Syndicated columnist David Sirota (of In These Times and most other fringe-Left outlets) claims that Hillary Clinton’s “last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the ‘Race Chasm’ and the trampling of democracy.”
Promoting his column at OpenLeft, Sirota writes:
In my newspaper column on Friday, I touched on a little-explored phenomenon in the 2008 presidential race. Amid all the punditry and intricate television graphics showing delegate counts and precinct voting trends, almost no one has bothered to look at the overwhelming dynamic that deals with race. Specifically, while Barack Obama has won states with both almost no black population and and very large black populations, he has had trouble winning states with a modestly sized black populations. How pronounced is this trend? I answer that question in a new In These Times investigation about what I call the Race Chasm – a trend that has been almost completely missed by the media.
Sirota is correct that this phenomena has been little covered by the establishment media, though I noted it about six weeks ago, based on work by Jay Cost, Brendan Nyhan and Kevin Drum. Sirota implicitly explains why this is so:
Why is this trend so pronounced? There’s no scientific answer to that question, but as I say in the In These Times piece, it probably has something to do with the state of black-white racial politics.
It should surprise no one that the establishment media is not diving into racial politics to examine a question which Sirota admits has no scientific answer.
Sirota must be unaware of the material on this topic mentioned above, because he manages to get the analysis wrong. At OpenLeft, he writes:
In super-white states, black-white racial politics barely exists, and therefore racism or subtle race-coded messages are not all that devastating a weapon against a black candidate – especially in a Democratic primary. In states with large black populations, black-white politics is very intense, but in a Democratic primary, the black vote can offset a racially motivated white vote. But in the states in between, black-white politics is equally as intense, but the black population is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.
Similarly, his In These Times piece states:
On the right of the graph among the states with the largest black populations, Obama has also crushed Clinton. Unlike the super-white states, these statesâ€â€many in the Deep Southâ€â€have a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republican’s “southern strategy†to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections. “But in the Democratic primary the black vote is so huge , it can overwhelm the white vote,†says Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Marylandâ€â€Baltimore. That black vote has gone primarily to Obama, helping him win these states by big margins.
This thesis (including its reliance on myths about the white male vote) misses the boat.  Brendan Nyhan looked at how the white vote for Obama varies with the black population in the state and found that white support for Obama increased in heavily black states. He also showed that using Southern Baptist population as a proxy for “Southernness” was a significant variable explaining variations in white support for Obama. (Subsequent to Nyhan’s post, Obama would win white men in the Potomac primaries as well.)
It is also not surprising that Sirota ended up where he did, given the way he skewed his sample:
To date, 42 states and the District of Columbia have voted in primaries or caucuses. Factor out the two senators’ home states (Illinois, New York and Arkansas), the two states where Edwards was a major factor (New Hampshire and Iowa) and the one state where only Clinton was on the ballot (Michigan) and you are left with 37 elections where the head-to-head Clinton-Obama matchup has been most clear. Subtract the Latino factor (a hugely important but wholly separate influence on the election) by removing the four states whose Hispanic population is over 25 percent (California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona), and you are left with 33 elections that best represent how the black-white split has impacted the campaign.
Most of that is reasonable, but the premise that the Hispanic vote has nothing to do with racial politics is highly suspect.  Yet it allows Sirota to ignore, for example, that Obama won white men by 21% in New Mexico and 20% in California, and split the white male vote in Arizona.
That is one of many things Sirota ignores in his analysis. Class is another, which seems a strikingly odd factor for a committed Lefty to ignore. Gender is another, which seems odd in light of Clinton’s status as the most serious female presidential candidate in US history. Obama’s strength in caucuses also gets ignored. And Sirota’s OpenLeft piece is a bit more explicit as to how Sirota sees the racial divide:
This isn’t to say that race is the only factor, nor that every white person voting against Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton is a racist or racially motivated – not at all. However, over the course of 33 separate elections, a trend like this is significant – and probably explains why the Clinton campaign has been working hard to keep the race issue at the forefront of the campaign.
Moreover, if Sirota told you not to think of an elephant, the image of the elephant would be there in your mind. While Sirota suggests that some Clinton voters may be racially motivated, the possibility he does not even mention to discount is that race may a factor in the black vote for Obama. Nor does he note that Obama has played the race card to his advantage repeatedly during the campaign.
In sum, Sirota’s analysis is skin deep.
Update: HotAir-lanche!
Although it’s in itself a small sample, Karl, I think you might be able to look at how it’s assimilated on the left to determine whether race trumps everthing else on the lefty agenda.
“…Southâ€â€have a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republican’s “southern strategy†to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections.”
Had to get “TEH RACIST RETHUGLICANS” meme out there once again, in the teeth of a two hundred year history of Democrat support for slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
Good one.
It looks like he’s saying that the people who vote for black people are those who are black or don’t know many blacks.
Karl – Sirota should be embarassed to call than an “analysis”. Why is it that the only conceivable reason people like him can find for people voting for someone other than Baracky is RACIST!? And why is it that they do not consider race in the exact same manner for voting/identity groups that appear to be voting based purely on race?
– Its been most amusing, watching the Dem campaign conditions force the closet racism on the left out into the light of day. A bit more surprising, since we always suspected a certain complicity in that regard anyway, is just how damned obsessed they truly are with the entire racial issue. When you hear comments like “typical white person”, ect,. being blithely bantered about, if you close your eyes and just listen, you can almost imagine them coming from the mouths of deep South white sepremist bigots, circa the 50’s and 60’s. The same sort of temporizing bullshit thats being floated to try to soft-pedal the Rev Wrights clearly anti-American screeds.
– Hillery can’t win without ham handed political moves within the party higher ups, and some possiblity of torched cities, while Obana can’t win in the General simply because of his inexperience coupled with his connection, and possible agreements with, a Black extremist group.
– Thats a steep price to pay for the views of a group of less than 10 thousand people, but oh you have to love diversity. The tent seems to be shrinking these days.
Gotta love that liberal white guilt. I understand it’s especially tasty with a side of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think voters will be turning up their noses at this menu in November.
“Sirota sees the racial divide:
This isn’t to say that race is the only factor, nor that every white person voting against Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton is a racist or racially motivated – not at all.”
Nope, he’ll hold off on blanket accusations of racism directed at those voting against the mighty O until the general election.
“Class is another, which seems a strikingly odd factor for a committed Lefty to ignore.”
I assume you mean “income level” as a surrogate for “class” becasue the exit polling splits don’t identify “class” in their breakouts. I mention this only because of the mobility factor – about half of the “over $50K” income level started out as “under $50K” and their “class” didn’t really change when their income did.
I certainly agree that Sirota did a very good job at totally ignoring the blindingly obvious fact that those in lower income levels aren’t going to vote for Mr. Hopeychange. It’s odd that a Man Of The People wouldn’t notice the fact that passing out job opportunities on the basis of race hasn’t been a tremendous hit with those who might have obtained the same job on a merit basis.
We’re left once again with the conundrum of “Is he stupid or willfully blind?”.
This is an interesting graf:
“In super-white states, black-white racial politics barely exists, and therefore racism or subtle race-coded messages are not all that devastating a weapon against a black candidate – especially in a Democratic primary. In states with large black populations, black-white politics is very intense, but in a Democratic primary, the black vote can offset a racially motivated white vote. But in the states in between, black-white politics is equally as intense, but the black population is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.”
Note that the only vote that is racially motivated is the white vote; the black vote is not racially motivated at all. Yet, based on this paragraph that the black vote must also be racially motivated if it is the one guaranteed to support Senator Obama. Further, the actions of Rev. Wright provide anecdotal support to a racially motivated black vote.
The actions of Rev. Wright also provide an explanation that Sirota does not use, but does add an explanation for this voting pattern. In states with a very small black population there aren’t the Rev. Wrights. Voters do not see them and do not hear them, so white voters are not put off by the insults and bigotry and are willing to give support to a black candidate. However in those states with a sizable black minority, there is a sufficiently large population for a Rev. Wright to find an audience, and it is more likely that the white voters are going to hear the insults and bigotry directed at them, and thus become less likely to support a black candidate. In states with a large black minority this doesn’t have the same effect because the two voting blocs are close enough in size that the effect would be hidden by the numbers.
It’s a theory, and I notice he didn’t address it.
– “It’s a theory, and I notice he didn’t address it.”
– I rather think the idea that, in general, prople of any given race would NOT have a natural tendency to favor candidates of their own race as a simple fundemental tendency, regardless of which race you were talking about, although interestingly enough I would not be surprised to find that such a tendency would, in fact, be much more the rigor among minorities, for fairly obvious reasons.
– But then that wouldn’t support “the Narrative”(tm), so I suppose we’re not supposed to talk about such things.
= “….tendency, would be the theory, and not the way he proposed, regardless of….”
-Left out a key piece of the thought there.
in the teeth of a two hundred year history of Democrat support for slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.
Yeah, the Dems were dominated by racists for 200 years.
Then they all became republicans.
They are called – YOUR ANCESTORS, redneck.
Republicans ARE racists.
Like Robert Byrd?
Or, hell, like Cynthia McKinney? Or Barack Obama? Or most of the elected officials of Detroit?
The reality is, of course, more complicated:
“…must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see!”
I’m still waiting for the open dialogue on race that Obama said it’s for. Guess I won’t hold my breath. He certainly isn’t having it anywhere except maybe with his father figure, Rev. Wright. And as for being a uniter? Other than flyers to Republicans saying, Vote for me, where’s he reaching out? Silly man.
ed. I’m still waiting for the open dialogue on race that Obama said it’s TIME for.
I believe anonymousjerk already started that dialog.
Oh yeah, that post from anonymousjerk was deep and insightful. Really moves things along! I wonder if his last name is Barack.
Drama Queen – I’m still waiting for the open dialogue on race that Obama said it’s for.
anonymousjerk has already had that discussion for the Left. When Baracky says it is a difficult discussion, he is looking right at asshats like that.
I also am in awe of BHO’s ability to unify his own party. Wow! If he does as well with race relations as he has proven to be as a uniter, we’ll all be backstabbing, infighting racists in no time! I guess that’s his definition of “change.”
Anonymousjerk….typical deluded left-wing bigot.
It looks like he’s saying that the people who vote for black people are those who are black or don’t know many blacks.
That’s what I got from it too. And I didn’t get that he said that the Hispanic factor had nothing to do with racial politics but that it was a separate sort of racial politics that makes a separate impact.
I believe most white voters would love to see an end to racial politics and racial strife in this country and this is why predominatly white states would vote for a candidate like Obama. However, in those areas where people have experienced first hand the overt racism many blacks exhibit, the “you owe me because i’m a victim” attitude, the increased crime rates and welfare costs, and the government sanctioned effects of discrimination caused by affirmative action, then the allure of a black president begins to fade. This is especially true when they find out Obama went to a church like Wright’s for 20 years.
All of you are racists, stained by the original sin of slavery, like the Constitution. All except anonymousjerk who is merely incoherent from sniffing Arrid Extra Dry and trying to juggle his five remaining brain cells.
I think anonymous jerk is either timmah or IJS. Just sayin’
Comment by anonymousjerk on 4/2 @ 11:00 am #
Republicans ARE racists.
All of em?
Every one?
Oh. My!
– What’s really entertaining is watching the continuous battle between the two Dem camps talking heads on the tube, ripping each other apart for a change, instead of the usual partysan anti-Rep propaganda. Who would have thought.
Rusty, I believe the correct response is, “I know you are but what am I!?”
Jeez. Sirota looks at the “long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics” in the south and comes up with Nixon and his Southern Strategy? That works a lot better if you don’t know that the Southern Strategy was Nixon’s attempt to get the still virulently racist Southern Democrats to switch parties and vote for him. Pandering to the southern racists certainly doesn’t make Tricky Dick a nice guy, but it’s sure convenient to forget that the southern racists he was pandering to were Democrats, and had been Democrats through the entire Jim Crow era. In fact, I suspect that it’s more than a convenient oversight. Sirota must have really stretched to find something suitably sordid in the south’s racial political history that could be hung on the Republicans. That’s not being “stupid or willfully blind”, that’s just completely dishonest. And about what I’ve come to expect from Sirota.
[…] not only Brendan Nyhan’s analysis of this pattern, but also posts by Marc Ambinder and yours truly noting Nyhan’s […]