HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Slate: Path to the Presid...

Thu Dec 27, 2018, 09:13 PM

 

Slate: Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020

The Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/2020-democratic-primary-white-candidates-trump-racism.amp

Before Barack Obama’s election in 2008, the relationship between white racial views and partisanship wasn’t as clear-cut as one might think. Yes, Republicans won the large majority of white voters who believed black disadvantage could be attributed to a lack of hard work or effort—a key measure in the “racial resentment scale”—but a substantial minority of white voters was part of the Democratic coalition as well. But once Obama was in office, whites—and especially those with less formal education—“became better able to connect racial issues to partisan politics,” according to a recent book charting these changes to American politics.

Still, in his 2012 re-election race, Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didn’t emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial views—and white identity—weren’t as crucial to the outcome.

This changed in 2016. And the way it changed has important implications for the upcoming presidential election—and the Democratic race in particular.

In Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Michael Tesler provide a short but useful summary of what happened: “In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. People’s attitudes on these issues were then ‘activated’ as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters’ preference for Clinton or Trump.”

From the start, Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign of agitation and disdain toward immigrants, Muslims, and black Americans, and likewise, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign emphasizing tolerance and racial diversity. They were asking Americans to vote on the basis of national identity: Who should America be for? In response, white voters sorted themselves according to their racial views: If you held negative attitudes toward blacks and immigrants, believed racial inequality was a result of individual laziness or cultural pathology, or thought nonwhites threatened the economic advancement of whites, you were more likely to back Trump. If you believed the reverse, you were more likely to back Clinton. Account for education, and the result is the same.

The number of white Republicans with liberal racial views was low enough that there weren’t many defections. But the number of white Democrats with conservative racial views was significant—and critically, those voters were clustered in key Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin, enough to give Trump his narrow but decisive advantage in the Electoral College...One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because they’ll automatically win black voters, but because they won’t have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president’s racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced ... {T}here’s a certain irony in the possibility that to get some Trump voters back into the Democratic fold, the party may have to choose another black messenger.

3 replies, 451 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Slate: Path to the Presidency Could Be Harder for White Democrats in 2020 (Original post)
EffieBlack Dec 2018 OP
Turbineguy Dec 2018 #1
guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2018 #3

Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2018, 09:14 PM

1. We'd better choose carefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2018, 09:24 PM

2. HRC would have won, absent GOP cheating. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2018, 09:26 PM

3. ignores Russian amplification

The article ignores what we now know about the Russian operation to amplify everything that could be exploited to divide us. The blue tsunami carried into office the most diverse group ever. This happened in spite of continuous racist fear-mongering campaigning by Trump and the GOP leading up to the midterms.

Pelosi's plan worked -- don't run against Trump; run on what people need and want from government. It seems to me that plan is still good for 2019 and 2020. Ignore race, we all need health care, infrastructure, and a livable planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread