Green Room

If Obama is re-elected, will it because of racism, not in spite of it?

posted at 1:19 pm on September 20, 2012 by

There is no question that Mitt Romney has run a less than stellar campaign so far. He reached his high point in the presidential polls on Sept. 5, when he and the President Obama were tied at 46.8%. Since that time, Romney’s numbers have slipped, mainly because of ill-chosen comments he made and/or the mainstream media’s slanted coverage of those comments.

Yet, Romney’s shortcomings as a candidate can’t alone explain why he is still trailing Obama. Other factors have to be at work. Before exploring one explanation for the current polls, some background is needed, beginning with the second installment of a two-part analysis of the state of the race by Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics. In it, Trende writes:

[M]ost years with economies similar to this one—1960, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2004—see party power transfer, albeit in a reasonably close election. The one outlier here is 2004, where an incumbent president won by a healthy share in a mediocre economy. But Bush lost voters who cast their ballots based on the economy by over 60 points that year.

Even if Obama’s poll numbers reflect, as Trende speculates, that voters might be grading him “on a curve here given the mess he inherited,”there is no escaping the dismal metrics of his first term or what similar numbers have portended for previous presidents seeking a second term. Consider: No incumbent since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election with the unemployment rate over 8% at the time. Most prognosticators believe that the current unemployment rate, which has been above 8% for 43 consecutive months, is likely to change radically between now and the election. This fact alone would make an Obama victory in November truly historic.

Another way in which a second Obama term would be a first is that, despite his administration’s middling success in adding jobs to the economy, he has failed to keep pace with new entrants into the job market. On top of this, there are the crushing budget deficits under his administration. In 2011, the federal budget deficit was $1.087 trillion. At the current rate, it will be $1.139 trillion for 2012, a 4.75% increase in deficit spending.

There is more. Factory orders are down. Ditto for household income, which has in fact fallen more since the beginning of the recovery than it did during the recession itself. The cost of gasoline at the pump, meanwhile, is up, and so is the number of Americans on food stamps.

And yet Obama remains not only in the race but ahead, if by a statistically insignificant margin. Which raises the hypothesis: Could the factor responsible for this be the president’s race? Does he lead by 3.3% in the Real Clear Politics average because of—rather than in spite of (as so many have argued)—the color of his skin?

In April, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who has intemperately compared anti-Obama “fanatics” in the U.S. with Afghan murderers, asked on air:

Is there going to be a reluctance on the part of the voters and the political community that talks politics as we get into November about dumping the first African-American president?

Is there going to be something that just wretches [sic] people? ‘Wait a minute here, this guy is going to knock out the first guy who got aboard?’

Even the staunchest supporter of affirmative action should be stopped in his tracks by this galling question. Electing a man because of his race is no less bigoted than un-electing a man because of his race. Yet, racism that favors Obama seems to be a factor in the 2012 election. A recent Quinnipiac poll of Virginia voters found that black support for the president runs 93% to 6%.

In 2008, stratospheric support for Obama among blacks was explained away by many as racial pride. It was still without justification. This time around it seems at least to some degree to be blindness to any consideration but race, which is an outrage.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Erratum: Headline should read, “… be because…”

Howard Portnoy on September 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Erratum: [Paragraph below first blocked quote:]…is unlikely to change…

Howard Portnoy on September 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Of course. Obama was elected as much because of his race as anything.

Bitter Clinger on September 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM

In 2008, stratospheric support for Obama among blacks was explained away by many as racial pride.

Um, guys? “racial pride” is precisely the same thing as racism.

Put another way, if the Democratic incumbent candidate were white, would you see 93% support from blacks?

Mohonri on September 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Tom Friedman hits on “true gold”

They might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews, Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist, Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize their own potential.

… doesn’t that sound just like MSNBC ???

J_Crater on September 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Well Howard…the subject is one of those…

if only Romney had the guts to say that it’s ok to be racist because this is America (and BTW, I am more racist in the past 4 years than I was before…that 1964 law doesn’t seem to have changed much did it? we should have put a time limit on the AA advantages).

teejk on September 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

“When President Obama was running, I was telling all my neighbors we have to get out and vote,” said Thompson. “And it’s not just because he’s black… well, yes, it is because he’s black. I’m not going to tell a lie. It’s because he’s black. I’m black!”

bandarlog on September 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

voters might be grading him “on a curve here given the mess he inherited,”

Firemen inherit messes too. I’ve never seen one throw gas on it though.

single stack on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

There is no question that Mitt Romney has run a less than stellar campaign so far.

Yet Republicans nominated him.

Just like they nominated John McCain.

Just like they nominated George Bush.

Just like they nominated Robert Dole.

Do you see a trend?

also:

Yet, racism that favors Obama seems to be a factor in the 2012 election.

Racism is the belief in an inherent superiority of one race over another. Your example is not one of racism.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Blacks will vote for Obama because he is black. That is racism. The poor will vote for Obama because he dangles the carrot of hope in front of them. That is deperation. Progressives will vote for Obama because they agree with his radical socialist philosophy. That is treasonous ideology.

kemojr on September 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM