The Divide

It seems that African-Americans and whites have, on average, different opinions about Barack Obama, leading The New York Times to report "Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race". Here, I guess, is there evidence:

Note that if we restrict our attention to white people, views are pretty similar -- 31 percent like Obama, 35 percent like McCain. The main difference is that black people are really enthusiastic about Barack Obama. Meanwhile, there's no sense of history or comparison here -- hows does this compare to other elections?

I would say -- Barack Obama has assembled a large army of paid staffers and volunteers, many of whom are black but most of whom are white. He's assembled an unprecedentedly large base of donors -- black and white. A plurality of Americans say they plan to vote for him for president and though Obama's coalition includes the vast majority of black Americans, whites outnumber blacks within it. I can't think of other examples of a comparable number of white people supporting a black candidate. Given the country's history, it's all pretty impressive if you ask me.

Comments

The headline of that article is pretty shameful.

Posted by Ted | July 16, 2008 4:28 PM

What struck me the most in all of this back and forth over the artical; more whites hold a favorable impression of Michelle Obama than they do of Cindy McCain and clearly a majority has no impression on the possible First Ladies.

This isn't something you'd get from the artical and it feeds the myth that Michelle is drag on Obama's chances; a meta narative in the media that the facts contradict but still clearly skews the reporting of the race.

The way this whole thing shook out left a sour taste for me; this is a historic occasion and obviously Obama isn't going to change the racial history of this country. He's not trying to do that; he's trying to get elected and change our policies.

His competance will help open a lot more doors, God willing, in the country. A lot like Thurgood Marshall, simply by doing his job and being excellent, challenged so many views.

Posted by Rhoda | July 16, 2008 4:33 PM

Let me get this straight.

The polls show that white people trust the candidates in equal measure, but that black people don't trust McCain as much as they trust Obama.

And that's being spun by Adam Nagourney as proof that *Obama* hasn't closed the racial gap? Seems like the burden here lies with McCain, right?

Posted by TR | July 16, 2008 4:39 PM

Can't of harsh to have a headline blaming Obama for not "closing the racial divide." Isn't it just a bit beyond his control to make every single voter live in racial harmony?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 16, 2008 4:40 PM

I heard the original title for the article was going to be "Polls Find Obama Failing to Cure Cancer, Male Baldness" but they decided that was a little *too* over the line.

Posted by Otto Man | July 16, 2008 4:47 PM

I have this odd feeling about that chart, almost like there's something MattY isn't discussing. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's almost like he forgot to mention something. Oh well, it's probably nothing since I implicitly trust MattY's judgment on everything.

Posted by TLB | July 16, 2008 5:17 PM

Agreed - an odd headline. Does the Times really expect whites to have the same 87-2 favorable-unfavorable rating of Obama that blacks do???

In any case, the poll had much more interesting results.

78. Would you personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?
Total: Would-90% Would Not-6% DK/NA-4%
White: 91 5 4
Black: 88 6 5

So, whites are less bigoted against blacks than blacks are???

And..

80. Just as your best guess, about what percentage of all Americans are black: less than 10%, between 10 and 20%, between 20 and 30%, between 30 and 50%, or more than 50%?
Total: 1 21 32 32 9 5
White: 1 21 33 33 8 5
Black: 4 24 26 24 17 4

Both groups get this wrong, but WOW are they wrong. 17% of blacks (and 8% of whites) thinks that over 50% of the country is black? Really?

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 5:19 PM

My my, John McCain seems to be a very polarizing and racially divisive figure! His campaign seems to be based purely on identity politics, to look at those numbers.

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 5:19 PM

The poll really shows that white men have a historical tendency towards irresponsibly voting for Republican candidates. Unfortunately it seems we haven't learned our lesson with Bush.

Posted by ligedog | July 16, 2008 5:22 PM

Yeah, the headline is stupid.

His competance will help open a lot more doors, God willing, in the country. A lot like Thurgood Marshall, simply by doing his job and being excellent, challenged so many views.

I agree. Also, conservatives often win by exploiting racial tensions, ie the Southern Strategy (see Jesse Helms and Hillary's Dick Morris TV ad). An Obama Presidency would help to end this.

Posted by Peter K. | July 16, 2008 5:23 PM

It's really gross to see that 40 years after civil rights, the NY Times prints an article that divides the white American electorate into "white voters" and "N***lovers."

I don't know how else to explain the fact the poll clearly shows white voters are evenly split between Obama and McCain, yet the article's message is that white voters don't support Obama. That's just not true.

And Christ, how are any of the findings here news? Black voters think that the Democrat cares about "people like me"? Newsflash: black voters ALWAYS think the guy who isn't the candidate of the Party of the Southern Strategy cares about people like them! It's a really, really low bar!

The bar for white voters' affection is a little higher, being that there's no party campaigning on a platform that includes: "we're still pretty pissed white folks can vote at all! You're not even real Americans!"

This article is just offensively bad. It's news that black people overwhelmingly prefer the Democrat? Uh, dog bites man?

And I'm sorry, but the candidate who has support from white people AND black people AND hispanic people...he's the one who "isn't closing divide on race"? As opposed to the one who can only get support from white people? At a rate that's basically the same as the other guy?

Ugh, ugh, ugh. Nagourney should be shunned.

Posted by anon | July 16, 2008 5:24 PM

Leaked?

Matt's Leaving The Atlantic? Marc Ambinder breaks the Yglesias departure story?

Posted by M | July 16, 2008 5:26 PM

I can't think of other examples of a comparable number of white people supporting a black candidate. Given the country's history, it's all pretty impressive if you ask me.

No, it's unfair to pin Obama on it, but the biggest divide is with blacks vs. everybody else. The suggestion that the hootin' and hollerin' mob of Rev Wrights standing up and rejoicing as he denounced whites and America isn't all that atypical.

Only 5% liked McCain? A patriotic war hero and maverick who has infuriated conservatives?

Blacks vote on the color of skin.
The only time they breach their tribalism is when they think one of their own doesn't have a chance(Obama early on before he got 92-94% margins in every state against white, liberal Hillary) or is an Uncle Tom, race traitor (shorthand for a Republican like Steele).

Which means that other segments of America who are aware of this and tacitly conduct themselves to this reality have leaders that govern knowing blacks either vote overwhelmingly against them, or would if an alternate, credible black emerged to capitalize on the racially polarized black vote. That know that no matter what they do to help blacks or factor their wishes into voting, their ethnicity and skin color will mean no black backing if blacks have one of their own running.

Posted by chris ford | July 16, 2008 5:30 PM

Blacks vote on the color of skin.

But Chris, you routinely judge people based on the color of their skin, so why all the hubbub, bub?

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 5:34 PM

Oh, my bad Chris. It turns out every other Democratic presidential candidate in recent memory who got 88-90% of the black vote was actually black themselves!

Silly me, I thought it was because your party essentially doesn't show any concern towards minorities or the poor.

Such a pity so many self-hating white people come over to the black man this time to make up for their past sins, eh?

You are a sad, sad man, and I pity any family or friends you might have influence over. May your bigotry die with you.

Posted by Adam | July 16, 2008 5:55 PM

Matt's Leaving The Atlantic? Marc Ambinder breaks the Yglesias departure story?

Ugh.

Well, it's not a new year without a new Yglesias URL.

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 6:07 PM

Chris has a point, how else would Sharpton have won the 2004 South Carolina primary if not for blacks voting only for blacks.

Posted by pittanylion | July 16, 2008 6:11 PM

A post regarding race, and Chris Ford shows up. Who wouldda thunk it.

Posted by Shine | July 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Whoa whoa, none of that talk allowed. Remember folks, only whites are racist. Don't forget it. If you say otherwise, then you are a bigot yourself.

Posted by Prairie Dog | July 16, 2008 6:18 PM

In chris's world, Martin O'Malley was never the mayor of Baltimore.

Obama is getting roughly the same share of the white vote Democrats get around this time of year. So that's evidence that white people hate him or something?

It's also surprising how many people just don't seem to not like Cindy McCain. I'm pretty liberal, but I wouldn't say I hate her.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 6:30 PM

I heard the original title for the article was going to be "Polls Find Obama Failing to Cure Cancer, Male Baldness" but they decided that was a little *too* over the line.

My source said it had something to do with electile dysfunction....

Posted by sunsin | July 16, 2008 7:07 PM

In Chris' world, Jerry Brown was never mayor of Oakland. Jim Hahn was never mayor of Los Angeles. Richard Daley does not receive any black votes. I mean, WTF?

Posted by burritoboy | July 16, 2008 7:23 PM

Reality man - In chris's world, Martin O'Malley was never the mayor of Baltimore.

In Chris' world, Jerry Brown was never mayor of Oakland. Jim Hahn was never mayor of Los Angeles. Richard Daley does not receive any black votes. I mean, WTF?
Posted by burritoboy

I can see liberals having a near heart attack denying the obvious fact that black tribalism killed the liberal Hillary in 94% against her voting, and branded Bill Clinton racist.

And Leftys angry at the obvious truth of blacks voting by skin color revealed because they know that if other races are open-minded and give candidates of any race an open-minded hearing that progressives win - because lop-sided votes caused by black racism will tip elections their way.

Posters pointing out that whites can still be elected in certain places with significant black population overlook local Democrat machines "annoint" candidates and can finesse the black mobs with orders to local patronage appointees, money-sucking black preachers, unions to have their charges "vote the right way". Just to ensure it, they may put in a few marginal blacks to split up the votes of rebel blacks that want to stay true and tribal to their race.

Posted by chris ford | July 16, 2008 8:02 PM

Mr. Yglesias - Here, I guess, is THEIR, (not there) evidence!!!!!

Posted by annakarenina | July 16, 2008 8:10 PM

A plurality of Americans say they plan to vote for him for president and though Obama's coalition includes the vast majority of black Americans, whites outnumber blacks within it.

Which is utterly relevant to the issue of the black-white divide. Given that black Americans are only about 12% of the population, even a small minority of whites can obviously "outnumber" blacks. The more relevant statistics are the ones showing the vast disparity in the proportions of whites and blacks with favorable/not favorable opinions of Obama. That's the point the Times is making.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 8:42 PM

The more relevant statistics are the ones showing the vast disparity in the proportions of whites and blacks with favorable/not favorable opinions of Obama. That's the point the Times is making.

I bet not. I can't remember the exact numbers but Bush/Kerry Bush/Gore didn't look much different.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 16, 2008 9:00 PM

Ed Marshall,

Let us know when you have some actual polling data to support your assertion.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:15 PM

In 2004, 88% of African-Americans voters chose Kerry

In 2000, 90% of African-American voters chose Gore

Since less than 50% of white folks went for Gore and Kerry, it would seem that the disparity present in the current polling was just as marked in the previous races. Whatever difference there is between Obama and his Democratic predecessors is mainly a matter of how whites view him, not blacks.

Posted by kth | July 16, 2008 10:14 PM

The polls show that white people trust the candidates in equal measure, but that black people don't trust McCain as much as they trust Obama.

And that's being spun by Adam Nagourney as proof that *Obama* hasn't closed the racial gap? Seems like the burden here lies with McCain, right?

Seems like the burden lies with black people.

Posted by not as fast as chris ford but faster than sailer | July 16, 2008 10:16 PM

kth,

Voting patterns do not map well to the favorability poll, because the former lack the "undecided" category. Nevertheless, the comparison suggests a much greater racial divide in this election than in the previous ones, and black Americans are especially racially polarized. While only 2% of blacks have an unfavorable opinion of Obama, and only 5% have a favorable opinion of McCain, 11% of blacks voted for Bush rather than Kerry, and 9% voted for Bush rather than Gore.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 11:03 PM

Isnt Obama as White as he is Black? Mom was White, Dad was a black African. How does he constitute a black man, simply because he is darker than white?

Posted by Kenneth | July 16, 2008 11:53 PM

Wiki - "In 1984, Jackson garnered 3,282,431 primary votes, or 18.2 percent of the total, (93% of the black vote and 14% of the white vote.) He won five primaries and caucuses, including Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Virginia, and one of two separate contests in Mississippi.[15]"

In 1988, he got over 92% of the black vote and added his share of the white vote, though blaming whites for racism in not voting for him in the numbers the polls indicated they would. (the Bradley Effect - which says whites have many racists that only vote on skin color. Conviction of his brother for 1st-degree murder in a Chicago gang rub-out and Dukakis's win right after that in Wisconsin drove the Reverend out.

Wiki - "He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont)."

The more buffoonish, but, more intelligent than Jesse, Al Sharpton won SC in 2004 and would have wone more but for his early withdrawal and black voters also attracted to the racial lure of Carole Moseley-Braun

Posted by chris ford | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM

I'm sure someone has said this in the 32 posts above this, but I'll run the risk of saying it again: this comparison isn't valid, and is very misleading.

The "base line" would be to compare black support of Barack Obama to black support of previous Democratic candidates, and then do the same with black support of previous GOP candidates. I think you'll find that it's largely the same, which suggests that this isn't just black people blindly voting for Obama. Perhaps they are more energized, but it's not like Obama is stealing this huge electorate from the GOP just because he's black.

I mean, what were they expecting? Obama, as the first viable black candidate and (more importantly) a member of the party that sacrificed itself to pursue the civil rights reforms of the 60s, to convince black voters to vote for John McCain, a person who was actively against making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday?

The largest percentage is seen in the "blacks who have no opinion or don't know enough about McCain to have developed a solid opinion" area.

Posted by socctty | July 17, 2008 2:23 AM

That sentence should say "the largest undecided percentage is seen..."

Posted by socctty | July 17, 2008 2:36 AM

chrisford
My remark about Sharpton winning SC was in jest. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/SC/
Sharpton finished 3rd among all voters....and 3rd among black voters.
There goes that theory.

Posted by pittanylion | July 17, 2008 6:42 AM

I think chris ford got someone tied up in his shoe laces trying to interpret the racial gap.

He notices that the "tribal solidarity" of Blacks emphatically exludes "traitors", that is, Republicans. Hence, party factor clearly overrides race factor for Blacks. When the two strongly held factors are aligned, it is not a surprise that conviction shifts to outright enthusiasm.

By that way, these are pretty nice numbers if the only people voting are those who view their candidates favorably, because, assuming 8 times fewer Blacks than Whites, Obama bets 31+10, while McCain, 35+1.

Posted by piotr | July 17, 2008 7:59 AM

What a surprise: Mixner got pwn3d.

Let us know when you have a peer-reviewed journal edited by five Nobel Laureates explaining how the natural response of the Mixner to being proved wrong is to deny everything, change the subject and soil itself.

Posted by Mixner got pwn3d again | July 17, 2008 3:56 PM

The more buffoonish, but, more intelligent than Jesse, Al Sharpton won SC in 2004 and would have wone more but for his early withdrawal and black voters also attracted to the racial lure of Carole Moseley-Braun

1. As noted above, Sharpton finished third in SC.

2. Sharpton did not officially withdraw from any primaries. He did endorse Kerry on March 15, although that was after Edwards had withdrawn and the nomination was effectively clinched.

3. Perhaps recognizing that her racial lure could cost Sharpton the nomination, Carol Moseley Braun dropped out the week before the Iowa caucuses and didn't get more than 1% anywhere except her home state (4% in a meaningless Illinois primary; she had gotten 12% in DC before she dropped out).

Wikipedia is your friend.

Posted by ibid | July 17, 2008 4:07 PM