Most of the buzz over Hillary Clinton’s comment about her support among “white Americans” was generated in the Leftosphere (Allahpundit being an exception), so I wanted to flag the suggestion by TNR’s Michael Crowley that it “it seems better than reliance on cutesy euphemisms like ‘working class’ or ‘electability'” as dead wrong.
As previously noted here, Obama’s problem has not been with white voters generally, but with certain sub-groups of white voters, which has more to do with culture than race. His problem with white voters in a general election is likely to be much the same as most Democrats have had for decades. As Allahpundit notes, there does appear to be some racial voting in the Democratic contests (by whites and blacks, I would add), but Republicans (and to a lesser degree conservatives) are more likely to reject Obama on issues and experience than they would vote based on race.
When Clinton goes beyond her reference to non-college educated whites in Indiana and North Carolina to speak of “white Americans” generally, she is treading far too close to the same broadbrushing that Bracak Obama, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and their media enablers engaged in when claiming that Wright was somehow representative of “the black church” or “the black community.” There are likely virulent racists of all races (as society recognizes race — I’m avoiding Jeff G’s entirely apt analysis of why it is artificial), but they are not representative of the majority.
Update: At OpenLeft, diarist dreaminonempty notes that how Clinton has done against Obama in the Appalachians is roughly similar to how Mike Huckabee did against John McCain in the region while an active candidate. Moreover:
Back of the envelope estimates show that about 25%-50% of the white Democrats in this region will vote for McCain over Obama.  This the maximum for how many Democratic voters won’t vote for a black man.  For comparison, about 30% of Appalachian white Democrats also voted for Bush in 2004.
Last I checked, John F. Kerry is kinda pasty.
Update x2: According to Gallup, “Obama’s current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry’s margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.”
(h/t Instapundit.)
So the black voters will vote based on party affiliation/race, whereas the white voters will be less likely to vote on race but more on party affiliation/cultural matters? And except at the extremes of wealth/poverty, economics aren’t much of a predictor of voting behavior?
Well, of course she has a white American’s crack.
Mikey,
No, economics plays into it as well. In the 2004 presidential exit poll data, Kerry took a majority of voters with an annual family income under $30,000. Kerry and Pres. Bush basically tied among voters between $30,000 and $50,000. Bush won substantially with voters above that income level, representing 55% of all voters.
Dan,
I went with “crack” for all of its comic potential.
Thanks Karl. I wasn’t sure if I remembered that right.
Okay, Karl. Well, then, she is the opiate of the prole.
another great substantiate post, Karl
Dan, she could be the opiate of them asses.
This is supposed to be all controversial I guess, what Hillary said, or at least Drudge made it look like that, but the people who make the tv shows for you to watch on your tv say the same things a lot more blatantly every day. Mostly it’s ok but too many black people can screw up their median income delivery, so they keep an eye on it.
It is unfortunate you misspell the candidate’s name “Bracak Obama”. A person with poor typing skills searching the internet for his or her favorite candidate, will be inclined to believe Hillary a racist, as this post will be on the short list of hits.
“As Allahpundit notes, there does appear to be some racial voting in the Democratic contests (by whites and blacks, I would add), but Republicans (and to a lesser degree conservatives) are more likely to reject Obama on issues and experience than they would vote based on race.”
That’s easy to say when one party chose a black candidate and the other had a slate of white men. Someday, the Republicans might put this hypothesis to a test. Obama has more foreign policy experience than the current President did when elected, but somehow these Republicans who reject Obama cite inexperience as the reason they wouldn’t consider him? I think they just know that answering “he’s black” doesn’t sound quite right. Of course, they wouldn’t vote for a Democrat anyway, so the whole question is kind of absurd.
The surest sign of a cracker.
Obama has a lot of foreign policy opinions and zero executive experience, unless one calls acccepting checks for political favors and signing checks for hate-spewing reverends executive decisions.
– I’m not remembering the figures, but I would venture to guess that Kerry did not get a 93% pluralty of Black voters anywhere in the country.
– Of course 93%, even 97%, does not constiture a racist flavor for the Left, because its on their side of the fence, and so glaringly obvious, even used Campaign stickers would blush. No, no, because its the Left its “racial”. not racist.
– For anyone on the Left, Whire or Black, to be annointed racist, they’d have to be screaming racial epithets and strangling a minority “other” right before your eyes.
When did Obama work in the State Department?
Quick quiz: Who was the last president elected who had any foreign policy experience before becoming president?
Answer: George H.W. Bush had been UN ambassador prior to becoming Reagan’s VP.
Who was the last one before that? I’d say Eisenhower. Before that? Taft?
Focusing on foreign policy experience as somehow a prerequisite for the presidency is kind of ridiculous. Executive experience is what voters should, and normally do, look for. That’s why Senators rarely make the cut.
Until this year. This year we’re fooked.
Karl alone can’t satisfy Hillary’s need for white lovin’. She needs it.
Last I checked, John F. Kerry is kinda pasty.
Well, during the 2004 campaign Kerry did sport an orange spray-on “suntan” for a week or two.
“When did Obama work in the State Department?”
He didn’t. But he has actual ideas based on personal experience in foreign lands which outweighs what I had heard of W’s pre-nomination foreign experience. Of course, I’m comparing nits to mites here, and that’s mostly my point.
erm, but Texas is like a whole other country. and I thought GWB was in tight with the Saudis.
*sigh* the narratives, sometimes they clash.
In fairness to Jon, I’m not sure that Saudi thing is necessarily part of his narrative.
gawd, you and your fairness, McGehee.