Does Obama really get a six-point burden for being black?
posted at 11:30 am on September 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
The Associated Press postulates today that Barack Obama may have a six-point handicap in the presidential polling due to his African heritage. Based on their polling, they determine that white Americans have a negative attitude towards blacks, who also have a negative attitude towards whites, and that Democrats are not immune. However, the polling misses a few details, such as Obama’s win in the primaries:
Until now, social scientists have not closely examined racial sentiments on a nationwide scale at a moment when race is central to choosing the next president. The poll, which featured a large sample of Americans — more than 2,200 — and sophisticated survey techniques rarely used in media surveys, reflected the complexity, change and occasional contradictions of race relations.
More whites apply positive attributes to blacks than negative ones, and blacks are even more generous in their descriptions of whites. Racial prejudice is lower among college-educated whites living outside the South. And many whites who think most blacks are somewhat lazy, violent or boastful are willing or even eager to vote for Obama over Republican John McCain, who is white. …
Polls consistently show Obama running about even with McCain, or leading by a notably smaller margin than the one Democrats enjoy over Republicans in most generic surveys about which party is best suited to govern.
The AP-Yahoo News poll suggests that racial prejudice could cost Obama up to 6 percentage points this fall. That’s a big hurdle in a nation whose last two presidential elections were decided by much smaller margins.
I’m not going to discount this out of hand. Most conventional wisdom would have it as a wash — that the number of people not voting for Obama because of his race would be roughly offset by those voting for him expressly or primarily for that reason. Both voters exist, and examples of the latter can be found in the media. Chris Matthews has openly expressed his support for Obama because of the message it will send about the transcendence of American history Obama’s victory would represent, and he’s not the only media analyst to make that case. However, the idea that they cancel each other out is at best a guess, and polling on the issue would be instructive.
I’m not certain that the AP/Yahoo poll satisfies that, however. First, the methodology seems rather suspect. They ask several questions about attitudes that hardly seems predictive of voting patterns, and their own numbers show why. The attitudes don’t change on an age-demographic basis, while Obama’s support clearly is strongest among younger voters. If that depended on less racism, then his support demographics would make no sense (or this poll does a bad job in identifying racism). Two-thirds of Democrats who note two or more negative attitudes towards blacks plan to vote for Obama, making supposed racism a non-factor.
Fortunately, we have more solid evidence at hand. First, Obama beat Hillary Clinton, especially in caucuses, where enthusiasm counts much more than in normal primaries. Given the AP/Yahoo findings in their polling, Obama never should have beaten the better-organized and more well-known Hillary. Second, Obama has almost no resumé for this job. When was the last time a major party nominated a first-term Senator with no executive or military experience as its presidential nominee? Obama’s ethnicity may not have been the reason why Democrats nominated him with these real questions about experience, but it certainly didn’t appear to handicap him, either.
They still could be correct about their conclusions, but they need much better evidence than what they show here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Rather than wondering whether he’s suffering a six point handicap because he’s black, I suspect he’s gained an unknown amount to bring him up to within six points simply because he’s black.
As I have always maintained – his candidacy has only ever been about one thing….his ‘race’. He wouldn’t even be a senator if he wasn’t black. He wouldn’t have even made it into the Chicago political machine. He’s far too dull to achieve any of this success on his own. His ‘blackness’ is the only ‘game’ he’s got.
He would literally be the first ‘affirmative action’ POTUS.
Pathetic.
LimeyGeek on September 22, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Ed, I am disappointed in you for that one. It isn’t like you to pan the surface flakes where there might be nugget embedded below. The fact that PUMAs are making serious documentaries about the 2008 caucus process shows that there is a deep feeling of resentment over the perceived hijacking of the democratic process. I’ve seen snippets and it ain’t pretty.
rhodeymark on September 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Do we even really need to guess as to whether or not the left is going to spin this into their same old pathetic caricatures of the NASCAR crowd?
Ryan Gandy on September 22, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The point my discussion made is that you can always find “6%” that are deciding for one reason or the other.
I say 6% are not voting for McCain because of age, and I am probably understanding the %.
6% may not vote for Obama because of his wife, or 6% because of McCain’s divorce.
The point is you can always find 6% of someone, somewhere, for some reason.
6% of the people think the moon landing was fake.
10% of the people think Elvis is till alive.
25% of the people think you get cramps if you go in the water after eating
The list is endless, 6% of people probably won’t be able to answer what 4 people are on the presidential ticket.
right2bright on September 22, 2008 at 1:40 PM
My question not revealed by the pollsters – How do blacks feel about blacks?
exdeadhead on September 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Don’t forget the obligatory +/- 4% error in many polls.
Badger40 on September 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I’m sick of Hussein using his identity crisis as a handicap. Here is a note I dropped to one of my myspace friends:
Let me get this straight:
he started off as half-white, half-black;
during his almost two years of campaigining, he morphed into all black;
then last month he began marketing himself as half-and-half again;
then, while on vacation, he became Pacific Asian-American, which I’ve never even heard of;
after Gov. Palin entered the picuture, he went back to half-and-half;
last week, he went back to all black;
and this week, he began singing “I’m Every Woman”.
Do we really want someone like this who has multiple ethnicity/gender crisis syndrome?
madmonkphotog on September 22, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I don’t know about the 6 points gap against Obama due to his race but I can say for sure that we can substract safely 3 points from him in every poll. And that can make the diffrence sometimes between winning and loosing a state.
clemycali on September 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM
He actually gets a 12 point bump for being a socialist so it all evens out.
RightWired on September 22, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Wrong. Kennedy was a WWII vet. The original point still stands.
Sekhmet on September 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Have you ever made such a statement about anybody who wasn’t black? I doubt it. (Incidentally, the only other people white’s typically accuse of being confused about their race are so-called “wiggers.” There’s an interesting point in there somewhere. I’ll let you sniff it out.)
Here’s a little reminder. Those people preventing humans of mixed race from referring to themselves as “white” are usually White.
IMHO, you would NEVER accept Barack referring to himself only as white. Stop your lying. You have a problem with Blacks who don’t conform to your twisted paradigm.
It’s easy to be against his policies and stupid rhetoric. But your true colors are running.
The Race Card on September 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM
This is a joke.
How many blacks wont vote for McCain because he’s white?
How many Blacks vote for Oslime-a because he’s black?
How many people vote over class politics? That’s as bad as racism.
How many people vote against McCain because of GWB?
How many vote for Oslime-a because he is not GWB?
csdeven on September 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM
seriously?
unless you are going to weasel out, you are calling madmonkphotog a racist.
how is pointing out Barry’s confusion on his racial identity racist?
or do you just call everyone you assume to be white a racist if they dare bring up race in a post?
and, since he mentioned gender, does that make him sexist too? and, why did you miss that in your reply? would not commenting on it make you sexist because you agree with that part?
please keep up this angle of attack. the louder the cries of racism the more votes Barry will lose.
i’ll leave it to you to figure out why that will be.
TheCulturalist on September 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
A couple of key points. Obama won a DEMOCRATIC primary. Blacks are a large chunk of the democrats core groups. That favored Obama.
Second Obama won states that are mostly red states. Where whites had abandoned the dems and where blacks or monorites make the majority of voters.
This figure might be valid.
William Amos on September 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Here’s a few things that might help you in your attacks on me:
1) I’m not a weasel; I can be a prick.
2) I’m voting for McCain.
3) I have VERY low expectations for Democrats and VERY high expectations for Republicans.
4) I don’t know madmonkphotog well enough to know if he’s a bigot. (Do you?)
5) Whites still and always be the arbiters of what Blacks refer to themselves as how it will be perceived. (users of “nigga” notwithstanding.)
6) Most of my family is White. Most of my friends are White. Most of my classmates, workmates and business partners have been so-called Whites.
7) Whites referencing identity “confusion” about people of other races and not getting how twisted that is are prevalent.
8) Racism is not all that bad. It’s a moral failing similar to substance abuse. It’s offensive, but then again so is bad breath. I have friends who are admitted racists. It’s not the end of the world to be a bigot. It’s just lame.
I think that more people than not practice racism in their personal lives. I also think that more people than not are offended to think that they MIGHT harbor some racist feelings. It’s very American to feel guilt over issues of race.
I think that as soon as more whites stop acting guilty, reactionary and wounded (at being called racist) Blacks and other minorities will take you more seriously on issues of race.
That is not to say that whites should not be taken seriously. Rather, I believe, problematically, the MSM and the Left only trust whites on issues of race when they are admitting to being racist. Republicans can ignore the problems of our own perception at our own peril.
***
How often do I read someone on HA whining about being white and dealing with racism?
EVERY SINGLE DAY.
At what point do you Republicans start to complain about themselves?
NOW!
The Race Card on September 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM
@the culturalist
Getting carpet installed…gotta leave the office. Not ignoring you but will reply later if it matters.
We can disagree wildly or mildly. I appreciate your time and consideration.
The Race Card on September 22, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Remember way back when, when Obama was the “post-race” candidate? Now, he is stoking embers that have almost died out, with his not so subtle race baiting. I predict that over the next forty + days, racial bias will amp up for everybody.
Two words; Bradley Effect.
Star20 on September 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM
You’ve answered your own query here.
Democrats in caucus states had to vote for Obama, they were being watched.
Hillary screamed bloody murder about it – without actually pointing out what part of the caucus process she was protesting.
Now all those racist democrats will get to hide behind a curtain.
McCain will win, but not just because “racist democrats”.
Mainly he’ll win because Barry is too liberal with too little experience. Also John has Sarah.
Dorvillian on September 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM
In a sense, almost every BO voter is voting for him because he’s not a Boring White Guy. He would still be in the Chicago legislature if he was White.
jgapinoy on September 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM
The words on the screen were black! It’s racist coding!
Actually, I’m so sick and tired of being called a racist, even if I wasn’t already voting for McCain, I would now because I’m so sick of being unjustly accused.
Here’s my idea for an ad: Obama video: “Did I mention I’m black? I don’t look like the pres on those dollar bills” then show Obama doing the Hillary brush off, flipping her off, and calling Sarah Palin a pig. Then show John McCain: “Senator Obama, the only person that has mentioned race in this campaign is you. America is not racist, as is shown by your meteoric and historic rise. And quite frankly, the American people are being sick and tired of unjustly being accused of being racist, when they are not. They don’t want to vote for you because you want to take and squander $50 billion of their hard earned money on a global poverty program that will never help the poor. They don’t want to vote for you because you have never once voted to let them keep their own money. Also, the American people can add. They can add up how many times you voted present, how many times you voted to let babies die in closets, how many lies you’ve told on this campaign trail, and how many times you’ve snubbed America’s soldiers and first responders.
Senator Obama, race has nothing to do with it. As much as you want to have your face on the dollar bill, that design is already in place, and your face will not be replacing President Washington’s. The American people don’t like you, don’t trust you, and won’t vote vote for you based on your performance and personality alone. I’m John McCain and I approve this message.”
JustTruth101 on September 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Note that by defining my post as an “attack” you have also defined the post I referred to as being an “attack”.
Point taken
However, the w-word was used in reference to the way your post danced around the unsaid. I was simply pointing this out. Your reply did continue the dancing though…
Nothing personal, but this is easy to say and hard to verify. At the end of your reply you say “… you Republicans…” like you aren’t one. Does that mean you identify yourself as “Independent”? I was tempted by that high sounding word too, when I was younger. Sort of like wanting to flock with the birds that call themselves “open-minded”, “tolerant”, “fair”, etc. etc. etc.
Good. Me too.
Nope. This was why I posted what I posted before regarding your post.
Sorry, but I find that paternizing. Kind of like cultural affirmative action. I know enough to tell my 5 yr old not to let anyone else define who he is and to not try being someone he isn’t. My 4 yr old probably won’t need that talk as he’s quite his own person. Still, I’ll offer it as a reminder when he’s a year older.
Same here. Although I’m not sure what a “so-called white” is. The caveat being that for myself and my siblings, almost all of us are (or were) in “mixed” marriages.
Personally, I think this is a valid point about CULTURE, but not race. Race just makes it easy to separate people into groups. It is cultural differences that keep them in groups. Hence my “name”.
Again, race just makes it easier to id a “group”. Most people I know id people one by one after getting to know them. We, by nature, judge people “by their covers”. We have to. Until we get to know them. If someone stops at “the cover” and never takes the time to get to know someone, only then would I go so far as to call them a racist.
I don’t know what “practice racism” means to you. Personally, I’ve never had a chance to do so. I have lived all over the US and in 3 other countries. I have been, and continue to be, discriminatory though. Just like any sane person with standards would be. Basically like you noted in your item 3.
I think “seriously” is the wrong word. I do agree that people should stop letting charges of racism stop them from stating valid opinions about Presidential candidates out of fear of being accused of a charge that has no other basis than the fact that they may belong to another race than the candidate.
Reacting with guilt or fear only gives the attacker a strength they don’t deserve since it isn’t based on the merits of the case.
Personally, I have no reason to feel guilt, so I don’t. Anyone who believes in personal responsibility can’t also feel guilt for the crimes of another. Especially if the “other” has no relationship by either bloodline or timeline.
Now, here you id yourself with Republicans by using the word “our”, while below you separate yourself by using “you Republicans”. Not sure what to make of that…
As far as the MSM goes, I think the word isn’t “trust” but rather “use”. As in “use” whites who are self-deprecating and guilt ridden to show how the MSM itself is not a member of the guilty party.
Does that make it invalid? I work mostly with Hispanics, some of whom are very likely illegal. Some have been here for over 20 yrs, but don’t speak English. A good friend of mine is from Brazil. Another is mixed Mexican/Filipino. They are both conservatives. I know exactly what the non-white people here say about both whites and blacks. So, don’t try to tell me that racism isn’t a two way street. They don’t feel the “pressure” to be color blind that whites have to deal with. It would be nice to have some reciprocity with regard to this issue. Fair is fair. Anything else… isn’t.
There is that “you Republicans” thing I was writing about. Personally, I think Republicans complain about themselves too much. Not that it isn’t good to keep an eye on our own, but it should be done in a less cannibalistic way.
Frankly, it’s the same point as the one earlier about not buying into the whole “white guilt” agenda. Doing so just allows the “enemy” to regroup and rearm while not advancing the conservative “ball” down the field.
I could go on, but I’m late for lunch.
Enjoy your new carpet. Watch out for fumes. If they are bad enough, you may wind up filling out an absentee ballot for Obama before you realize what you are doing.
Sorry for the book…
TheCulturalist on September 22, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I don’t know about that.
I’d bet ya he gets 20 points from the MSM.
TheSitRep on September 22, 2008 at 6:42 PM
I know racism is a hot topic on all of the black radio stations, magazines like “Jet,” in the Congressional Black Caucus and on B.E.T., so I guess there must be something to it, huh?
Star20 on September 22, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I think “research” like this is paving the way for a BIG racial war after B. Hussein loses. This is going to be bad.
Mojave Mark on September 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM
It’s only racism if you think it is. I don’t think it is, so it’s not. Yay me! :-D
SouthernGent on September 22, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Does it really matter why someone won’t vote for someone else. JFK is thought to have won because he “looked” better on TV. i saw no howls from the media because the issues were not important to the voters of JFK. If someone is uncomfortable because someone is black, white, muslim, christian what does it matter. this is a free country last time I looked and you are free to be a racist, free to be a muslim and also free to be a christian. It may not be the “right thing” to do but it is your right. and if people decide that after looking at BHO and not liking him for WHATEVER reason decide not to vote for him that is their right.
Racism is not something that popped up for no reason during the course of human history. The belief that people of a different race are not in your corner is still a very primal urge.
unseen on September 22, 2008 at 9:48 PM
He’s only half black – maybe that’s a 3 point burden.
Nope.
The fact is, were it not for Obama’s semi-ethnicity he wouldn’t have made it in Chicago and he sure as hell wouldn’t have been picked as Dem nominee.
If Dems were given the choice between two snobby white guys, they’d have easily picked Edwards over Obama.
uptight on September 22, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I don’t buy the “race card” – he probably picks up more votes than he loses. Any state where race would be an inhibitor would most likely already be firmly in the McCain camp and any state where race would be a help to him is already firmaly in his camp. It would only be an issue in states that are a toos-up.
And just by this appearing in the press, he’ll gain a few “sympathy points”.
More important than the silliness of race, I think he’s gained 20 points by being the MSM’s favorite – he’s not had to withstand any significant scrutiny – it’s hard to say if that’s because he’s a liberal darling of the press or a black darling of the press – but regardless, he’s the darling of the press.
Dr. Bob on September 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM
I think a lot of hay has been made of this issue (possible astroturfing here?). All one really needs to do is look back at the Democrat Primaries: Obama took something like 90%+ of the black vote in most of the contests. However, he never lost anywhere near 90% of the white vote in these contests as well. If you factor in the “history-making” factor (some people just want to be able to say they voted for a black person) and good old-fashioned white guilt, and I think this becomes a non-issue for the Obama camp. They are benefiting by the race issue, not losing by it. If Obama we’re white, he wouldn’t have even be talking about him.
Dagnar on September 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Obama’s mother is white, does that mean anything? Speaking bluntly, if his skin was African black, and he had stronger African facial features of lips, nose, and so on, I’d expect to see more prejudice against him. But he’s about the same shade as Michelle Malkin with predominantly white facial features and I’d think that’s good enough for the vast majority of whites to feel he’s close enough to them in appearance to not be prejudiced against him. Now, Obama’s obsession about his own racial identity, association with his old church with their race-based theology, and his penchant for race-baiting himself, that may be unforgivable. But that’s not related per se to his skin color. Those are Obama’s own bad choices.
Paul-Cincy on September 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM
P.S. I switched to Dem in the Ohio primaries to vote for Obama. I prefered him over Hillary. I wasn’t part of “Operation Chaos”. Not sure I prefer him now. He’s been showing his ugly side recently. No, that wasn’t a racial comment. Jeez!
Paul-Cincy on September 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM
If he wins not only will he be the first black president, he’ll be the first affirmative action president. So his color is helping him more than it’s hurting him. Where’s his medical records? McCain turned in 1,000 pages and Barry turned in one sheet. Another “color” example of special treatment. His color has been very beneficial to him up to now.
UnEasyRider on September 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2