Exceptions (0.00 / 0)

I have asked you about this the last couple times you've posted on the race chasm, but I would still be interested to hear your response.

As I understand it, your theory is that the percentage of whites voting for Obama is in inverse proportion to the black population of a given state, so the higher the black population, the more racially polarized voting patterns take over. This is why Obama tends to win states that are very white, or have large black populations that can offset the white vote; and why Clinton wins states with moderate black populations around 5-20%.

But there seem to be a lot of exceptions to this rule. It doesn't work for Missouri. It hardly applies at all to New England - CT, RI, MA, and NH all break the "race chasm" pattern. I expect WV will resoundingly break the pattern. Texas and California only fit the pattern because of their large Hispanic populations that went for Clinton. Other states only nominally fit the pattern: Virginia went for Obama, and this fits the pattern because of VA's 20%+ black population; but Obama actually won whites in that state. And Obama only won 20% of the white vote in Tennessee, which is about 17% black; but he won more than 40% of the white vote in Georgia, which is almost 30% black. Indiana would likely have been another exception to the rule, if not for a few thousand Limbaugh voters swinging the win to Clinton. And I'm pretty confident that Obama would have won a real contest in Michigan, and that would have been yet another exception to the rule.

So. Given that there is a sample size here of only fifty states, that is an awful lot of exceptions to the rule - an awful lot of ad hoc hypotheses to have to tack onto your theory.

To be clear, I think it would be utterly foolish to deny that race has profound effects on elections, politics, and life in general in this country. I just question whether the race chasm theory is a very useful way of understanding these effects.  

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM CDT

That's not my theory (0.00 / 0)

No, you've fabricated what I said. I never said "the percentage of whites voting for Obama is in inverse proportion to the black population of a given state." Never. What I said is more simple:

In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. It is in the Race Chasm - the states whose populations are more than 6 percent and less than 17 percent black - where race is a political issue but the black vote is too small to counter a racially motivated white vote.

MO and CT were the two states Obama was able to break the pattern - but 90+% of Clinton's victories and Obama's losses have been in the Race Chasm.

As it relates to West Virginia - states have to really be looked at as the sum of their media markets. That's what defines a state's political culture, after all. Here's what I said about that in my original article:

Primaries are now looming in a critical group of Race Chasm states-Pennsylvania, Indiana (8.8 percent black), Kentucky (7.5 percent black) and West Virginia (only 3 percent black, but a place influenced by the Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania media markets, which undoubtedly makes race politics more customary than in other mostly white states).

Basically, West Virginia is the sum of its media markets (it's not its own media market). In that sense it actually presents the worst of both worlds for a black candidate. Racial politics exists, but there is almost no black population at all.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay (0.00 / 0)

So polarized voting is a phenomenon with roughly equal significance in any state with more than a 6% black population, then?

That still doesn't address the many apparent exceptions to the rule - including, as you say, MO and CT. It doesn't explain Rhode Island, Mass., and New Hampshire. Nor does it explain Virginia, where Obama won the white vote. It also wouldn't explain the large disparity in Obama's white vote in Tennessee and Georgia. Or California and Texas, if you discount the Hispanic vote. Or, hypothetically, Michigan. Or Indiana minus the Limbaugh voters...

As for West Virginia, it is mostly comprised of its own media markets, according to this site: http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarke...

But that's not important. The point I was making is that: yeah, sure, you can add on a bunch of ad hoc hypotheses to make the Race Chasm pattern fit, such as this theory about media markets in WV. But too many ad hoc hypotheses, and the theory stops being useful (i.e., it doesn't really explain much of anything, and it doesn't help you predict future voting behavior).

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:03:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Do Realize, Don't You (0.00 / 0)

That David didn't invent this out of thin air?  This is actually a well-known phenomena.

Black candidates are not threatening to whites where there is no significant black power base for them to represent.  (There was one Black student in my high school back in the 60s.  He was elected student body president.  No one was afraid of what would happen if they voted for him.) Where there is a significant power base, they have the chance, over time, to represent that power base, and by their records reassure major segments of the white electorate, so that a combined white and black electoral base can not just elect them, but will also support other new (to them) black candidates who cast themselves in the mode of those who have already won trust.

The real problem lies with states--and smaller jurisdictions--where the black population is large enough to be threatening, but not large enough to produce a varied range of political representatives whom white voters can become accustomed to over the years. And this is precisely where the race chasm comes from.

If no one else had ever noticed this.  And/or if there were no ready explanation for why it occurs, then your extreme skepticism might be justified.  But as it is, you are just grasping at straws.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:24:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not skepticism (0.00 / 0)

I'm not skeptical about the fundamental principle that race matters - and I agree with David that people who deny this have their heads in the sand. As I said in my comment above, I think it would be extremely foolish to deny that race influences electoral outcomes in all sorts of ways.

But I am skeptical about the particular way Devid has chosen to define the Race Chasm. What I'm trying to do by pointing out the many exceptions to the rule is to suggest that it's not a particularly helpful way of accounting for the voting patterns we've seen in this primary.

As for this:

The real problem lies with states--and smaller jurisdictions--where the black population is large enough to be threatening, but not large enough to produce a varied range of political representatives whom white voters can become accustomed to over the years. And this is precisely where the race chasm comes from.

Again, this doesn't explain WV, NH, RI, MO, or CT. It also doesn't explain Obama's low percentage of the white vote in Deep South states, where, presumably, white voters have had the chance to grow accustomed to black representatives.

I'm pressing on this because it's an extremely important issue, that in a sense lies at the heart of American political history. That's why I think it's so important to get it right.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:38:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one denies racism exists (4.00 / 2)

It's the Race Chasm theory that it's a little suspect. It's too simplistic. It doesn't take into account a whole range of factors, other than race, that explain why people vote the way they do -- especially in economically depressed, blue collar communities.

Look at the 2006 Senate race in CT matching Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont. Two white guys -- one an older, experienced, hawkish career politician not afraid to play dirty, and the other a younger, less experienced businessman with good ideas for taking America in a new direction.

Most of the same people who supported Joe Lieberman in that primary also supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Why? If you can explain that, you have a more complete understanding of why Clinton is winning in states like NJ, PA, MA, OH, etc.

Other factors to consider are:
1. Fear of change; security in the familiar
2. Patronage systems (where loyalty and seniority matter more than talent or ideas;  where strangers are looked at suspiciously)
3. Perceived toughness (and willingness to do whatever it takes to win)

I would imagine that these factors are especially pronounced among people who choose to live their entire lives in Rust Belt states, in Appalachia, or in CT's depressed economic areas like the Naugatuck Valley, despite the ever-worsening economic conditions of those states.

Racism does matter. But ignoring factors besides race -- especially in the Race Chasm states -- is just as self-delusional as ignoring racism. Just as you can talk to voters to appeal to their better angels about racism, you can also talk to voters in a way that alleviates their fear of change, addresses their concerns about loyalty or seniority, and that demonstrates strength.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM CDT

Completely Agree (4.00 / 2)

That's why my original article - and subsequent articles - include this:

Clearly, each primary and caucus contest has its own unique politics, and race is not the only factor moving votes. Despite the oversimplified punditry that comes with presidential campaigns, demographic groups-white, black or any other-do not vote as monoliths...

Additionally, the Race Chasm does not mean every white voter who votes against Obama nor every black voter who supports Obama is racially motivated.

Put another way, it ain't me who's denying the nuanced reality - its those who say there is no Race Chasm at all who are shoving their head in the sand.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then why not extend that nuance (4.00 / 1)

toward your critics.

You admit your theory is not perfect, yet again and again you claim that anyone who disagrees with your theory is in denial, an ostrich - because you don't agree with their theory about working class sensibilities.  Then you absurdly claim that you just want a balanced discussion on race - but apparently a balanced conversation is one in which everyone accepts your theory, without proof, and discards their own.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:36:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, you predict that Obama will lose Massachusetts ... (0.00 / 0)

... and NY and NJ and RI too, all due to the race chasm?

Or will all of the racist voters in those states suddenly come to grips with their racism and vote for Obama?

I'm just trying to understand the theory. Please help.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:38:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those Stories In The Post Have A Familiar Ring To Them (0.00 / 0)

In 1994, I moved to Long Beach from Venice.  Actually, I moved to Long Beach from Oakwood--the predominately Black and Latino enclave in Venice.  I worked as a paid canvasser for a city council candidate, Tonya Reyes Uranga, who was forced into a re-vote because of a murky situtation in a very close election which she apparently won, but...  Well, it's been a long time and I don't recall all the details, as I just moved here after all the pyrotechnics in the original election.  Suffice it to say, municipal elections have low turnout, lots more Dems show up for state/federal elections, so the feeling was, "no biggie, she'll win the revote easily."

But that was 1994.  And Uranga, as you might have guessed, is not white.  Her GOP opponent was. (The seat is non-partisan, but everyone knows who's who.)   I encountered a level of immigrant-bashing and racism that was clearly over-the-top, and felt that we absolutely had to make an issue of it, or else the race would be lost.  The racism was going to sink the campaign, unless we made an issue of it, I argued.  No dice. But it went from bad to extremely ugly in just one or two days, and I got into an open confrontation with one particularly racist couple.

The campaign decided I would be better off elsewhere.  Uranga lost.  And I went on to to work for the unified campaign of the State Senate, Assembly and Congress for the area I had just moved out of. (I still lived in the same Senate District, but not the other two.)  Of the three candidates there, only one actually showed up regularly, then Assemblywoman, now Secretary of State Deborah Bowen.  My GOTV effort also helped Jane Harman survive the GOP's 1994 wave by the skin of her teeth.  I got to see all sorts of candidate attitudes that year.

Uranga eventually ran again, and got elected.  She's now running for the Assembly.  But I can never forget how her failure to fight head-on in 1994 derailed her earlier momentum.  I still don't even know if her campaign manager even discussed it with her.  There was simply a solid wall of denial in place, and it's quite possible she never even knew.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:13:50 PM CDT

Looking forward... (0.00 / 0)

What sort of obstacles does the Race Chasm present in the general election?
Is it indicative of states in which McCain has an edge?

---

by: BradODonnell @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:15:51 PM CDT

Almost certainly not (0.00 / 0)

You'd expect McCain to win a lot of states with very large white populations (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah) and a lot of states with very large black populations (Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina) - an inversion of the Race Chasm pattern.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:25:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's Due To Partisanship (0.00 / 0)

Nobody's saying that the race chasm trumps everything else in the world.

It would be a big help if actually listened to arguments before trying to refute them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:31:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was addressing Brad's question (0.00 / 0)

Not making an argument against the race chasm theory.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:43:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's possible, but (0.00 / 0)

Have you seen this analysis that some people on DailyKos put together yesterday? They map things out on a per-county basis and make a pretty compelling argument that Obama's real problem is that he does not do well vs Clinton in the Appalachian mountain range...

---

by: mcc @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 13:27:35 PM CDT

Yes I saw it too (0.00 / 0)

I think it sort of focuses the whole Race Chasm argument, which is just a little too broad and requires a few too many buts to accept as is. I think David's on to something important, but it oversimplifies too much to say that racial politics are the same in the southeast as in the northwest, in New England and Alaska, and the only metric is the percentage of the black population.

It now appears more to me that the Race Chasm is real (real enough to capitalize) but that it's as much a regional phenomenon as a demographic one, and that it's going to be more problematic for Obama in the midwest than elsewhere in the nation.

Poblano has also been digging into this very hard over at fivethirtyeight.com, and so while David deserves kudos for pointing this thing out, I think his formulation of it is incomplete and we haven't seen the whole picture just yet. Fortunately we'll probably see huge leaps forward in targeted national polling this year that will give us a better lens before November.

---

by: corax @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 14:03:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

West Virginia exit polling (0.00 / 0)

"One in four Clinton voters and about one in 10 Obama voters said race was an important factor in their vote."

"As expected, roughly 95 percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters were white. Half of voters were from rural areas."

http://ap.google.com/article/A...

Racism seems to be a factor in West Virginia, but I'm not sure if it fits the race chasm theory.

---

by: kanzeon @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 18:39:22 PM CDT