Watch for the Race Chasm Today

by: David Sirota

Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:27


Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.

Another primary day, another reemergence of the Race Chasm. With a population that's 7.5 percent black, Kentucky fits right into the Race Chasm, and not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton is favored to win. In Oregon, the population is just 1.9 percent black - outside the Race Chasm - and Barack Obama is favored to win.

As I've always said, it's hard to say race is singularly responsible for any given election result. But clearly, the Race Chasm dynamic is at play.

To review what the Race Chasm is: In states with very large African American population, racial politics is a major force, but the African American population is able to offset the segment of the white vote that is racially motivated against a black candidate. In states with very few African Americans, racial politics just isn't a part of the debate. But in states with a moderately sized African American population, racial politics exists, but the black community isn't large enough to offset the segment of the white vote that is racially motivated. The Race Chasm - ie. those states in the middle like Kentucky - are more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent black. They have been the states that have given Clinton most of her wins.

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein quotes an Oregon political expert making part of this point today:

"Oregon is a state where race has not been an animating factor of political campaigns in the past. It has not been an issue since the 1860s, and it is not going to matter to people in the current election," said Joseph Lowndes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Oregon and author of "From the New Deal to the New Right: Race and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism.

Stein is right - the Oregon results, if they go Obama's way, may explode the idea that Obama cannot win white working-class voters. But if both Oregon and Kentucky go the way they are expected to go, the results will only further confirm the Race Chasm.

UPDATE: For those wondering about West Virginia and how that fit into the theory, read this earlier post.
David Sirota :: Watch for the Race Chasm Today

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Watch for the Race Chasm Today | 25 comments
You should do a new theme (0.00 / 0)
called: "Watch out for the Sanity Chasm" as Hillary rolls out the newest iteration of her crazy math, tuned to work best for whatever the latest primary results are.



Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Also see links on this topic (0.00 / 0)
from Al Giordano and others here:  http://www.onemillionstrong.us...
Look to Wisconsin (4.00 / 2)
Wisconsin's primary electorate was dominated by college educated women and working class white males (albeit many of them in unions - we are ahead of the curve of the rest of the country in union density).  I'm not sure where we fall on the race chasm scale (and actually, different parts of the state probably react differently - Milwaukee suburbs have different racial politics than say, the Northwoods).  But in our primary, the two demographics that are supposedly Obama's worst, were dominant.  Yet Obama won big - 60% to 40%.

I'm no Obama partisan.  In fact, I had been strongly pro-Edwards for over a year, flirted with Hillary after Edwards dropped out, and have since stayed neutral.  But I see the handwriting on the wall.  Obama is our nominee.  And he can win this.  The handwringing is getting tiresome.  Instead of fretting about Obama winning this or that demographic, we should be working to solidify the base, reach out to the soft spots, and expand the electorate.  

Wisconsin showed that he can do it.  Oregon will prove it again (although I'm guessing not quite as dramatically, in terms of margin of victory and demographics).  

The 'race chasm' is a crude theory with little explanatory value (4.00 / 5)
Indiana is 8% black. Kentucky is 7% black. So can we expect Clinton to win by about 1% in Kentucky, like she did in Indiana?

Or will it be more like Connecticut (7% black)or Missouri (11% black): Obama wins narrowly.

Or like Oklahoma (7% black): Clinton wins in a blowout.

Or like Kansas (6% black): Obama wins in a blowout.

So hard to decide...

Approximation (0.00 / 0)
While the chasm seems to be a reasonable approximation, I agree the theory behind the chasm is incorrect.  There is obviously a correlation, but I suspect the correlation is tied to the history of the states, not the percentage of African Americans.  In general, the states with the most African Americans are also the states that had the most slavery and thus the greatest racial divide.

In fact, Clinton has been at her strongest and Obama at his weakest in Appalachia, which is almost entirely white.  The state that most dramatically demonstrates this is West Virginia, which is only 3.5% black but Clinton won by 40 points.

So while the chasm theory has some approximate value, it serves no useful purpose as an analytic tool.  Not to be too mean, but ultimately it is just "cute".  For real analysis go see Poblano.

[ Parent ]
An alternative to the race chasm (4.00 / 1)
Okay, I've posted a diary that proposes an alternative to Sirota's theory.

Short version: something like a race chasm exists, but only in the south, and it is an inverse function of the cosmopolitan character of southern states. Meanwhile, outside of the South, there is no race chasm in any meaningful sense (as Sirota defines it).

See the diary for all the reasons that David Sirota is wrong:
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Umm...statistics? (0.00 / 0)
David Sirota is not positing, at least the way I've heard it, a linear correlation; he's positing a binary relationship - an either/or.  

And in that sense, his hypothesis seems to be holding up really well.

Note: trained statistician here.

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
I'm proposing that there is a linear correlation of a sort (described in my diary), rather than a binary relationship. And I think Sirota's hypothesis does not hold up very well, because it does not work for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Illinois, and arguably California, New Jersey, and Michigan. In short, it does not work outside the south.
[ Parent ]
What's the point? (4.00 / 1)
I absolutely agree that this is one of the most striking statistics to emerge from the primaries.  It's far too consistent to be accidental.

What I don't understand is where you want to go with it?

Is it a matter of strategy?  Is the point to say, don't worry about losing Ohio, we'll win  Wisconsin and Oregon?  Nothing you've said about this, however, seems to imply the existence of a strategy that would take advantage of the race chasm (indeed, I strongly doubt there exists such a strategy).  But your tone (the sort of "ha! you see! I was right!" aspect of these posts) indicates that you're not thinking about a specific approach to counteracting it, either.

Indeed, the tone of your posts often makes it seem that your desire is to bash racism.  Agreed, racism is bad.  All the time, everywhere.  But I don't really believe that white people who live in proximity to significant black communities are simply "more racist" than white people who have no experience of black people.  And telling them they're racist is not going to get very far (I guarantee you the Obama campaign will not make this mistake).

We know from other indices that in some of the all-white places that Obama has done very well in the primaries there exist really virulent forms of racism.  So in my opinion it's important to remember that what we're really talking about here is the effect that race has on the voting patterns of white Democrats--let's say, people who overwhelmingly agree with the principle of racial equality (but being human, sometimes do things that don't reflect their principles).  Within that group, we're then talking about subgroups who have different experiences of racial politics.  Formulating it that way, I think, might make possible a political rather than moralizing approach to the problem, one that could indeed fit with the overall approach the Obama campaign has adopted.

Agreed (0.00 / 0)
What does this suggest in terms of strategy, policies, approaches to different constituencies?

Obama's overall strategy is to appeal to people's aspirations as much or more than their anxieties, which is consistent with Abramozwitz and Teixeira's suggestions in their paper on the decline of the white working class discussed yesterday.  It is really the same message for the non-white working class--we want expanded opportunity ansd security for all, with the subtext that it doesn't have to be zero-sum except maybe for the very rich whose taxes will rise.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Not the issue. (0.00 / 0)
But I don't really believe that white people who live in proximity to significant black communities are simply "more racist" than white people who have no experience of black people.  And telling them they're racist is not going to get very far (I guarantee you the Obama campaign will not make this mistake).

The issue is not that people in close proximity are more racist (in the aggregate - indeed, they are probably less racist in the aggregate, what is at issue is the activity of the amount that have inflamed...), it's that there are more tensions alltogether that fan the flames of what racism exists.  

You can have a dude that's 100% totally racist that has never slung a racist epithet at someone in person all their life because there aren't any black people near him - and then when a black family moves in next door, the person is committing hatecrimes.  That's roughly the effect.

[ Parent ]
I think you're agreeing with me (0.00 / 0)
Indeed, it's not that they're more racist, it's that there exist racial tensions that people have to deal with and therefore express themselves in a variety of ways.
[ Parent ]
Guess what else (0.00 / 0)
fits into the "Race Chasm"?

The United States as a whole, 12.2% black.

Good luck in November.  

Is that an argument for (0.00 / 0)
the Electoral College?
[ Parent ]
Conceptually... (0.00 / 0)
Conceptually, this is not about aggregates - it is about localized effects.  
[ Parent ]
oregon and whiteness (0.00 / 0)
just to add another wrinkle, the term "white" is so general, it overlooks the fact that in the I5 corridor there is a significant size community of first generation eastern europeans--russians, ukranians, croatians. sure, they are "white" but the are culturally very separate.

end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon
White Oregon (4.00 / 1)
I grew up in Eastern Oregon - and have traveled the state - as well as worked on ballot measure campaigns there - and for the Kerry campaign.

While the majority of the population in Oregon is in the Portland Metropolitan area - the eastern side of the state is extremely rural, extremely white (small # of Hispanic), extremely conservative, religious and gun-toting.

If Obama gets any votes east of the mountains, that would show that he can get the conservative white working class voters - they are ranchers, hunters, etc.

I recently heard from someone in Baker City that there was a huge Obama sign at the busiest intersection in town.  That is not just amazing for a place like that, it's a phenomenal shift from the politics of just a few years ago.

I think Oregon's results will clearly show Obama can win the white working class vote - the median income for the state is less than 50,000.

Loosing in Kentucky will only show that he can't win the racist vote.  Will anyone really make the argument that we should nominate someone who CAN win the racist vote?

Wasn't that Clinton argument #10040? (0.00 / 0)
"Loosing in Kentucky will only show that he can't win the racist vote.  Will anyone really make the argument that we should nominate someone who CAN win the racist vote?"

I actually think Clinton made that argument after WV.

[ Parent ]
Pretty Funny Sirota (0.00 / 1)
It is the Whites who are racists. Not Blacks though.

You see if Blacks vote on skin color, which they clearly are, then they are just "offseting" the White Bubbas who are racists. but if most blue collar Whites vote on issues, which the exit polls are clearly saying they are doing, then voting on issues makes them racists. Totally Bizarre.

Sirota you have no evidence that the vast majority of White Clinton voters are racist. In fact the exit polls and any other poll show a very small segment of the population where race is a factor.

In W. Virginia 77% said race was not a factor. Only 8% said it was important. Compare that to the 90% of Blacks who switched candidates when Obama participated in playing the race card.

Face it. All you are trying to do is minimize the racism being displayed by upward to 90% of Blacks while painting White people racists. Shameful but understandable because anything is fair in covering for Obama.

You know David there was a lot of anonymous stuff that came out about racism in this campaign and Obama was 'ready' to jump all over it to benefit himself. One has to ask who planted those anonymous and unsubstantiated reports. The answer in cases like that when it comes to politics is to look to who those reports benefited the most.

And 'yo' David. If you don't think their is racism in the Black community the next time you are in L.A. please take a walk by yourself down around 111th and Central and report back to us.

Chuck Todd just reported on the Race Chasm (0.00 / 0)
He broke it down a little differently (4%-16% rather than 7-17%). Good to see some acknowledgment that Obama's problem is not with white voters but rather with certain geographic, cultural zones. This is why he's performing just as well as Clinton with white voters against McCain. His problem in Appalachia is offset by his performance west of the Mississippi. And yes, I realize Appalachia is almost totally white, but it is surrounded by African-Americans and has a high amount of racial prejudice, as evidenced by 20% of whites in WV and KY saying race was an important facor in their vote - and going 85-9 for Clinton. And these are only the ones who both acknowledge and admit their racism.
Watch for the Race Chasm Today | 25 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox