Race, gender, the MSM and NH: audio from my segment on Mike Signorile Show

Obama's Votes

I wasn't able to listen to the segment yesterday, because of a work conference call, but did hear a few moments. I am not sure if you discussed this, but the reality is that Obama's vote percentage came in right where it was expected. The polls had him anywhere from 32 - 43%, with most in the 35 - 39% range, and he got 37%, so the issue does not appear to be that people were dishonest about votign for him, but it does appear there was a big swing to Clinton from undecided voters and those who were not really set on their support - probably those most influenced by the temporary Iowa bubble effect.

I think the Tweety effect - that is the media ganging up on Clinton - did have an impact in moving undecideds and soft supporters of Obama to her camp, but in the end I can't see how you can look at those numbers and see a lot of overt or covert racism. This is not like Wilder's victory, where he was ahead by 6 - 8 points in the polls, but won by like 0.5% of the vote.

I have not heard this discussed either, but it is possible there are a lot of Democratic voters who, like me, don't have a real preference in the primary. Any Democrat will do, because the desire is to oust the current corrupt administration. Thus, it would not be surprising for support for any specific candidate to be relatively soft, and for something like the coverage of Clinton's emotional exposure and anger at the debate could move people to her camp - whether out of sympathy or simply to refuse the coronation movement in the MSM.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM CST

Iffff...

the economy tanks in two years' time, social security funds disappear, we are at war with Albania, the Saudis have closed the tap and Iran is a thriving power courting China and India who have ignored us, and Brazil has taken over as the economic powerhouse of the Western Hemisphere, will it be because America elected a black (whatever) president?  Or because a woman sits in the Oval Office? Or a Mormon?

If, on the other hand, down the line America is thriving, we have pacified Iraq, neutralised Iran, castrated Pyongyang, the dollar has regained its zenith as the international currency of choice, U.S. educational standards are the envy of the world, and all the cars run on corn, will it be because a woman is in the Oval Office?  Or a Kenyan-American?  

It is telling of the society that has made it so, that what should be a mere curiosity is a deal-breaker in electing a head of state.  Maybe a hereditary monarchy is required until Americans can handle democracy without adult supervision.

---

by: Brian @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 13:22:45 PM CST

Whose democracy?

There's a difference between "deal-breaker" and "source of immense pride."  Brian, have you ever had the equivalent experience of finally seeing a female or person of color attain a position (like, Supreme Court justice, perhaps) that this "democracy" has never managed to allow in its entire history?

In my lifetime, I've heard the sexism and racism change from expressions of outright hostility in polite company to protestations of "why can't we just talk about the best person for the job?"  As if there is only this one mythical best person, who just coincidentally usually turns out to be male and white.

As for me, Brian, I'll rest easy when I can finally look at the Supreme Court and see it composed of nine women of various hues and one man.  And no one thinks there's anything in the least curious about that.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Iffff

you can rest easy with a Supreme Court based on sexism, then what progress have you made?  None.  You're just as sexist as the worst of them.

---

by: Brian @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:56:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay.

Call it what you will.  Just make sure that when my nine-woman Supreme Court happens, if you're around to witness it, you'll refer to the amazing possibility of a second male candidate as nothing more than a "mere curiosity."

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 17:25:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Curiosity?

I'd rather refer to their competence.  I don't give a good goddam what's between their legs, I'm more concerned about what's between their ears.  Filling the top bench, or any public office, entirely with one sex or another because of their sex or race is sexism and racism, plain and simple.  Just because it's practised at levels that keep competence from rising is no excuse, and no cure.  

Racism is an abomination by whoever plays the card, especially in America.

---

by: Brian @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 23:35:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Um...

"Mere curiosity" was your phrase.

Anyway, when my nine-woman Supreme Court comes to pass, it will be in a Post-Gender, Post-Race era, see?  So those nine women of various hues will be there because of their competence only. HA!

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 00:56:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Reasons"

How about the reasons relating to Obama's relative lack of experience; his record; his positions (or lack thereof); the uplifting but vague speeches?  Don't these progressives you speak of talk to you about these sorts of concerns?

Are you trying to zero in on race, specifically, for the purpose of a discussion, without discounting that people might have other reasons for not making Obama their first choice?  Or are you asserting that race is the primary consideration in this election?  I was unclear when you brought this up yesterday.  Still am.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 13:33:23 PM CST

not at all

I would hope that Obama's record can and should be challenged. That is what ultimately is relevant.

What I am saying is that there is an undercurrent of race-related discomfort that people are trying to will away. As you will see in the entry I just posted, when something does erupt, the problem is quite telling, and denying that a candid discussion is needed isn't helpful.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 13:39:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not denying race is important,

but I am among those who feel that 'candid discussions' can bring out the worst in people.  You're a one in a million people who could probably have that discussion, Pam, but most people would let their baser instincts rule, feel pushed into corners and explode, and the result would not be to hold hands and promise to work for the betterment of humanity, but open wounds and widen gaps.

I hope that the poster above was right who said the NH result was not about reneging your support for Obama while in the privacy of the voting booth, because Obama did not actually lose votes, but Clinton won them.  So an open race discussion now rings as blacks being sore losers; look, already some people here in the Blend are quick to judge the motivations of other posters without reading carefully.

I think (I heard this on NPR; it's not my own wisdom) that it's possible that Edwards ganging up with Obama against Clinton in the last debate made HIM lose votes and people rally in support of the defenseless woman being bullied by two men.

---

by: Tomistocles @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:32:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't make the case for the Bradley Effect

I hope that the poster above was right who said the NH result was not about reneging your support for Obama while in the privacy of the voting booth, because Obama did not actually lose votes, but Clinton won them.

I simply laid it out, and gave anecdotal statements that have nothing to statistically back anything up on that front. In fact, I think the sexist treatment of Clinton was the main factor, but because our culture is so paranoid about race, one would never be able to prove the Bradley effect, only draw conclusions based on a series of elections where the polls and the results are skewed.

Time will tell in this case whether there is a pattern or not. Until then, I think the issue of the "debate gang up", the horrid misogyny of talking heads in the MSM and the "emotional moment" seems the more plausible explanation, given the exit polling.

Again, given Andew Cuomo's "gaffe", I think this post, along with that one, make the case for the necessity to deal with the race matters before things go too far down a dark path.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:50:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The more I think about it

The more I think about it I really don't don't think there is such a thing as a "Bradley affect" in NH.  The Pollsters asked people who they were going to vote for.  Why would anyone tell them Obama if they were'nt going to vote for him.  I have to go back to my theory that people couldn't make up their minds between Obama and Clinton and their preference was very weak.  A couple of things happened in the days before the election; Clinton's showing more humanity and the two idiot disc jockeys from Boston with the "Iron my shirt" signs at her rally the day before the election.  These two incidences upset a lot of woman and created a sympathy vote for Clinton. There may have been a few people making decisions on race but I think they made them before election night.   Speaking of racism. When I was in grammar school Mitch Miller was a popular show on TV. I had a wicked crush on Leslie Uggams (still do, 50 years later).  I had her picture on my bedroom wall.  One of my cousins saw it and told me how his father said that whites should not mix with blacks and all the rest of that malarky.  Well I rode my his house yesterday and there was an Obama sign on his front lawn. There's hope.

---

by: Herb @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:02:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think that "Iron my shirts" had anything to do with Clinton's victory

The way I see it is that most of the voters are too uninformed to have picked up on something like that. The people who were informed enough were probably already too set in their ways to be swayed by something like that.

<3 Sam

---

by: Samie D @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:28:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]