Interesting Analysis Of Race & The Obama Campaign

[THUNDER HANDS]

"In states where the black population is less than 5%, Obama has a record of 7 wins, 2 losses and 1 undecided (NM). In states where the black population is 20% or higher, he is undefeated at 4-0. However, in states that are between 5-20% black, his record is a fairly dismal 4-10 (with one of those victories being Illinois).

The theory here is that Obama does well where the black population is so low that identity politics isn’t an issue. And, he does well where the black share of Democratic primary voters is so high that he needs few white voters to carry the day. He has the hardest time in states that are black enough to have some racialized politics, but without enough black voters to completely tip the scales.

This corresponds to the long held observation that black candidates in general do best in either fairly non-black environments or in heavy black environments but struggle with the in between, where white majority fears that they will be the tool of an aggrieved constituency. (Some, of course, have broken that mold like Doug Wilder, and Carol Mosely-Braun and Obama himself).

For Obama’s upcoming contests, this bodes well for Maryland, D.C., Virginia, Nebraska and Vermont and maybe Rhode Island, but not so well for Ohio and Texas."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/race-and-obama.html

[milkyway]

1. Seems like an excellent observation. I've collected data inside on upcoming states.

The 5 and 20 numbers are arbitrary, but they are almost exactly equidistant from the national black population of 12.8% (US census, 2006). I wonder if the dividing lines are actually closer to the national average or further apart.

With that in mind, here's the black population of upcoming primary/caucus states:

LOUISIANA: 31.7%
NEB: 4.4%
WASH state: 3.6%

MAINE: 0.8%

DC: 56.5%
MD: 29.5%
VA: 19.9%

HAWAII: 2.5%
WISCONSIN: 6.0%

OHIO: 12.0%
RI: 6.3%
TX: 11.9%
VERMONT: 0.7%

WY: 0.9%

MISSISSIPPI: 37.1%

PA: 10.7%

IND: 8.9%
NC: 21.7%

WV: 3.3%

KENTUCKY: 7.5%
OR: 1.9%

MONTANA: 0.4%
SD: 0.9%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

These numbers are, of course, the percentage of overall state population. Undoubtedly the vast majority are registered Dems, so the percentage of the Dem voters might be nearly twice as high.

This theory almost completely coincides with my own personal intuition of which states should be favorable for Obama and which would favor Hillary. Without really knowing the black population, or the theory of the OP, it seemed Ohio, Texas, and PA are the strongest for Hillary--they also happened to be almost exactly at the national average of 12.8%. Virginia and Wisconsin seemed possible for Hillary--and they are right at the edges of the OP theory.

K&R.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. Newsday had a breakdown of the vote on Long Island, town by town

Obama won the heavily black towns and did well in the heavily white towns.

He did poorly in the in-betweens.

I think some other Long Islanders can back me up with that, if they saw it too.

[TexasObserver]

2. it's true and it's a sound observation

People who live where there are few blacks tend to not think in such racial terms. Where blacks are more prevalent, so is racism towards blacks, which suggests the kind of resentments that fighting over resources produces. The forces of evil love to pit the poor and the struggling against each other. Where there are blacks, hispanics, and poor or modest income whites fighting over the access to the same resources, fighting over the same political benefits, there will be racisl voting.

Unfortunate, but true.

If anyone can gleam the cube, it's Obama.

[milkyway]

4. Yes, it seems like Obama and Hillary are both operating from this idea.

The campaigns seem deeply aware of this.

There is a tendency to think of the campaign as being between the young creative class vs. the older bluecollar workers, information age vs. industrial age, and this theory fits in with this--Hillary does best in the traditional dem states where there has been enough of a racial mix to create resentment among working class workers (but not so many blacks that the numbers are too large for her to overcome).

The Clintons, especially Bill, seemed to decide that their best path to the nomination relied on stoking racial resentment in these 5-20% states, states that would be large enough to win the nomination.

[TexasObserver]

5. take California, for example

Hillary relied on Hispanic and Asian votes to win, and there is a great deal of racism in both those subcultures towards blacks (and probably vice versa). Where immigrants and underclasses clash, there will be racial antipathies some will exploit.

Hillary does best with uneducated voters, who typically have more of a problem with the kind of fight for resources I mentioned previously. US v. Them is the Clinton paradigm.