had about the same 80-20 split seen elsewhere. There was only a slight gap between aa-womwn and aa-men created by edwards. curiously 6 percent of aa-women voted for him and no men did. this may be do to early voting by women and not men, which would be interesting in and of itself. but that aside the 80-20 is a constant.

      when i looked at jersey. he was killed by white men and lost larger than usual among white women. in states he wins or does well in he picks up white men 60-40 essentially and losses 60-40 among women. then his killer african american support comes in, except where it is destroyed by larger latino populations ie california. in jersey he lost white men 60-40 a reversal of which puts him within 1 point and if he loses women by only a 60-40 instead of 70-30 he wins the state.

      in conneticut he won the white men but he lost white women by the same percentage as he won white men 60-40. however as women are the larger of the two electoral perventages he loses the overall white vote due to gender. but in conneticut he had the african americans to put him over the top.

      my basic analysis is that for barak to beat hillary in a state he needs to win white men 60-40 and have a low latino presence. the gender gap and its large percentage is the key. even when he dominates in the white guys it might come up short because more women voted.

      by Liberal Youth on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:36:12 AM PDT

•  Jeez...

  Look, this is all very interesting, but I think we can safely assume that Obama would win NY, MA, and CA were he the nominee.  We can also assume Clinton would lose the mountain west.  Now Obama presents an opportunity to gain at least traction there (where HRC's favorability is terrible, btw).  

  That's good news for our party.  Rejoice.

  by foxsucks81 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM PDT

  •  exactly. Obama can pick up every single

    state that Kerry won in 2004, EASILY. There is not a SINGLE STATE we won in 2004 I'd question either nominee being able to win or not in 2008. he can also probably pick up states Kerry didn't win, which would mean victory.

    by terra on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM PDT

  •  Yes He Will

    But will he continue to win all the states he's won so far? Remember, all but two (New Mexico and Minnesota) are hard core Republican country, with Missouri and Iowa wobbling from time to time.  I personally think it is a mistake to dismiss these issues; this is a unique candidacy and this country has never experienced it before.  We therefore have no model to know what will happen, except for behavior we've seen happen once before for President:  which is a candidate of color embraced and loved by all but the reddest of Republicans until it really looked like he might actually win the nomination of the Democratic Party.  We've cleared the first historical hurdle; I do believe that Barack Obama is going to be our nominee.  

    But that only takes you to the second, for which we have NO model, and a hell of a lot of American history (including present history) that doesn't necessarily leave one all that sanguine.  Or at least, it shouldn't.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM PDT

•  Questioning CT assumptions

  check out this .pdf: http://www.sots.ct.gov/...

  It is a town by town analysis of the final vote totals in Connecticut.

  Two of the most WASP-Y town in the CT are Greenwich and Litchfield. Vote totals from the .pdf:

  Greenwich:
  Hillary - 2,254
  Obama - 2,643

  Litchfield:
  Hillary - 347
  Obama - 511

  Ah, but what about that "edumacated" thing?

  New Hartford is a good sample. It is white, wasp-y but more working class...

  New Hartford:
  Hillary - 288
  Obama - 376

  Now, let's go to two more racially mixed - and more working class - towns, Torrington and New Britain

  Torrington:
  Hillary - 1374
  Obama - 1153

  New Britain:
  Hillary - 3716
  Obama - 2838

  Waterbury, Hartford and Bridgeport all broke for Obama big time, and all have significant African American communities (and higher concentrations of working class folks).

  I think the break down in CT is a lot more complicated than just race and class lines, or even regional lines (i.e., southern CT vs central CT and northern CT).

  Maybe it's just a function of folks voting the way they want to...?

  by grannyhelen on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:24:50 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the Internals

    It would be great if you could post a link to them?  As I noted, this was obviously an inelegant analysis that underlie this diary, so I truly appreciate more apt data.

    When you say "maybe it's just a function of people voting the way they want to" I smile, because that's always true, isn't it?

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:52:37 PM PDT

•  On being "provocative"

  I've always appreciated those who can provoke thoughtful and critical discussion, reflection.  Those who can do it regarding race are, to my mind, "national treasures" because as a collective we are plain old crappy at it.

  by a gilas girl on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:28:34 PM PDT

•  Thanks for your concern.

  I don't even vaguely buy your argument and as an AA, I don't even know what to say about the first couple of paragraphs.

  You have selectively presented data that is consistent witj your hypothesis.

  He hasn't won in states in which blacks and whites co-exist?

  You mean like Missouri and Connecticut (shockingly there are quite a few AA in New Haven) and of course, we will just ignora IL. By the way, he won the white vote in CA.

  Are you as concerned about Hillary's disproportionate appeal to women voters and how that may damage her in the general election?

  by smartdemmg on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:40:53 PM PDT

  •  Don't

    Cut my sentences in 1/2 to support your argument, brother (or sister.)  What I said was that he has yet to win a state where Blacks and whites live in numbers proportionate to their representation in the general population.

    I linked the state wide data to you about the percentage of our numbers in both Missouri and Connecticut.  You can tell about New Haven (a place I do know) and Kansas City/St. Louis, but that's a drop in the bucket state wide.

    If you believe I've gamed the data, all to which I have linked, do the math yourself.  Otherwise, you obviously haven't been around here long enough to know that I have never written a dishonest diary.  And I resent folks who don't even know me who are so torqued over our brother's candidacy that they stop thinking.  You hurt his bid without even knowing it.  

    And like the first commentor, you seem to have a reading problem, because this diary is NOT in support of Hillary Clinton, but of Barack Obama.  Unlike him, however, it is compounded by (seemingly never-ending) sexist problem of disaggregating "women" from "Black people":  as if there no Black women (of which I am one).  Hillary isn't disproportionately appealing to "women" - she's appealing to some women, mostly white women at this point.  

    Precision is your friend................

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:57:06 PM PDT

•  I don't have all evening to debat this

  so I will just cut to the chase and worry about a more detailed rebuttal later.

  What exactly is the point of this diary because obviously it is not coming across clearly to me at least.

  by smartdemmg on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:02:37 PM PDT

•  Random thoughts.

  As others have said, Clinton performs very well among white women, which would depress Obama's performance among white voters.  

  Additionally, there's a lot of variance in age, income, and education and it would require a fairly sophisticated statistical analysis to sift everything out.

  With that said, I think you're right to point out that Obama does better in states with either a large black population or a very small one.

  I think it's possible that places with a smaller black population don't have the same experience with racial politics.  Obviously, no place in America can avoid racism and racial politics in a broad sense, but I'm guessing that places like Idaho have a much different local context than say, Tennessee or (to show I'm not picking on the South) Michigan.  I suppose it's possible there's some racial effect there, but absent more data I wouldn't draw conclusions.

  I also wonder if there isn't some sort of "identity politics" by proxy effect in the South.  Bill Clinton is obviously Hillary Clinton's fiercest supporter and he happens to be white, a Southern Baptist, and is a former governor of a southern state.  I wonder if that has more cache to white Southern Dems than white Midwestern Dems.  Again, just a thought, not something I can quantify.

  As for Obama's support (or lack thereof) in NJ and MA, I think there are structural explanations.  Clinton represents a northeastern state, she's better known, and it's would be more difficult to compete with her there than in ND.  Larger states are also more difficult to organize the way Obama organized some of the smaller states. Finally, at least in MA, Clinton had the support of some mayors.  They have a better GOTV structure than Senators and Governors would.  

  by Sinister Rae on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

  •  /Agree

    I think it's possible that places with a smaller black population don't have the same experience with racial politics.  Obviously, no place in America can avoid racism and racial politics in a broad sense, but I'm guessing that places like Idaho have a much different local context than say, Tennessee or (to show I'm not picking on the South) Michigan.  I suppose it's possible there's some racial effect there, but absent more data I wouldn't draw conclusions.

    I do think this plays a significant role, and was going to start the next diary with that idea (given some support by the study published not too long ago by Harvard regarding neighborhood diversity and its impact on social capital) because I think that's the kernel of how to resolve the issue and ensure we don't have problems in the general.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM PDT

    •  Ooo

      Is that study online?  I'd like to read it.

      by Sinister Rae on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        But it really depressed many many progressives (actually it caused reactions quite similar to some of the stuff we've seen here when it comes to bearers of bad news).  So be forewarned.

        Here's the diary I wrote about the study when it was announced, which contains a link (my diary discussed it within the context of the Parents' United case which undid Brown v. Board of Education while claiming to be upholding it.  I was still in a foul humor at that point, so it's probably more sarcastically written than it should be....

        Social Science Permission for the Segregated Status Quo.

        by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:18:59 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          But it really depressed many many progressives

          I actually study community and urban sociology, so it's probably not that dissimilar to other things I've been exposed to (I'm specifically thinking of American Apartheid in this regard).

          by Sinister Rae on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:32:49 PM PDT

        •  And thank you for the link! n/t

          by Sinister Rae on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:33:32 PM PDT

•  It's true

  Matt Yglesias has also come up with this theory that Obama can win states with lots of black people and states with no black people but not states with some black people, so it's not just the diarist.

  However, while I think they are both not wrong in noticing the data, they are both placing too much emphasis on the wrong things, or drawing the wrong conclusion from them.

  Point #1, he just has to get enough votes. Obsessing about where the votes are coming from is just as bad as the people complaining that Democrats have a "white man problem" but can't see that the Republicans have a "woman problem" or "black problem" or "Latino problem" or "Asian problem" or some such. If he gets enough votes to win, I'm not going to stress too much about where they are coming from.

  Point #2, If Obama can't win New York, Massachusetts or California in the general election, he really isn't electable and might as well drop out now. When examining your theory, you have to ask, if you are looking at the general election, where would this theory have real application? Are there any "blue" states that would be pushed to McCain as a result? Are there any "must-win" red states that he can't win because of this dynamic? Or are the Democratic voters doing the equivalent of IRV--that is, even if they are a little bit racially motivated during the primary, their hierarchy might go something like:
  white female Democrat, black male Democrat, white male Republican. You'd have to be convinced that enough people so hate a black man running that they'd go to McCain instead of a Democrat and I'm not convinced of that. Considering that Obama consistently does about as well as Clinton (and often comes out ahead) in polling against McCain, there's no reason to assume that. Even if some voters are "holding their noses" to vote for Obama, a vote is a vote, and that's the most important thing.

  Point #3, Obama does better with voters the more time they have to see him. He is a gifted campaigner. He hasn't had time to get to everyone yet. He hasn't had time for a Latino strategy, or an Asian strategy, or a nervous white people strategy. If he gets the nomination, he will have more time, and he's far from stupid and his campaign, I think is at this point running circles around Clinton's. She's where she is now because she built up so much padding before the race started. They'll have a strategy.

  If it's Obama v. McCain, Obama will have youth, enthusiasm, and $$$$ (much more $$) on his side. And, I just don't think McCain's the guy to get the worst racists fired up to vote for him en masse. It'll be OK...

  by JMS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:09:22 PM PDT

  •  I take some comfort from

    your analysis. I hope that it all works out the way that you describe. I think it is realistic.

    by blindyone on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:15:32 PM PDT

  •  Two Things

    (1) Thanks for telling me the other person who had discussed this issue - someone mentioned it in another diary today and I wanted to know who so I could check out their discussion, but I never got the name.  Thanks for it.

    (2) I didn't say that Barack Obama can't win anything, so if that's what Matt Yglesias says I don't agree with him at all.  I think only that he has NOT won those states, and that's true, and it has implications for the general election if not combatted.

    (3) In the general, for the first time in United States history (assuming that Barack gets the nod, and I have no reason to believe he won't), the electorate will be asked to choose between a Black man for the highest office in the land, and a white won.  This moment in time will have never happened before.  And I don't think that you can rule out, when Barack Obama despite what is indeed extraordinary campaigning and oratorical might is not able to secure the majority of voters across the largest demographic - white voters - in the primary, that the Bradley/Wilder effect will play a role.  The only issue is whether it's combattable (I believe it is) and if so what is to be done to nip this issue in the bud in advance.

    And it's not the "worst racists" I'm worried about.  That's not who the Bradley/Wilder effect takes place with, not at all.  I don't think it's about "hate a Black man" - for example I don't think that folks would come out of the woodwork to vote against Obama.  It's a much more subtle idea, the one that many Black people in the learned professions, for example, see played out all the time in terms of their own careers; it's the idea that there will be unconscious resistence to truly putting that much power over their lives in the hands of a Black person.

    It is that which I think caused people to either (a) lie to exit pollers outright about their intent to vote for Tom Bradley; or (b) tell the truth to the exit poller, but then when actually required to take the last step, couldn't take it, and felt so uncomfortable about why they couldn't take it that they felt the need to lie afterward.

    Either way, it's the Black American equivalent of the glass ceiling being tested.  That's more of a gender concept, but the glass exists just as much for many Black folks.  We're totally in unknown territory here though.

    by shanikka on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM PDT

    •  I appreciate your last comment

      I was thinking that generally a lot of our assumptions of how people vote and what works and what doesn't have been upended with this race. We might even see the end of "red" and "blue" states--a real realignment. But we need order, we need trends, we need some way to make sense of the data. So we come up with LOTS of theories--which make sense until the next set of primaries where they are contradicted again.

      Nothing wrong with having theories--but we should acknowledge that our theories are just theories--there's just not enough data to be sure of them yet. Some of this might be true, some may just be coincidence--might as well keep an open mind.  One of my theories is that for every white person who is "uncomfortable" about voting for the black guy, there's another one who will use their vote for the black guy to make them feel less guilty about being uncomfortable about past racist sins--both are not ideal, but I'll take white guilt votes for Obama if that's what it takes. We are in unknown territory. Scary, but exciting too.

      by JMS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:43:28 PM PDT

      •  Indeed

        All I wrote is theory.  An unpleasant theory, based on the data I have, in the hopes that having acknowledged the possibility strategies can be developed to combat it.

        Your last paragraph is significant to me as a Black voter because I am deeply afraid of whites voting for a Black president as a means to emotionally escape their ongoing responsibility to work with everyone to eliminate institutionalized racism from our society.  55 years after the civil rights movement began, many things (the bread and butter things) are getting worse, not better, in people's day to day lives.

        Scary and exciting indeed.

        by shanikka on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:34:25 AM PDT

        •  My last comment

          is a bit cynical, but I think true, but I think not a net negative. It's negative if that's where the conversation stays, but I see it more as a necessary step to getting to a better place. There are two ways you can go from "voted for him out of guilt". One is that from there they can continue to disparage blacks who are not as accomplished as Obama and justify that by pointing out they supported Obama. That's probably along the lines of what you fear, and it will probably happen with some people. But there's another possibility for other people. Maybe they initially voted for Obama out of white guilt, but the fact of him, the image of him, day in day out, being well, president and leader of the free world will work in a powerful way to change the image of what a black man is (and in Michelle what a black woman is) so that almost unconsciously the voter who voted out of "guilt" is generally more responsive and open and less biased. Familiarity does tend to break down fear and prejudice--not in the beginning, maybe--but eventually.

          by JMS on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:51:57 AM PDT

          •  Fair Comment

            And one can indeed hope for the second outcome.  This is when my life experience kicks in, and if the current past means anything, it's the former that's more likely.

            But we can all hope for the best.  Thanks for your honest comments.

            by shanikka on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:49 AM PDT

•  A couple of thoughts

  1. Democratic candidates and white voters

  IIRC, any Democratic candidate for president has to expect that s/he will receive less than 50% of the votes of white people, and will depend on Black and Latino voters to reach a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.

  For example, I checked the results of Clinton's successful run in 1996:

                 All        White       Black
  Clinton     49%        43%         84%    
  Dole        41%        46%         12%
  Perot        8%         9%          4%

  Similarly, the results of the popular vote in 2000:

                 All        White       Black
  Gore        48%        42%         90%    
  Bush        48%        54%          9%
  Other        4%         3%          1%

  Therefore, to win in November, Obama would not need a majority of white votes, but only a sufficiently large percentage. An unusually high turnout by African-American voters could offset any loss of white votes.

  At the same time, Democrats must be prepared for a backlash that would try to delegitimize an Obama presidency on the grounds that he didn't carry a majority of white voters. Such an argument would be inherently racist, of course. Every vote has equal value, and when one party chooses to turn its back on a large component of the population, the loyalty the other party receives is inevitable.

  The significance of the level of Obama's support among white voters also depends on where those voters are located.

  2.  The location of white voters

  As noted in the diary, Obama's primary victories have come in Southern states where Blacks represent a relatively large percentage of the Democratic Party electorate, or in Central and Western states where the Black population is relatively small.

  These are mostly red states, most of which are unlikely to vote Democratic in the general election. At the same time, Clinton's victories have mostly come in states that are likely to vote for any Democratic candidate in the general election. Therefore, the primaries may actually tell us very little about how each state will vote in the general election. They may, however, tell us something about the varieties of white Democrats.

  Will white voters who voted for Clinton in the primaries be willing to vote for Obama in the general election? I would speculate (and this is sheer unsupported speculation) that white Democratic voters have a different profile in red states and blue states.

  I'm guessing that in a very red state like Idaho, you have to be a very committed and liberal Democrat to be a Democrat at all. It would make sense that moderates, middle-of-the-roaders and people with low levels of political interest would go along with the majority of their neighbors in places where voting Republican is the norm.

  Conversely, in a place like New York City or Boston, one would be foolish to register as a Republican when so many races are decided in Democratic primaries. Democrats in very blue states probably represent a broader coalition than Democrats in very red states.

  I'm speculating, therefore, that the average white Democrat in the states Obama carried is more liberal, more educated, and better informed than the average Democrat in the bluest of states that Clinton carried. This theory would help explain Obama's success in red states, both among Democrats and in attracting independents and crossovers.

  I'd further speculate that Clinton voters in places like California, New York, and Massachusetts were pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama, voters. It is hard to imagine that Clinton voters would become McCain voters in November, at least in sufficiently large numbers to cost Democrats the electoral votes of those states.

  As usual, the election is likely to turn on swing voters in a few swing states, many of which have not yet had primaries. These states probably blend the characteristics of the states at the extremes; the tight results in Missouri may be most indicative.

  Several swing states have a substantial percentage of Black voters. Maximizing turnout, and combatting voter suppression, may be critical to success in November.

  Beyond that, in swing states it will be important to retain the largest possible number of Democrats and attract a sufficient number of independents and even Republicans. Obama's themes of change and hope, coupled with an emphasis on post-racial politics are clearly an effort in this direction, but only an ostrich would avoid the kind of strategizing you propose in the diary.

  I think that your diary raises important questions that are worth exploring further.

  by word is bond on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM PDT

  •  Thank You

    For an honest-level headed read of the diary, your cogent insights, and understanding of what I was trying to do when writing this diary.  Yesterday's results in Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana fit unfortunately neatly into this analysis.  Someone in another place said that the real tests will be Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia (although I have got my doubts about Virginia for several reasons).

    It's worth watching.  I do think you're right about what the arguments against an Obama presidency will be if he wins (I already heard one bogus pundit saying that we are on our way to an "Affirmative Action Presidency" because of the knee-jerk, inaccurate reactions of too many of his supporters when he is criticised on the grounds of experience; the argument is disingenous, but it's already being put out there nonetheless.)  I also think that right now, we don't have anyone voting against Barack Obama, such that there is a lot of hope that this will all disappear when the party unifies behind a nominee.

    I hope it does.  Because we'll need it; a President Obama will need it, to successfully govern the country.

    by shanikka on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:55:30 AM PDT

    •  I just want to add (belatedly)

      that I'm glad you're watching this and willing to write about it. We need to be clear-eyed in the face of a Republican opposition that will stop at nothing; both the general election campaign and the presidency would take the country into new territory. I'll be watching for your follow-up diary, if you actually decide to go ahead with such a daunting task.

      by word is bond on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:51 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        I have been working on it; my biggest failing is that I do take a lot of time to write since I try not to just say stuff I haven't actually looked into.  I do have some ideas, because you're right - this is all about the contest in November, this issue.  It can be successfully combatted, but not by avoiding the issue IMO.

        by shanikka on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:59:26 AM PDT