A fellow named Ed Furey in New York has written a couple of detailed notes to me concerning my (minority view) that the results in the Democratic race so far suggest that racial attitudes play a larger role than the media have indicated and that there may be a ceiling on the Obama vote nationally. See my post below and the link to my latest E&P column on this. There's a TIME poll out today that shows Obama beating McCain right now 48%-41% while Clinton only ties him. But, again, this is based on what people are telling a pollster, not what happens when they go inside a voting booth. Here's an excerpt from a note today from Furey:
"I think you have a point, that there is probably a bit of a racial element working here. It’s hard to exclude that entirely in American life. My concern about Obama has been less about him than the electorate. Since Hawaii joined the Union, 48 years ago, you could probably count on two hands the number of black candidates who won statewide elections in the 50 states. In Illinois and Massachusetts, blacks have won two statewide elections (Obama’s being one of them), so the number of states willing to vote a black candidate is even smaller than the roster of candidates.
"Presidential elections go by state. So the Obama thesis is that he will basically carry 15 to 20 states that have never voted for a black candidate in any election. In poker that would be called drawing to an inside straight.
"Prejudice is not what it once was; his success to date proves that. Also, many people simply like Clinton better (the press refuses to accept this possibility, but it does explain quite a few election returns in the Occam’s Razor manner), but will vote for him if he wins the nomination. Still, it hasn’t gone away." The E&P link and a new video of Bill Clinton interviewed in Maine diner on why he won't step back in the shadows and let his wife carry on herself:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003707171
1 comment:
I think your point (and Furey's analysis of it) is, to reach for a cliche, the elephant in the room.
No matter how strenuously his supporters deny it, all the primaries so far (with two exceptions--Illinois--his home state; and Connecticut--the state of Lamont & Lieberman) have shown that his most reliable strength is among African-Americans.
His record among Latinos, elderly whites and all women (again, except African-Americans) ranges from weak to scarily weak. Among white men, he splits the vote with Clinton.
What I don't understand is why the Obama camp is so sure this breakdown is going to change. Do they truly believe their own hostile hype about Clinton, and that millions of her supporters will swing their way? Or do they truly believe he will eventually win a majority of white men? What's the basis of these beliefs? It eludes me.
Post a Comment