Obama and Racial Polarization
It’s a wonderful thing to see a black man preparing to be inaugurated as President of the United States. This, naturally, has led to a lot of feel-good rhetoric about race relations. But it seems to me that there are some ways of looking at the data that suggest that Obama’s candidacy has actually increased racial polarization in the political domain. Read this from Larry Bartels, for example:
However, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that racial resentment eroded Obama’s support among white voters. His gains relative to Kerry were significantly smaller in states with large numbers of African-Americans—a pattern disguised in the overall vote totals by his strong support among African-Americans themselves. In the former Confederacy he gained only slightly over Kerry among white voters, despite making big gains in two key swing states, North Carolina and Virginia. The only states in the country in which he lost more than a point or two of white support were Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
The notable resistance of southern whites to Obama’s candidacy continues a half-century trend sparked by the demise of the unnatural southern Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era. From 1952 through 2004, the average level of support for Democratic presidential candidates fell by more than 15 points among white southerners while increasing slightly among whites in the rest of the country. This year’s pattern reinforces that long-term shift, underlining the extent to which the Democratic Party’s much-discussed “culture” problem is really a regional problem rooted in white racial resentment.
The issue in play here is to some extent obscured by the general upward trajectory. But overall, Obama improved on John Kerry’s vote share by 4.2 percentage points. His share of the white vote, by contrast, went up by only two percentage points whereas his share of the African-American vote went up seven points and of the Hispanic vote by 14 points. In other words, there was more rather than less divergence in white and non-white voting behavior.
62 Responses to “Obama and Racial Polarization”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
In other words, there was more rather than less divergence in white and non-white voting behavior.
There was also more, rather than less divergence between whites and southern whites as well.
I would also point out that Appalachia not only went big for McCain, like they did for Bill Clinton, they also elected a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats. (Compare the congressional maps and the 1996 vote maps to the country maps for 2008.) So the issue is not economics or socialism or whatnot, it’s black people. In the southern parts of the George Wallace states, they’ve been voting R consistently, so it isn’t clear the way it is in the upper south. I could also point out that building the southern gulag system in the post-60’s era amounts to a third attempt at racial supremacy.
That said, I don’t think Obama running resulted in an increase in racial polarization. I think it’s just out now, where it wasn’t before. Welcome to the 1890’s!
max
['So can Obama retake the rest of the McKinley states?']
November 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I’ll try this again:
A black candidate increases his share of the white vote in the South. The same candidate, a centrist or left-of-center Democrat, increases his share of the white vote in the Republican South.
Isn’t this a good thing? In fact, isn’t it amazing? Regardless of the percentages?
November 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Let me get this straight: Obama increased his vote (vis-a-vis Kerry) among all racial demographics, but because he was more successful in some than others, this is actually a bad thing because it’s evidence of increased racial polarization. I think you need to back off the election analysis a bit, Matt, it’s frying your brain.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Some people have mentioned the risk that if Obama screws something up, his white base of support will erode faster than black, and it could have significantly negative consequences for race relations.
It’s possible, sort of. But:
(1) I think Obama is way too risk-averse not to have thought of this danger, and to some degree I trust his ability to manage risk; and
(2) absent something really horrible happening, I think even a volatile, emotional national conversation among different races will be a step forward. The biggest risk is that there are enough societal dregs who would do something really horrible to inflame the situation.
There’s no question that race relations aren’t solved; not even close. But the more we leverage our misguided hero-worship of political leaders to rewire our brains to look at black people differently, the more progress we will make.
Honestly, maybe we should just take our kids to psychologist brainwashers who administer E and show pictures of people of other races. It’s kind of the same thing.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
In brief: Obama did worse in places with racially polarized voting. The Southern states he won were those that becoming less polarized generally (at least at the state level), while those he lost are those that are most polarized. Compare Obama’s share of the white vote in Virginia to Alabama and you’ll see what I mean. In theory, a black candidate should do best in states like Mississippi and Alabama that have large black populations, but in fact they often do the worst there because no whites are willing to vote for them.
To get back to the earlier discussion, this actually reinforces to me the continued need for the preclearance procedure under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Even if the country as a whole is willing to elect a black president, racially polarized voting remains a problem in certain areas. Now maybe it’s time to take northern counties off the preclearance list, but I think we can expect problems in the Deep South for some time to come.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
So what? Whites are losing their demographic superiority.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“It’s a wonderful thing to see a black man preparing to be inaugurated as President of the United States….”
But of course Matt just can’t stand good news.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
It’s interesting how Democrats are always obsessing about the group of people they lost or supposedly lost after every election – white men in general, white working class, Appalachian region, regular churchgoers etc etc. All the hand-wringing – my god, how can we win them back? Should we be less like this? More like that? What should we change? Should we change everything we stand for so we could get these people to vote for us? Please, sir, may we please have your vote? What can we do to pander and condescend to you?
The funny thing is, Republicans don’t seem to care. They take it for granted that they’ve lost the African American votes all these years, or the pro-choice votes – no pandering or hand-wringing necessary. I know, I know, Republicans lost this election, but they have won a lot of elections in the past by focusing more on the group that they won, rather than anguishing about the group that they lost.
Maybe a bit more self-respect and ability to stand up for the principles they believe in is required for Democrats. Instead of obsessing so much about all the white votes they lost, why not focus more on consolidating support among other groups?
November 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Polarization has only increased according to racism-deniers, who claim it was low or non-existent in the first place.
To rational people, the only change is that the cover has been lifted on what was *already* there, so much so, that even racism-denier can no longer publicly maintain the facade.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
What these data show is that Appalachia and the Deep South are lagging indicators of racial attitudes. Election results in Upper South, Northern and Midwestern suburbs of cities with high African-American populations — e.g., Norfolk-Virginia Beach, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis — showed much less racial polarization.
My read is that polarization is most pronounced where the population is static and aging, and where there are relatively few migrants from other regions.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I think this is one of those case that should be looked at with a long term outlook. While I agree that Obama’s race might have been a factor in his relatively smaller increase in white vote % compared to his overall vote % increase, I think several other factors might be in play that have nothing to do with Obama.
But what people will remember 20 or 50 years from now was that a black man was elected President of the United State. People will grow up in an environment where it’s normal to have a black President and where a minority mother can tell her child that he too, one day, will be able to become President.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
1) I think the REAL problem is that Democrats can’t communicate very well.
2) For example, Matthew keeps referring to the “$700 Billion” Financial Sector Bailout. I’ve noted that it’s really $1.5 Trillion –and will zoom to $2 Trillion once you add in the 5 years of interest we will pay on it.
3) Now it turns out that there is AN ADDITIONAL $2 TRILLION being spent on the bailout — in the form of Federal Reserve Loans –and Bush/Bernanke/Paulson are REFUSING to say WHO is receiving that money.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahdVHk_Ccoeg&refer=home
4) But Matthew and the Democrats JOIN with the Republicans in ignoring that ongoing theft in the back of the US Treasury.
Instead, we instead hear limp-wristed speculation re whether white rural males are racist.
Which is as much of an irrelevent distraction as Rush Limbaugh discussing the ignorable characteristics of urban liberals.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
BTW, just to clarify my previous post, I’m not saying Matthew’s post here is obsessing or doing any hand-wringing about how to win the white votes back or anything. He’s just stating statistics. I was just angry (not at Matthew, just in general) that statistics like this are often used to write articles about why Democrats are losing the white working class/white people/white men, how to win them back, etc etc. Enough already!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Interesting that the states with large black and Latino populations–Texas and Georgia come to mind–seemed to have less racist white people than in the parts of the South with fewer Hispanics.
Or maybe it’s just that Texas and Georgia have big cities, and urban (and suburban?) white people are less racist than rural ones.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Matt didn’t say it was worse. He just said that it was.
I see. You think it’s a fair reading of Matt’s post that he takes no position on whether increased racial polarization is good or bad. Even though he leads with how there have been lots of feel-good statements about improved relations, “but” there’s actually increased racial polarization. I mean, sorry to go out on a limb with my inferences, there.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This is so stupid.
Obama didn’t campaign in those states. He was never in Louisiana, Alabama, or Mississippi. Biden was never in those states either, and neither were the Clintons. Biden *was* in parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania where Obama (maybe surprisingly) ran ahead of Kerry in counties that Clinton won in the primaries. (Hillary Clinton visited a lot of those areas as well.) And forget about visits (and the local media they provide) – there also weren’t any ads (except for rare national media buys). And, hey, another thing – who the governors in many of those states are Republican, indicative of a Republican trend – and also without governors as surrogates, Obama’s chances were even lower.
Of course race probably played a role in some of all this. Although, oddly, it didn’t so much in Pennsylvania, where Obama outran Kerry in a lot of places where race was supposed to be a factor.
The fact is, you can blend national, state, or regional-level statistics in whatever combination you want to support any hypothesis.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Democrats claim white rural voters vote against their economic interests — but Democrats never have taken the trouble to talk with those voters and show them exactly how they have been screwed by the Bush Administration.
Indeed, the most prominent aspect of the 2008 election is that Democrats did NOT criticize the Republicans to any extent. They just let events PARTIALLY speak to the voters, with the assumption that the voters had no other option but to put Democrats into office. Regardless of what Democratic leaders do — or don’t do.
But even the totalitarian Soviet Union gave citizens the option to vote for one of two candidates — because it didn’t matter. Both candidates were in the tank for the Establishment and neither candidate would acknowledge the harm being done to the common Soviet citizen.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Don Williams (#17) said: “3) Now it turns out that there is AN ADDITIONAL $2 TRILLION being spent on the bailout — in the form of Federal Reserve Loans –and Bush/Bernanke/Paulson are REFUSING to say WHO is receiving that money.”
Don, Don, LOOK OVER THERE! The President is shopping for a DOG! and, and, Lindsay Lohan is doing, ah, something odd!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
That’s basically the future of politics in America: Over the generations, the Democrats will turn into the non-white party and the Republicans into the white party.
At present, white Democratic politicians assume there will never be enough non-white talent so non-white voters will continue to need lots of white politicians (like themselves and their children) to lead them. But, in the long run, nonwhites are unlikely to agree with that assessment.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Maybe it’s because millions of people were turned off by BHO playing the race card a few times and his surrogates (including MattY) only not playing the race card when they were busy with other smears and lies?
On the other hand, BHO probably got more votes among whites than he could have due to his call for white solidarity. On the other hand, now the groups he reached out to want their share of the pie.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Had the candidate been Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, racial resentment no doubt would have been far more prevalent. Joe Biden was right, and a lot of black people agreed with him right from the get go (”fresh, articulate…..”)
November 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Seriously, is Bernanke covering the cost for the last two months of bank mergers, or helping someone buy every last GD upside down home mortgage?
November 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Racial polarization is what it is. There’s nobody today who loves or hates Al Sharpton any more than before. There’s plenty in that trade to talk about.
What is much more interesting is how blackfolks are dealing with their own politics and culture in response to the Obama victory. If you listened to hiphop for the past ten years, there is nothing in it that would suggest to you that Obama even existed. Now that he does, and what that means to an ongoing debated between Bill Cosby and Michael Eric Dyson is momentous.
Black vs White is so 1968.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“On the other hand, BHO probably got more votes among whites than he could have due to his call for white solidarity.”
What does this even mean? He called whites to act together to…vote for him? Vote against him? As a white man, I must have missed this solidarity call, so I have no idea what it was he was asking me to do along with all my white brothers.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote, then Obama only had the additional 12 percent to make inroads. He took 60 percent of those. Kerry took 41 percent of the white vote, so of the ramaining 59 percent Obama only improved by two points (or actually less than four percent of what was potentially available).
November 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“So what? Whites are losing their demographic superiority.”
@Rich in PA, Whites from cracker-barrel states are losing their demographic superiority. I don’t think they’ll be missed.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
What actually changed during the past year among racial attitudes was the notion that a black man really could win. Many blacks (including many of my personal friends who were inclined initially to support Hillary, while I as a white person was touting Obama) did not believe it could happen, and needed to be convinced that white people would really vote for him. Over time, starting with the Iowa caucuses, it did.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Adam Says: What does this even mean?
Well, Adam, there was a link in my comment, which linked to this page:
my.barackobama.com/page/content/eahome
And, that page was previously discussed here.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Can anyone explain to me why the Obama folks and his supporters did not play up his “whiteness” in equal measure to his “blackness,” since they are the same in his makeup? Seems to me this would have been a natural way to diffuse latent white racism while at the same time calling to attention his natural, genetic makeup as a perfect emblem of mixed-race, melting pot America.
I’m kind of tired of hearing Obama commonly referred to in the press and on this blog as an “African American,” when in reality he is just as much a “European American.” Seems to me this tendency is an ancient holdover from slave days when even a drop of black blood rendered its host a “Negro,” and thus a slave.
I’m a native Kansan, though I no longer live there; Obama’s mother was born and largely raised there and the place is as white bread/average as it gets in the U.S. Why the hell didn’t the Obamanites use this fact to their advantage? I always got the impression he and the campaign were playing down the white side of his makeup.
Thoughts?
November 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Apparently Timothy wasn’t paying attention, especially to things like this. Bonus: guess why I thought they’d played funny games with the mic’ing. Doubleplusgoodbonus: what slur is related?
November 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I honestly thought that when the election is over, 24Ahead will stop shamelessly promoting his stupid website with all the links and such. I guess not. Here’s my bipartisan, non-ideological advice to him – constantly linking to your own stuff is considered tacky and in bad taste, in both Real and Fake America.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Tim: BlogWhoreAhead needs the Cheeto money. Either that, or he’s a PaidAgent of the MexicanGovernment with the intention of making nativist conspiracy theorists and their white-supremacist supporters look really fucking stupid.
When’s the insurgency set to start, Kelly? C’mon, spill.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Timothy,
Where have you been all these years? Don’t you remember that thing called multiculturalism and how liberals have bought into the narrative that all people of color have been suppressed? It was necessary for every group to have their own custom message and Barack Obama spent a great deal of time working the Chicago ghetto. What possible advantage could Obama press as a white man with regards to race in America in such a context.
The philosophy of the Democrats required him to be as black as possible.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
IRONY ALERT!!!!
IRONY ALERT!!!!
IRONY ALERT!!!!
Rather, the Republicans are turning into the for-only-certain-kinds-of-white party.
(my.barackobama.com/page/content/eahome)
November 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Anyone got a Greasemonkey script that automatically removes BlogWhoreAhead’s links? I mean, it’s not as if he gets referrers from here anyway, but it would be a bit like ‘Garfield Minus Garfield’.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Sometimes you remind me that you are very very young. To be disappointed, to even note, that the Southern white support was only slightly greater for an African American candidate for President than for well anything imaginable, you have to be waaay to young to remember the 60s (my memories are vague as I was 10 when they ended and believe me that is not what “racial polarization” means to me).
November 13th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Democrats had a range of strategies in terms of where to attack the Bush electoral college map. Picking Obama was picking a strategy to attack in the West, Midwest, and Coastal South.
It was quite distinctly not a strategy to attack in the inland south.
And under the winner-take-all system, even a supposedly “50 state strategy” is never really a 50 state strategy for a Presidential campaign … there is no incentive to attack in the inland south with such a rich lode of electoral college votes more easily available elsewhere … especially given the position of the race if, instead of a Banking Panic followed by confirmation that we have slid into recession, we just had the confirmation in the final week of the campaign of the slide into recession.
The election is a symptom of the long term decline in effectiveness of the politics of race-baiting, which was the foundation of Nixon’s southern strategy and a cornerstone of the Reagan coalition. Therefore, those who have the ambition of turning back the clock on Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt’s “Deals” are going to have to come up with some other line of attack.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:34 am
In other words, there was more rather than less divergence in white and non-white voting behavior.
Jesus Matt, was there any to this election that wouldn’t have proved to you that this country is racially polarized? If he’d lost it would have been because whites were too racist. If he’d barely squeaked through, it would have been the Bradley effect, he wins by 8 points and you’re still wringing your hands about racial divisions?
I’ve spent the last 12 months listening to people tell me that Obama couldn’t win white votes, that whites were lying about there support for him, that he couldn’t win Pennsylvania or Ohio, and that there’d be riots in the streets if he won(and if didn’t win). Enough of this idiocy.
Obama won overwhelming numbers in the black vote for the same reason Kennedy won overwhelming numbers of Catholics in 1960 – because a minority community finally believes they could be truly accepted into American society.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Maybe the “divergence” can be explained as fear of the unknown–or a guilty conscience. Many Whites recognize their bigotry and how it has adversely affected the Black community, and they fear payback. Why should they expect the Black to be more racially neutral than the White establishment?
It took a perfect storm of systemic collapse to get a perfect (think Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner) Afro-American elected this time. If there aren’t lynchings of whitey in the next four years, more Southerners will vote party and policy rather than color. I live in a very White area of coastal North Carolina, Walter Jones’ district, and Obama got 40% of the vote. That was more about party label than about race. The Civil War might be ending for the crackers, and many are accepting its demise. I’m proud that some of my neighbors are less bigoted than I had believed–but, alas, more bigoted than most of the country. They’ve come a long way, very slowly, but the direction seems positive.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:08 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
laptop battery
February 15th, 2009 at 3:06 am
I just wanted to leave a quick comment to thank you for your post! I really like your blog site!!! Would you mind terribly if I put up a backlink from my site at whiterabbitcult.com to your site? Keep up the great work!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points here.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra