Posted by: iam0nly1 | July 6, 2008

Obama’s Flawed Race Strategy: Why the Black Vote Won’t Be Enough

Senator Obama plans to win the general election based on African American turn out. It is no secret.  The Time’s Jay Newton-Small reports that he’s been vocal about it since August 2007:

“I’m probably the only candidate who, having won the nomination, can actually redraw the political map,” Obama replied to a question about his strategy from a Concord, N.H., woman at a house party last August. Pacing around the old Victorian home, the wooden floor creaking, Obama went on: “I’ll give you one specific example: Mississippi is 40% African American, but it votes 25% African American. If we just got the African Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state. And Georgia may be a Democratic state. Even South Carolina starts being in play. And I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I’m the nominee, goes up 30% around the country, minimum.”

Obama’s entire claim to redrawing the political map is based on his perceived ability to win in Southern states precisely because of African American voters. After all, this is why Hillary’s claim that she alone was capable of winning large swing states that Democrats must win, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, went unnoticed and unheeded by Dean, Pelosi and others. However, this is a severe and dangerous gamble. 

As we pointed out a few weeks back, the Obama campaign seems to know that Ohio and Florida are going to be a stretch, so they are looking for alternate paths to 270, which means they are relying heavily on the Southern states, especially Virginia and Georgia. They also discuss the Rocky Mountain states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, but frankly, even if he wins those three, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (all three of which will be highly competitive), if he loses Ohio and Florida, he will lose the election 267-271 (this count includes all the states Kerry won). In short, if Obama loses Ohio and Florida, the three Rocky Mountain states and Georgia and Virginia become must win states. 

As Senator Obama will still lose the general election with the three Rocky Mountain states if he fails to swing Georgia and Virginia, these two states are of particular interest. The Obama campaign pulled no punches in revealing their tactic to win to the AP back in June: race. 


Obama’s campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a Democratic presidential candidate hasn’t won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.

Likewise, Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within reach.

First and foremost, as an African American voter, I feel used and offended by this purely racial strategy. As I have stated before, Senator Obama has done nothing for the African American community and has avoided and ignored our communities during his presidential campaign, but believes in racial polarization and indeed, prejudice within the black community, so much so that he is willing to hang his presidential hopes on it. Second, the Obama campaign needs to do a bit more research before they spend anymore money in Virginia, Georgia, or any other Southern state for that matter. 

First, Thomas Schaller of the New York Times reveals the myths upon which Obama has built his dreams:


The first myth is that African-American turnout in the South is low. Black voters are actually well represented in the Southern electorate: In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows.

And when socioeconomic status is held constant, black voters go to the polls at higher rates than white voters in the South. In other words, a 40-year-old African-American plumber making $60,000 a year is, on average, more likely to vote than a white man of similar background.


So African American voters already vote in numbers congruent to their percentage of the population. Thus, increasing the turnout “30% around the country, minimum” is not just arrogant, but largely improbable. 


The second myth is that Democratic presidential candidates fare better in Southern states that have large numbers of African-Americans. In fact, the reverse is true, because the more blacks there are in a Southern state, the more likely the white voters are to vote Republican.

Mississippi, the state with the nation’s highest percentage of African-Americans in its population, illustrates how difficult Mr. Obama’s task will be in the South. Four years ago, President Bush beat John Kerry there by 20 points. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mr. Obama could increase black turnout in Mississippi to 39 percent of the statewide electorate, up from 34 percent in 2004, according to exit polls. And let’s assume that Mr. Obama will win 95 percent of those voters, up from the 90 percent who voted for Mr. Kerry four years ago.

If that happened, the black vote would yield Mr. Obama 37 percent of Mississippi’s statewide votes. To get the last 13 percent he needs for a majority, Mr. Obama would need to persuade a mere 21 percent of white voters in Mississippi to support him. Sounds easy, right?

But only 14 percent of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry. Mr. Obama would need to increase that number by 7 percentage points — a 50 percent increase. Mr. Obama struggled to attract white Democrats in states like Ohio and South Dakota. It strains credulity to believe that he will attract three white voters in Mississippi for every two that Mr. Kerry did.

Keep in mind that this analysis (and the speculation that Mr. Obama will generate unprecedented black turnout in the South) does not consider the possibility that white voter turnout will rise, too. Passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act led to an upsurge in black voting in the South, but it also caused many white Southerners to register and vote as well — for the Republicans.


If you live by the racial sword, you will die by it as well. While it is unlikely that Senator Obama would garner more of the white vote than Kerry did (which he needs to in order to win the state), if white turnout also increased, he would still probably lose the state. 

But let’s look even closer at the specific states. Schaller’s take on Georgia is not particularly optimistic: 


What about Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, the three states that are routinely cited as new possibilities for the Democratic column this fall?

Mr. Obama can write off Georgia and North Carolina for the same reasons that Mississippi is beyond his reach — although the math in those two states is slightly less daunting. 


Newton-Small is a little more optimistic about Georgia:

Though he may have a legitimate shot in Georgia, he currently trails McCain by a margin of 12.3 percentage points, according to an average of Georgia polls by the non-partisan website



There is no question that Obama can turn out Southern blacks: African-American voter participation in the 2008 Georgia primary, which Obama won by 36 percentage points over Clinton, increased 85% over the 2004 primary, for example. And there’s lots of room to grow from the last general election; in 2004 just 54.3% of the 1,090,000 registered blacks in Georgia voted.

But black votes alone cannot win him Southern swing states like Georgia, according to David Bositis, senior political analyst at the non-partisan Joint Center, which tracks black voter trends. “In states that could potentially flip it isn’t just about increasing black turnout. They have to be states where Obama can win a fairly significant portion of whites,” Bositis said. In the Georgia primary Obama edged out Clinton among young white voters, but lost white voters over the age of 45 by more than 20 percentage points, according to CNN exit polls. 


As for Schaller, he believes Virginia is his best hope:


Virginia, however, is the one Southern state that Mr. Obama has a reasonable chance of winning. And it’s precisely because the home of Robert E. Lee, as NBC News’s political director, Chuck Todd, has suggested, is seceding from the Confederacy.

The demographic makeup of the electorate in Virginia is unlike that of any other state in the South. The black population in Virginia is, as a percentage, among the lowest in the region. And during the last two decades, the state has also experienced a huge influx of upscale non-Southerners, who have taken over the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia. (Florida is a perennial target for similar reasons. With a relatively small black population, a big Hispanic voting bloc and a large contingent of relocated retirees from the North, it is the least Southern of the Southern states.)



While these states are slim possibilities, it’s important to note that to turn them blue, Obama will have to churn out the green (perhaps this is the reason he chose to forego public financing?). But while Obama is throwing millions of dollars at states that have not gone to Democrats since 1964 (Virginia), and 1992 (Georgia and Bill), he’ll be opening the door even wider for Republicans in actual swing states. 

Mike DuHaime, political director of the Republican National Committee, doesn’t argue with Obama’s fund-raising advantage. But he disputes the notion that Obama can afford to keep throwing money at long shots once the campaign really heats up in the fall, and he contends that Obama’s defense of vulnerable states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be much more expensive. “It would take a major swing to swing these [Southern] states,” says DuHaime. “I don’t fault them for trying to expand the map, but we have better opportunities in other states that are just as big, if not bigger — Pennsylvania, Ohio, for example.”

Obama thinks he can win simply by essence of being black. Not only is this insulting, prejudicial, and frankly predictable at this point, but it’s flawed, and will fortunately cost him the election.



  1. I hope you realize how the election is turning out, go back to read your old comments, and realize how absurd this conversation has been.

    When you vote for a candidate, you vote for their policies, for what you think they can accomplish if they become president. I understand that most of you are Hillary supporters, guess what? she lost the nomination.

    Just because you don’t like Obama or the fact that he wants to rely of black votes, does not mean your votes should got to Senator McCain. Hillary’s policies are very similar to Obama’s. Voting for McCain would only show that you do not strongly believe in your ideals. If you supported Hillary, it would have been because you believed she would have turned this country in the right direction, it would have been because you thought her policies were the right policies. McCain disagrees with her on very fundamental issues. The way I see it, if you vote for Obama there is a little chance that some of Hillary’s policies might come to pass. If McCain wins, none of Hillary’s policies will be implemented.

    I know that one constant arguments that has been brought up over and over again is that Obama is not electable. Look at the polls! There is a really good chance that he could win. If people like you do not vote for him, he won’t win. Him not winning means Republican policies are implemented, something I am sure no true Hillary supporter would want.

    Voting for a candidate doesn’t mean you are supporting that candidate’s political party (or their alleged corrupt practices), it doesn’t even mean you like the candidate… All it means is that you support their platform, more than that of the opponent.

    It would be better to choose not to vote, but even this is problematic. Voting is a right, people fought and died to achieve this right, now that everyone has the right to vote, you choose not to? What if you didn’t have that right?
    I agree with Hitler that a country should be industrially strong, have pride, and set its own economic agenda. Does that make it okay to vote for Hitler?

    When you vote for a candidate, you for for their character and judgment and qualifications to do the job. Obama has none of the above. My brother and I agree on every policy. That does not make my brother qualified to be President.

    Obama is corrupt, inexperienced, and hangs out with terrorists and racist anti-Americans. Whatever his policies, these things disqualify him from the Presidency. Period.

  2. I believe that Senator Obama has a much more complex and nuanced voter turnout than relying on black voters alone. His caucus and primary election strategy shows a combination of increasing black voter turnout by 4 to 5% (It was 10% in 2004). He should be able to do that as the first black candidate with a chance to win, he will also need the 60% of the Latino vote or better that John Kerry got, and most importantly, the college age white vote and liberal white college graduate/professionals vote. Add to that union voters as a traditional Democratic power base (he’s already been endorsed by most unions).
    Obama’s strategy is based on increasing voter turnout among those groups in a year when those on the right are somewhat discouraged .
    Every national poll shows Democrats more enthused than Republicans for November.

  3. For those who say Sen Obama has set race relations back, please explain how as I disagree with this. He played by the rules of his party and won accordingly. He flat out ran a better campaign. I believe that this is a situation of “we’re not going to support Sen Obama because he’s black.” The primary rules the DNC have in place have worked for years. The same rules that Sen Obama played by was the same rules that Bill Clinton played by and won.

    Your assessment that “we’re not going to support Sen Obama because he’s black” is the answer to your question.

    Senator Obama has made this entire election about whether voters accept him based on his race, thus drowning out real discussion of his short comings, inexperience, and corruption. As an African American who has been called a racist over the web on numerous occasions, I can attest to the transparency and ridiculousness of these accusations of racism.

    Being called a racist is no small matter, but on a daily basis people throw out the accusation for non-existent transgressions. Not voting for Senator Obama is not automatically racist, just as not voting for Hillary Clinton was not automatically sexist. Senator Obama and his supporters should stop using race as a crutch. He needs to stand on his own merits, no matter how thin.

    In addition, Senator Obama did not play by the Party rules, nor has we won, at all, much less fair and square. He refused to allow revotes in MI and FL. The caucus fraud was widespread, even in Iowa where students without IDs were bused in from Illinois. I have friends who witnessed first hand drug dealers being drug off the street to the Texas Caucus to sign a sheet for Obama without producing a voter ID card or a state ID. Not to mention the fact that back in early 2007, Howard Dean and his DFA buddies selected Obama and worked to fix the process to secure his nomination.

    Thank you for your comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: