next »

[brunhilde]

I'm glad to see that other folks are contemplating these issues, but here's my questions again: 

WHY won't the people in those red/purple states vote for a black person? 

Do you agree with the NPR guest that those people who wouldn't vote for a black person wouldn't do so because they are afraid to lose their white privilege, or is it more overt racism that keeps them from voting for a black person?

I think that someone who would not vote for a candidate because the candidate was Black or female would never talk about White privilege and probably doesn't know the term exists.

One disadvantage of affirmative action and I think where a lot of the backlash against it comes from is the perception that a lot of unqualified women and minorities are getting ahead over White men. When a minority is chosen over a White person, many White people will see that minority person as less qualified and "only got the job because of his or her color." They will not see the person as equally or even better qualified. So the presence of affirmative action allows White people (many of whom are not overtly racist) to doubt the qualifications of highly qualified Black people.

If a Black person were to be nominated, I think in the back of a lot of people's head will be, "did that person get there because of affirmative action or is he or she really qualified?" I would not call this overt racism. Nor would I call it being afraid to lose White privilege.

I'm not sure I expressed this well. Flame away and then I'll try to clarify.

[federal_farmer]

A black must win a party primary first, none have come close and probably won't for some time, if ever.

[larryc]

WHY won't the people in those red/purple states vote for a black person?  Do you agree with the NPR guest that those people who wouldn't vote for a black person wouldn't do so because they are afraid to lose their white privilege, or is it more overt racism that keeps them from voting for a black person?

People have not voted for black presidential candidates because there have not been any serious ones.  The closest was Jesse Jackson, who ran a pretty liberal platform during a major rightward shift of the electorate and did not get many votes as a result. Then there was crazy Alan Keyes, with his passionate calls for a Christian theocracy! Marginal candidates picking up votes around the fringes.

Nor is fear of losing "white privilege" a factor, since not one white person in a hundred accepts that there is such a thing--they all believe they are where they are through individual merit, good (or bad) luck, or whatever.

If When Obama runs we will get our first ever test of how willing white Americans are to vote for a mainstream black presidential candidate. I think the answer will be very willing indeed.

[prytania3]

I'm glad to see that other folks are contemplating these issues, but here's my questions again: 

WHY won't the people in those red/purple states vote for a black person? 

Do you agree with the NPR guest that those people who wouldn't vote for a black person wouldn't do so because they are afraid to lose their white privilege, or is it more overt racism that keeps them from voting for a black person?

I think they would if the black person were Republican.

[dolljepopp]

Despite an overtly racist and widely publicized ad against him, Harold Ford, Jr. did better in some very white precincts in the Tennessee Senate race than the polls had indicated he would (or so I read in one of the national news mags recently -- Newsweek, I think.) Minnesota's Fifth District just overwhelmingly elected a black Muslim to Congress. Sure, it is a deep blue district -- the Dems could probably run a serial killer and win there -- but to get to be the candidate, he had to beat out a couple white old guard traditional Minnesota yuppie liberals in the primary, both of whom had better party support.

I think -- I hope -- the US, despite still being racist in many ways, is ripe to elect a President who articulates a vision that speaks to the fear and disgust that is rampant at the moment.  The candidate who can do that, I think, will have a very good chance of winning, regardless of race, gender, or party.

So, yeah, I think Obama has a real chance, although it is really early.  At the moment, as he enjoys his rock-star status, I think he has the best chance of any of the Dems, but I don't think it will last.

At the risk of hijacking, NPR is also asking questions about whether we are "ready" for a woman president. I would never underestimate Hilary Clinton -- she carried very red counties in upstate New York in 2000 and carried them by landslides this year.  She is tenacious and smart and apparently is very good at winning over people who still have some willingness to believe that just maybe she is not an evil sucubus from the depths of hell.

Nevertheless, I think she would have a big problem winning, partially, yes, because she is a woman and it is still a sexist country, but mostly because she is Hilary and a lot of people hate her.

At the moment, I'd say McCain/Guiliani vs. Clinton/Obama looks like the most likely match-up, but, again, it's way too early.  The Republicans have to decide if they are going to let the Christian conservatives chooose their candidate.  If they do, Guiliani (pro-choice, pro-gay rights) and Romney (Mormon) are out, and McCain will have problems. (For some reason, despite, what, twenty years of an incontrivertably conservative record, including on social issues, the Christian conservatives in the Republican party think he is a moderate.)  The only likely candidate at the moment who is conservative enough in their eyes is Sam Brownback, who I think would lose to any likely Democratic candidate in the general election.

I doubt Jeb Bush will run -- the odds of a Bush winning in 2008 seem too unlikely.  And George P. (his son) is till too young to run -- I don't think he's quite thirty yet.

The Republican to watch is Chuck Hagle.  He has been critical enough of the war that a lot of independents might go for him and he's pretty conservative and very media-savvy.   If he decides to go for it, he could be the anti-McCain and he would be a formidable candidate in the general.

Condi Rice has repeatedly said she won't run and she isn't that popular among the most conservative wing of the party.  And she's known to be pro-choice. And, as someone said, she is way too close to GWB.

If Colin Powell wanted the job, he would have run in 2000 and probably won.

Outside of Clinton and Obama, I suspect Richardson will run and he could very well win.  Historically, governors seem to be a popular choice and he has Cabinet experience.  The fact that he is Latino wouldn't hurt -- the whites who would vote against him because of it aren't likely to vote for a Democrat anyway. He was vaguely linked to a nuclear secrets scandal way back when, I think, but it was a long time ago -- like McCain and the S & L stuff, it probably won't hurt him.  White guy Biden will be a strong candidate if he runs, as will white guy Edwards, who apparently is. 

Warner has dropped out, Pry -- I was a little disappointed.  I didn't know much about him, but I was intrigued.

Gore? Who knows? Right now he is so busy campaigning for an Oscar it's hard to tell if he still has WHite House aspirations.  I'd never underestimate him, either, but I have trouble imagining him running against Hilary -- if she runs.

As for Michael Steele in the Maryland race (I don't remember who mentioned him), I think his problem was far less that he is black than it was that he is a conservative Republican in a Democratic state and that his campaign largely tried to hide the fact that he is a Republican.  His ads never mentioned his party and there were even "Steele - democrat" bumper stickers.  All those pictures of him pal-ing around with GWB probably didn't help him in Maryland either.

Even so, he did better than a conservative Republican might have been expected to do in such a blue state. I've heard that a lot of Republicans want him to run for the National Committee Chair job.

I could see him being the first black Republican president, easily -- in 2012, 2016, maybe.

Anyway, yes, I think the US is still racist (and sexist), but I think we have progressed enough that a black or woman (or black and woman) candidate could overcome those prejudices -- mostly because the nation seems to be hungry for change. If the discontent continues, the '08 race could break a lot of assumptions about who we will vote for.

Sorry for the length -- I love playing armchair pundit...

PS - I didn't mention Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, or Tom Vilsack because I don't really believe any of them have a realistic chance. Same with George Pataki, for that matter.

[dolljepopp]

And CBL, while I do think that many whites, perhaps even a majority, do fear giving up white privilege, even if they don't really know they have it, I also think we are diverse enough that an energized electorate, like I believe we will have in '08, may very well set that on its head.

[crazybatlady]

And CBL, while I do think that many whites, perhaps even a majority, do fear giving up white privilege, even if they don't really know they have it, I also think we are diverse enough that an energized electorate, like I believe we will have in '08, may very well set that on its head.

We here in the bat household hope so.

Thanks for the replies, folks.  It sounds like my initial reaction to the NPR story--that it was based on a faulty assumption or three--is a reasonable reaction.

cbl

[trentsands]

I'm glad to see that other folks are contemplating these issues, but here's my questions again: 

WHY won't the people in those red/purple states vote for a black person? 

Do you agree with the NPR guest that those people who wouldn't vote for a black person wouldn't do so because they are afraid to lose their white privilege, or is it more overt racism that keeps them from voting for a black person?

I listened to some of the discussion on NPR, and the impression I got out of it is that the "loss of white privilege" would manifest in caucasians questioning whether the black candidate will deal with issues relevant to them, i.e. will this candidate focus on Affirmative Action and claims of discrimation or with taxes, the condition of the middle class, and social values (as if race issues don't deal with social values).

[nerdasaurus]

I agree with menotti and starting search--I am in my early 30s and expect to see a black male president before a woman of any race. It's true, I think, that sexism floats on the surface of society more than racism does. I remember what people said about Jane Swift, a former governor of Massachusetts. "How can you POSSIBLY be a mother of baby twins and run the state?" Women will be torn between mothering, not-mothering, being tough, not tough enough, being a "b----," and so on and so on.
With regard to Hillary, I have always admired her intelligence and grit. Still...if she was president, that would mean that for twenty full years, we would have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. It's time for something different.

[larryc]

I agree with menotti and starting search--I am in my early 30s and expect to see a black male president before a woman of any race. It's true, I think, that sexism floats on the surface of society more than racism does.

I was about to agree, when I remembered that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and her initial public ratings are pretty good. I think a woman or a black  could win right now, if it were the right person.

So how long before we have an openly gay president? (To go  with the closeted ones we've had already!)

[crazybatlady]

So how long before we have an openly gay president? (To go  with the closeted ones we've had already!)

After a black person, a woman, a Mormon, a one-handed flying purple martian eater....

I.e. it will be a long time before a country led by some who are so overtly opposed to homosexuality will elect a homosexual.

Even if that homosexual is black and a woman.

cbl, sad

[acrimone]

I think y'all are confusing two very distinct issues.

Does the country have a problem electing someone who is Black?  No, I don't think it does.  What the country has a problem with is Black-Partisanship.  The reason that people like Ford, Obama, Rice, and Powell get tossed around in conversations like this are that they are people who happen to be Black, not Black People.  Their Blackness is not the core of the their public persona, and when they talk, they don't generally start out sounding like Malcolm X.

Three of the four of them happen to be very, very conservative, too.  And Obama's not exactly a bleeding heart.

And the reason for that is that if you're on the left (not the Democratic party, necessarily, but on the left) and you happen to be Black, you get absolutely ostracized, criticized, analyzed, moiderized, and and whole host of other things if you don't make yourself into the second coming of Al Sharpton.   It's impossible to be a minority leader on the left and not sit your ass down in the nice little racialized pigeonhole that the left has made for you.

It's not like I've done polls or anything, but my sense of things is that the Red States don't have as big a problem electing someone Black as the Blue States do.  What they have a problem with is electing someone who is a socialist, who wants to make everything about race, or who wants to erase the border between public and private life.  I actually think that the Democrats are more racist in this regard -- when Democrats reject a black candidate it's usually explicitly because of their race, i.e., the candidate gets treated differently than they would if they were white.  All because the Democrats insist that their minorities behave and stay in the roles assigned to them.

[larryc]

Backing up Acrimone is this column by Stanley Crouch "What Obama isn't: black like me" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html

[dark_globe]

We academics are a liberal lot and are very willing to accept a black or woman candidate.

But, if the democratic party puts up a woman or black candidate, it will lose and lose miserably.

Or some redneck from Louisiana will kill him/her:

http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/01/02/louisiana-towns-first-black-mayor-elect-slain

[smart_e_pantz]

We academics are a liberal lot and are very willing to accept a black or woman candidate.

But, if the democratic party puts up a woman or black candidate, it will lose and lose miserably.

Or some redneck from Louisiana will kill him/her:

http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/01/02/louisiana-towns-first-black-mayor-elect-slain

Dark Globe:

I am originally from Louisiana and I just spent two and a half weeks in a town near where that incident occurred.  I am not entirely convinced this was some redneck murder.  The whole thing seems fishy.  I am not ready to declare that the mayor-elect wasn't into something illegal.

That said.  This country is not ready for a black president (or a woman president for that matter).  People who study issues of race--and the intersection between race and politics--can well document the dynamics of an election where one of the candidates is black.  To summarize that research, whites--who are affraid of seeming racist--will overstate their support for black candidates.  When the final election numbers come in, the polls numbers bare absolutly no resemblance to the actual election numbers.  For a look at how this phenomena plays out when black candidates run for at-large offices, political scholars often point to the elections of Douglas Wilder (Virginia Governor) and Tom Bradley (Los Angeles Mayor).

Of course with the iregularities in the last two presidential elections, it seems this particular issue will become even more complicated.