05/14/2008
Race Rears its Head as Clinton Takes West Virginia as Predicted
Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary with 67 percent of the vote to Obama's 26%, but the primary changed little in terms of the delegate count. What it did reveal was a vote along racial lines:
"The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls. With Mr. Obama solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the nomination. A strong Clinton victory in another general election battleground state like her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania could raise fresh questions about Mr. Obama’s ability to carry swing states in a contest against Senator John McCain."
Obama, who spent the day in Missouri, dismissed talk of division within the party: "There is a lot of talk these days about how the Democratic Party is divided. But I’m not worried, because I know that we’ll be able to come together quickly behind a common purpose. There’s too much that unites us as Democrats. There’s too much at stake for our country."
Clinton's speech Tuesday night:
AFTER THE JUMP, Terry McAuliffe beats Chris Matthews over the head with "It's not over."
Posted 8:16 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Uh, race has reared its head in every single contest because Obama wins 90 percent of the black vote while the other demographics are much more closely split. Is it also wrong then that many black voters are clearly making a choice based on race, not issues?
Posted by: Chris | May 14, 2008 9:36:33 AM
Ditto, Chris.
Posted by: Mattia | May 14, 2008 9:39:30 AM
Oh, I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here... isn't it possible that black voters think that a black candidate represents their views best? Don't most gay voters think that a gay candidate represents them best?
Don't confuse that with racism. Racism is when you exclude someone for no other reason but their race. Like many voters in West Virginia did. And a couple of commenters who post here regularly.
Posted by: crispy | May 14, 2008 9:51:19 AM
CHRIS,
you beat me to that point. andy seems inclined to make it ever harder to comment on this site.
i am too lazy to paraphrase, so i will just cut and paste from my earlier comment on the MoveOn thread:
hillary keeps trouncing obama in heavily white, working-class swing states, and obama handily beats her in heavily black states. there is a huge elephant in our living room, and it is not the repug one. why is it that blacks go 92% for obama and whites 65% for hillary? why did hillary beat obama by 30+ points in w.va.?
we need to resolve this issue, because the reality is that hillary cannot win the presidency without the black vote, and obama cannot win w/o the working-class white and latino vote. we need to serious up.
this is the best chance in 14 years for the dems to take the white house and strong control of both chambers of congress. we cannot squander the opportunity. if we do, it will be to the detriment of the whole country. it helps very little to simplistically say, as andy does, that race rears it's head and apply it only to hillary. after all, she has been getting only 8% of the black vote.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 9:51:19 AM
Senator Clinton will help Barack win "her people" in the general election--not all them, but maybe enough-- enough combined with his appeal to Independents...well, the impossible may be possible in 2008.
CHRIS & MATTIA, Black Americans have voted for White Liberal Democrats in higher numbers than 92% in the past. We have nothing to prove about being color blind in local, statewide and national elections (or American Idol either). Just 80 years ago, those of us who could vote, voted Republican 90%.
We've proven we can vote for white folks since 1867. Now, it's your turn to return the favor.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 10:07:35 AM
maybe, CRISPY. but 92%? i don't think so.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 10:08:07 AM
I can guarantee you that more than 92% of the gay vote would go to a gay candidate.
Posted by: crispy | May 14, 2008 10:15:47 AM
NIC
Just like the other thread.....
The only logical conclusion from what you are saying is a joint ticket.
BUT since when did logic and politics go hand in hand?
:-(
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 10:18:20 AM
She seems to be running for 2012 now.
I should think that if she won the nomination she would get the black vote in the general election, the problem is that Obama may not get the white vote.
Posted by: anon | May 14, 2008 10:34:45 AM
Anyone who is equating white people voting AGAINST a biracial man chiefly because of his race with a black person feeling drawn to vote FOR a super-rare black candidate at the top of the ticket is objecting from a place that is at best an oppressive "team" mentality and at worst a (probably unconsciously) racist place.
I think it's disgusting that anyone could resent a black person for voting for Obama considering the lack of black candidates at all levels throughout the history of our country. If black candidates were as commonly seen as black people are, the same ratio of 11 or 12% or whatever it is, voting patterns might be different. In fact, judging from polls, most black Democrats were initially ready to stay loyal to the Clintons, since they didn't see Obama as a PRACTICAL choice. Once Iowa showed them that white people might be past the racial divide, blacks moved toward Obama in larger numbers.
There is no legit comparison between that and the ignorant hicks who represent minimally 20% of the West Virginia DEMOCRATIC (!) voters who admitted in exit polls that race played a major factor in their voting.
Derrick is right. The fact that he even has to spell that out should be embarrassing. If it's not, investigate Ron Paul because I don't see how anyone can consider him- or herself to be a Democrat while resenting black people for having a viable biracial candidate that excites them at the top of the ticket once every 232 years.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | May 14, 2008 10:46:10 AM
Okay for starters, referring to West Virginians as ignorant hicks does you no favors in the fall. WV has a LONG history of voting Democratic in Presidential Elections. They voted for Clinton twice and even Michael Dukakis for the love of god. It wasn't until the Democrats abandoned the winning strategy of putting candidates up who knew how to talk to the blue collared workers in this country that WV became a red/semi red state.
While I have no doubt plenty of whites have voted against Obama because he is black in every single primary, his race has certainly helped him far more than hurt him in this process. Just like her gender has certainly helped her carry the female vote, well white female vote.
I think its hilarious that black people are allowed to vote for black people because they feel they best represent them but when white people do it, it's racist. There are plenty of reasons why Obama scares some white people and race is only part of it. 50% of those who voted in WV thought that he shared Reverend Wright's views. So it's not surprising that race was a factor there since Wright's sermons we've all heard argue that our government run by white men is evil. Finally Reverend Wright's influence shows and if you think it's going away before November, you're crazy.
She didn't just beat him, she TROUNCED him in WV.
Posted by: Jeanluc | May 14, 2008 11:01:41 AM
I guess this isn't an example of anti-Obama racism either:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html
Can those of you who are claiming that black Obama supporters are being just as racist as white Clinton supporters give us an example of black people acting this way to Hillary campaigners?
Posted by: Wade | May 14, 2008 11:03:20 AM
I love this site, but I certainly don't come here for fair political coverage of this primary.
And that's fine. It's a blog. And in case you haven't noticed, it's been heavily pro-Obama for quite a while now.
Posted by: David | May 14, 2008 11:06:47 AM
you may not be reckoning the log cabinettes and the hrc. either way, you cannot guarantee anything of the sort.
my larger point pertains to the negative influence of facile, off-the-cuff comments like the one andy made. i like andy, and i like you. however, if we subscribe to the idea that "words mean something," then we must hold each other to account.
JIMMYBOYO,
sometimes logic trumps sentiment. obama will win, of course. but he will win with less than one million of 33+ million votes. i don't see an obama presidency w/o some major concessions to the clintons. while i would have preffered clinton/obama (he is a young man), i would be happy with obama/clinton. something needs to be worked out.
MATTHEW RETTENMUND,
i resent your implication and reject it outright.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:12:54 AM
It infuriates me how Derrick posts "factoids" he pulls out of his own head and tries to pass them off as "facts," consistently and on a nearly daily basis. Here are some real facts regarding the black vote: 1984-Walter Mondale 90%; 1988 Michael Dukakis 90%; 1992 & 1996 Bill Clinton 83% and 84%, respectively; 2000 Al Gore 90. (Source: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; CNN).
For all the hype the black community made about Clinton being the "first black president," blacks voted for him in fewer numbers than any other Democrat in the past 28 years. And they have not exceeded 90% for ANY white candidate, ever.
The only reason blacks voted Republican in the 1800s is because Lincoln was the first Republican. As soon as social welfare became a platform of the Democratic Party, all loyalty to the Republicans vanished. (This is pretty typical for the black community.)
Pfft.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 11:17:42 AM
ok so blacks vote for Obama, Big deal~ MOVE OVER OBAMA...HILLARY CLINTON still makign her way through...DON'T COUNT HER OUT JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!~
Posted by: Bosie | May 14, 2008 11:26:17 AM
Thank you Derrick, Crispy and Matthew R.
Jean Luc, if 50% of white West Virginians would sway their vote based on media-manipulated looped clips, then honey I think labeling them "ignorant hicks" is quite appropriate, if not lenient.
I bet if grilled, they wouldn't be able to come up with a single quote that wasn't from media spin. And questioned hard enough, the truth would come out that they are not voting for Obama because of his race or media-induced fear or both.
And as for Hillary, she continues her shameful race baiting, even in her dying moments. She is sucking any chance of unity right out of the party by playing on base fears. NY Times article about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?scp=2&sq=seeds&st=nyt
Posted by: soulbrotha | May 14, 2008 11:34:22 AM
Anon and others, how will Clinton get the Black vote. Do you think people have ignored the race baiting that she has done. Or the fact that if she is GIVEN the nomination that it will be going against the will of the people and how people actually voted?
There is no guarantee that Clinton could get Obama's voter, just as there is no guarantee that Obama could get hers. And please let's be honest, obviously Obama is getting more than just Black voters, if this wasn't the case, his numbers wouldn't be what they are. And if Clinton is nominated, despite most of the metrics not being in her favor, there is a good possibility that Black, young, independent, and upset Republicans will not support her.
One more note, the high turnout this season can be attributed to Obama. The Dems may not win the White House in November, but they can assure themselves of winning a controlling interest in congress if Obama is the nominee. Hillary's coattails aren't that long, and in fact, with the way she's been acting, the Dems could actually lose seats if she's the nominee.
Posted by: Cadence | May 14, 2008 11:35:00 AM
Rettenmund: Brava! Right on the money.
Abracadaver: Okay, so, by your own figures, blacks have repeatedly given white Democrats 90% of their vote. If Obama is getting 92% of their vote, I guess we might reasonably suggest that 2% of black voters in this cycle are motivated by either black pride or anti-white racism. Would that be offensive to you? What percentage of white voters in WV do you think voted for Clinton simply because she wasn't "the colored guy?" I'd guess it's considerably higher than 2%.
So your point would be?
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 11:35:49 AM
CRISPY,
the first part of my last comment was to you. you're a smart guy and DERRICK is a wise man. i am a realist and a pragmatist. i hope that by now DERRICK and JIMMYBOYO know that i do not have a racist bone to pick. right now, obama or hillary are a means to an end. that may seem cold-hearted, but if either or both get in, our futures are somewhat safe. if mcgeezer gets elected, he will appoint more scalias and more thomases.
let's not fight one another.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:35:56 AM
ABRACADAVER: if you're going to accuse Derrick from pulling out factoids, you should also REFRAIN from doing it. Black people did not vote for Lincoln simply because he was the first Republican. Republican politicians during reconstruction promoted policies to enfranchise African Americans. Are you aware of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? They, respectively, abolished slavery, granted equal protection, and guaranteed the right to vote.
Given the fact that there was a war "over" slavery, it is unlikely that a Democratic congress at this time would have EVER passed these amendments so that they could be voted on by the states.
Additionally, the Republican congress passed many other measures during periods historians refer to as reconstruction and radical reconstruction.
With a Republican Congress ensuring voting rights for African-Americans, African-Americans were elected to state legislatures and even to the House and Senate.
Blacks voting Republican had little do with Lincoln. It had everything to do with them voting their interests.
In the same vein, African Americans started becoming Democrats in the Northeast part of the country when white Democrats started providing patronage. That's NOT social welfare. It's white politicians realizing that blacks were voters and that those votes could be used to win elections.
There's no credible historian or political scientist that attributes the shift of African Americans to the Democratic party solely as the result of "social" welfare. However, if by social welfare, you are referring to the New Deal and FDR's policies, you should remember that the support systems suggested by FDR were popular with ALL Americans and helped FDR to be elected president 4 times.
I'm not going to inquire or comment on your motivations for reaching ahistorical conclusions. However, I would ask that you not attempt to pass off these conclusions as part of legitimate discourse.
Posted by: Brandon | May 14, 2008 11:48:08 AM
media manipulated?
Um, I've seen the comments and the YouTube videos. Who cares if the media showed them to these people? Are you defending what he has said in his sermons?
Because if so, then I'd say you're the ignorant one.
Posted by: Jeanluc | May 14, 2008 11:52:59 AM
SOULBROTHA, CADENCE (lesbian, right? not that there's anything wrong with that.) and 24PLAY:
doesn't your self-righteous indignation become too heavy a cross to bear, once in a while?
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:54:49 AM
ABRACADER: Are you really chastising me about a few percentage points? And remember, I wasn't just talking about national elections.
"Factoids"? Humph! Well, the last sentence of your comment was a viciously, racially hateful "factoid"(I don't use the term "racist" anymore--it doesn't have any punch). Black folks started voting Democrat for the same reason Jews, many white ethnic immigrants & GAYS began voting Democrat: progressive social/economic policies that started under Franklin D. Roosevelt the Great (maybe initially thought of under Woodrow Wilson, the Johnnie Reb).
And ABRACADAVER, the Democrats' emphasis on "social welfare" wasn't the only reason blacks left the Republican Party. Brave Lyndon Johnson's stand on Civil Rights, and Dirty Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" were the final straw. The Republicans decided, "we don't need y'all blacks anymore, we'll embrace southern whites instead." Well, it worked for 40 years...maybe it's about to change with Beautiful Barack.
"...infuriates me how Derrick...."
Infuriate is such a strong word--all you have to do is come on the blog and make the MINOR corrections.
Oh, child, don't let me infuriate you like that...gracious.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 11:56:58 AM
24PLAY: My point was that I'm tired of Derrick's positing of factoids. I decided to provide some actual research to make the point. I am not offended by the voting trends of blacks; I'm offended by a specific person's intellectual dishonesty and their penchant for making up "stats" to back up their opinion(s).
BRANDON: Its called verbosity; look it up. Believe it or not, its possible to make a point AND be brief, all the while coming off as "intellectual" as your pomposity seems to suggest you need to appear to others. P.S. The Voting Rights Act wasn't passed until 1968, under a Democratic president & Congress.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 11:59:56 AM