(derekbaker)

Hard-working Americans, White Americans

We know Hillary's going to win West Virginia today — but it will be interesting if enough superdelegates continue to announce for Obama today or tomorrow to keep the total delegate spread the same.

I was bothered, however, by listening to a BBC World News radio report this morning from West Virginia in which a number of primary voters overtly said Obama couldn't beat McCain in November because Obama is black. (He's also half-white, but no one seems to remember this, including the media.) Of course, none of these people themselves said they wouldn't support him because he was black, only that "no one they know" will, so they want Hillary to get the nomination.

On the other hand, maybe we've reached an inflection point in American society, as much in West Virginia as elsewhere. Perhaps the Bradley effect is no longer in effect? Or even has been reversed?

In 1982, polls in the California governor race showed the black mayor of Los Angeles with a double-digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian, but Bradley lost the election. This and similar poll/election disparities between white and black candidates led people to discuss a "Bradley effect" in polling, wherein likely voters would say to a pollster they were willing to vote for a black candidate, but in the voting booth wouldn't. No one could actually prove this was what was going on, but the Bradley effect entered the popular culture as a sign that racism was alive and well, at least covertly in the privacy of the voting booth.

But that was a generation ago. I'd like to think that we've moved enough as a society that, today, we might even see a reverse Bradley effect in the voting booth come November. By which I mean that poll respondents may have a lower opinion of their neighbors' fair-mindedness than they have themselves. In other words, I'm willing to suspect that white voters may be more willing to vote for a white candidate than they think they're neighbors are — but in the privacy of the voting booth, they can.

Given the advantage the Clintons have had in West Virginia elections since the 1990s, I don't think Hillary winning there today is necessarily a sign or result of racism among Democrats in West Virginia. And in the general election, it's hard to say. The governor, both senators, and two of its three Congressional representatives are all Democrats. It was the only southern state to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and went for Bill Clinton by large majorities in his two elections. But it also voted twice for George W. Bush — and in 2004 by an even larger margin than in 2000.

None of those races were, at least very much, about race. Unfortunately, the latest polling from West Virginia does show Clinton beating McCain there as of today, but also shows McCain beating Obama. That's not necessarily racism at work — it could just be familiarity. And a lot could change between now and November. In fact, I hope it does.

Labels: politics

---

And Where Both Campaigns Should Be Focused

Every minute of television or speech time that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton spend comparing themselves to their rival for the nomination is another minute where John McCain gets a free pass.

Yes, as a Democrat, an Obama supporter and someone who can add up numbers, I think Hillary Clinton should drop out now. But whether she does or doesn't, she and Obama need to be focused on beating John McCain in the Electoral College. Anything else is a media, fundraising, or political distraction from that goal. And you don't have a very strong spoke in for your party's nomination if your own ambitions trump its goals — which would have to also include freeing up some of the donation cash to House and Senate races, not to mention all the local state office Democrats running who can't get a word in edgewise while these two fight it out.

The arguments have been made, and made again, and then made again, each time lowering the level of discourse to decide this nomination. Most recently: "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening... ." Before that: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... ."

At this point, negatively characterizing your opponent in the primary race is not going to gain you any new superdelegates — in fact, hers are starting to publicly switch to him; I'm not aware yet of any of his that have switched to her. More important, negatively characterizing either candidates supporters (or lack thereof among some demographics) isn't going to unify the party between now and November.



I think this article sums it up best: if Hillary is going to stay in the race to the end, she needs to do it for the sake of her party and its unity, not for her own nomination. If Obama is going to stay in the race to the end (as he obviously is, since he's winning more states, more popular votes, and now has more pledged delegates), he gains nothing by saying a single negative thing about Clinton, and could gain volumes in praising her. Nobody who is currently an Obama supporter is going to switch to supporting Clinton because he was magnanimous. No one who is on the fence is going to hear his graciousness as an argument for Clinton's candidacy. And it could only help to pave the way for her supporters to return to the Democratic fold by the convention. They've assumed all along that they are the core of the Democratic Party; he can at least make it easy for them to continue to feel that they still belong.

If Clinton could be seen as a vital asset for the Democratic party in its fight against McCain and the Republicans, then an argument could even be made that the debt her campaign is in (with the Clintons themselves and advisers like Mark Penn as the creditors) could be assumed in part or whole by the eventual presidential campaign — essentially paying her campaign off for the good she could do between now and November, like one would for any consultant or (high-dollar) campaign official. But if she puts her interests above the party's — and equating those interests is the same thing; it's called hubris — then she makes the best argument herself for why superdelegates shouldn't support her, why Democratic primary voters shouldn't support her, and why her debt should be her own going forward.

Labels: politics

---

What the "mini-blog" means

If you've seen the right-hand column of my Web site, you've noticed the far-more-frequent updates via Twitter.

These come from my Twitter feed, which I can publish to with far less effort than I can full posts to my blog. Most of the time you'll just see the kind of top-of-mind updates I add there (e.g., the Jamba Juice menu layout). But occasionally you'll also see an entry that begins with the "@" symbol (e.g., "@timwasher"). These are "personal" messages to an individual, but obviously made public via Twitter.

To see my own Twitter feed, you only need to go to my Twitter page. To see the feed of anyone I'm messaging, just replace Twitter name in the URL (e.g., www.twitter.com/derekbaker) with the name of the Twitteree following the "@" symbol.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog tracking...

---