Now there are all types of reasonable arguments TNR could have gotten some black non-Obama supporter to make. He’s a neoliberal (oh…wait, that doesn’t work because TNR is a neoliberal publication). He’s too moderate compared to Edwards (oh…wait, that doesn’t work because TNR didn’t support Edwards). Clinton’s health care policy is significantly better (oh…wait, the policies aren’t as dissimilar as folks are making them out to be).
Over the last couple of days I’ve been in Washington D.C. at a conference for health disparities. One of the speakers we listened to was Aranthan Jones, former health policy advisor to Rep. Christensen and current House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s Director of Policy. What he focused on was the magic number of 35. There are approximately 55 competitive house races this year, and of those races, the Democrats look to win 35 of them (at least). Losses in places like Mississippi have severely weakened the GOP brand. But what does this mean for us?
The 35 seats that Jones predicts victory in break down like this:
Keep these numbers in mind. I’ll come back to them.
Check out this video featuring Donna Brazile and Paul Begala:
What Brazile and Begala are arguing about above is the future of the political strategy of focusing on the needs and desires of conservative white working class voters to the exclusion of blacks and liberal white voters–for Brazile this strategy has resulted in ignoring the core of the Democratic coalition, for Begala this strategy was what put Clinton over the top in 92 and 96.
(as an aside note that Begala ignores extra-DNC factors–the Perot vote in 92 and 96, the Supreme Court in 00).
For Brazile, Obama’s ability to attract racially moderate whites in places like Oregon, combined with increasing numbers of African Americans (and some Latinos), preclude the need to go after white voters in places like kentucky. Voters who appear to have a great deal of racial resentment. And for what it is worth I believe she is right. It will be difficult, but Obama can win without conservative white voters in the Appalachians, voters who don’t appear to understand their economic interests because of racism.
This isn’t just about the presidency though. Remember that magic number, and where the bulk of the new Democratic seats will come from. Inevitably the party will STILL be driven by the concerns of conservative whites. Which means that at some point we still have to work hard to convince white working class voters that their economic interests not only lie in voting for Democratic candidates, but in expanding the role of government to deal with their material needs. This is why I thought that Edwards was a better candidate than Obama or Clinton, and why I hope that Obama picks someone like Edwards to run as his VP candidate. But more importantly this is why people like Adolph Reed are right to argue that we need to organize a working IDEOLOGICAL majority that can lead to a working VOTING majority.
Yesterday’s debate between Sens. Obama and Clinton was important because it was the last debate before the critical Pennsylvania primary. But watching it I was not only disappointed in the questions asked by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulus, I was pissed. Over 50 minutes spent on Obama’s minor connections to a former member of the Weather Underground, on Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel, on Clinton’s Bosnian lie. And I caught Gibson in at least one critical right-leaning error–asking Obama about his interest in raising the capital gains tax to its Clinton era rate of 28%, Gibson noted that the tax decreases revenue rather than increases it. This is an “untruth” to put it nicely. Of the debates I’ve caught pieces of, this was the worst.If you agree, do me a favor and sign this petition.
I attended the Midwest Political Science Association conference in Chicago this last week. And got into a few interesting discussions about Obama that I’m pretty sure will translate into a research project. We know that implicitly racist ads move white voters further to the right. Check out the ad below:
Harold Ford lost in Tennessee a couple of years back because he didn’t respond to this, and this it turned (white) voters without a preference against him at the last second. We also know that when the covers are pulled off of these ads, when they are made explicit rather than implicit, the ads lose their affective power. (This is why Ford should have at the very least had a surrogate condemn the ads–he would have won going away .) (See The Race Card.)
But what is the effect of these ads on black voters?
Further, what is the effect of the charge of racism on black voters? I’d think that one result is that black voters would–depending on the source of the charge–move away from the candidate. I know a number of black voters who plan to vote for McCain if Clinton wins. I’ve thought about it myself, although Clinton’s recent promise to appoint a cabinet level person to deal with poverty (John Edwards?) has caused me to reconsider. Does this also make the black candidate (or the non-racist candidate) much better in their eyes, independent of his/her actual policies? Tavis Smiley left the Tom Joyner show today.
I’m reluctant to refer to Smiley as a casualty here, because he’s still getting paid, and also because he brought this on himself to a certain degree. Smiley’s criticism of Obama for skipping out on his State of the Black Union meeting sounds like the type of black broker criticism that we can do without. But Obama shouldn’t take our vote for granted, and he should still be subject to unrelenting scrutiny. If Tavis is the only one really doing it, I am not sure he should be criticised for it (and shouldn’t necessarily be criticized for not having a strong stomach).
After a bit of a hiatus I was back on the barbershop doing the
