A question for Senator Clinton

In an interview yesterday, Hillary Clinton told USA Today that she's more electable than Barack Obama because she does better among white people:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Now, look, I'm not going to get all frothing-at-the-mouth outraged over the mere fact that Senator Clinton is reciting basic demographic and statistical facts. However, I do have a question.

Hillary points out that she has been consistently beating Obama among whites, which is certainly true. However, it is equally true that Obama has been consistently beating her -- by much wider margins -- among blacks. How this adds up to Clinton having a "broader base," I'm not sure, unless she's counting blacks as three-fifths of a person or something. (Sorry... that was a low blow.) The reality is, Obama is getting more votes than her, so on its face, his "base" would seem to be "broader."

In any event, because Clinton seems to think that general-election preferences can be extrapolated from primary results, her poor performance among blacks is -- by her own logic -- a major problem for her. At present, her "winning coalition" includes only 10 to 20 percent of the black vote. She is fond of saying that no Democrat can win the presidency without winning the various "battleground states" whose primaries she's won; well, no Democrat can win the presidency with only 10 percent of the black vote, either.

The clear implication of Clinton's argument is that, because whites are voting for Clinton rather than for Obama in the primaries, it therefore follows that many of them will not vote for Obama in November. Okay, so can we likewise presume that, because blacks are voting for Obama rather than Clinton in the primaries, it similarly follows that many of them will not for Clinton in November? And if not, why not? Is Hillary simply taking the black vote for granted? I think she is, and I think she needs to be asked: why is it acceptable to take the black vote for granted, while the white vote must be earned? Do tell, Senator Clinton.

In reality, of course, the vast majority of Clinton primary voters -- of whatever race, ethnicity, gender, etc. -- will back Obama in November, and the converse would be true if she were the nominee. But if Hillary's going to use this bogus line of reasoning that conflates primary results with general-election trends, then she needs to be asked flat-out why she thinks she can win the presidency with only 10% of the black vote... and when she stumbles and fumbles her way to an answer, she needs to be asked the follow-up question, "Ah, so you're taking the black vote for granted, then?"

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

Hillary is doing better with those whites who will vote for John McCain in November regardless of who is the Democratic nominee. The reason she is doing better with blue collar whites now is that in the early primaries those blue collar whites were voting in the Republican contests.

[Michael]

Taking the black vote for granted is a winning strategy for a potential Democratic nominee. There's a long history to suggest that blacks will not cross over to the Republicans in large numbers.

[Brendan]

That may be true, but Hillary should still be asked the question, and forced to articulate that point.

It's one thing to privately take the black vote for granted in one's electoral calculations. It's another thing to publicly make an "electability" argument that fundamentally depends on taking the black vote for granted. She needs to be called out on the necessary implications of her argument. That's my point.

[aeromusek]

I don't think I really expected to hear Clinton actually SAY her core of support is anchored by the uneducated sector of society.
Which brings up an interesting point: does this nation truly want a president whose stated obligations are primarily to fulfill the demands of pissed-off masses? There's a good reason why Clinton's support comes from old people and those who don't know better; her rhetoric is mostly calculated to please the demographics who believe they are entitled to help from everyone else instead of the other way around. This ties in nicely with the idea of our 'liberal academia' because I think the majority of people who receive some sort of higher-education realize that running a country under the theory of 'I am owed' doesn't really work.
Sadly, I don't think Clinton actually believes this rubbish herself - she's far too intelligent. She says it simply because she needs grunts to drive up her vote percentage, and it's far easier to brain-wash large groups with axes to grind by repeating the empty fluff they want to hear than it is to convince, with real substance, people who actually know something about the outside world. That she even deigns to attempt this method makes her a dangerous politician who should be kept absolutely as far away from real power as possible. Obama is hardly immune to this either (probably no modern politician is - the highly-educated are simply too out-numbered to be a really powerful voting bloc) but I do think he actually TRIES to dry out the mud instead of wallowing in it.

Yes, this probably sounds 'elitist'. So, if my name ever comes up for public office, you heard it here first!

[Brendan]

Amen. Well said.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

What has bothered me during these elections is the coverage and questions that african-american voters receive for voting for obama but no one writes articles about poor white people voting in mass for hillary.

not fair imho as they should be forced to answer for that decision the same way i have been questioned and hillary should have to answer why her support is not more broad based.

[Andrew]

What has bothered me during these elections is the coverage and questions that african-american voters receive for voting for obama but no one writes articles about poor white people voting in mass for hillary.

There's a clear difference: Obama is getting 95% of the black vote; HRC is getting 65% of the white vote. 65% raises eyebrows, but Rev. Wright suffices to explain the numbers. 95% is just plain ridiculous.

Hillary points out that she has been consistently beating Obama among whites, which is certainly true. However, it is equally true that Obama has been consistently beating her -- by much wider margins -- among blacks. How this adds up to Clinton having a "broader base," I'm not sure, unless she's counting blacks as three-fifths of a person or something. (Sorry... that was a low blow.) The reality is, Obama is getting more votes than her, so on its face, his "base" would seem to be "broader."

You need to define your terminology better. Obama's support is deep among blacks; HRC's support is broad across many different groups. HRC is making a very valid and applicable point here. Obama's support is strong among black and the youth vote -- two constituencies that Democrats can take for granted. However, Obama is weak with Latinos, working-class whites, Catholics, and older people -- constituencies into which McCain can make strong inroads. Asking her to state the obvious (about taking blacks for granted come the general election) -- because it is unflattering to speak such truths in polite company -- is a rather pathetic line of attack to take.

In reality, of course, the vast majority of Clinton primary voters -- of whatever race, ethnicity, gender, etc. -- will back Obama in November, and the converse would be true if she were the nominee.

This also is not supported by the facts. Clinton has drawn majority support from rural voters, Catholic voters, working-class white voters, pro-labor voters, elderly voters, and Latino voters. Most of these groups McCain can either win outright or win a large enough percentage of to negate the Democrats' built-in advantage with the black vote. Thus, Obama cannot bank on doing as well with these groups as HRC might.

Also, while Obama will win the youth vote, McCain will not do as badly with that constituency as any of the other potential GOP nominees would have.

Finally, Obama's key constituencies -- black voters, latte-liberal voters, and young voters -- were, originally, HRC's key constituencies. HRC has had to completely reinvent her base because of Obama; had Obama not been in the race, she would have dominated among these groups against John Edwards or any other comer. Thus, it stands to reason that HRC would do almost as well as Obama among these groups were she the eventual nominee (ignoring the fact that any such machination to hand her the nomination would likely be so controversial that it would alienate a ton of Democratic voters, and that is the trump card that Obama's people should be playing in this debate).

IOW, HRC is right on the money here -- she is astutely bringing up the electoral realities that make her a better candidate in theory, and her argument might hold sway with the most Machiavellian political strategists in the Democratic Party. In reality, if Obama finishes with more delegates but she gets the nomination, it would throw the party into chaos and virtually kill her chances of beating McCain. As vulnerable as Obama is compared to HRC with many key swing voter categories, he has the better chance to succeed in November because he has a better claim to being the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party.

[gahrie]

I wonder what the headlines would be if Obama was only getting 5% of the White vote?

[Brendan]

Um... "Obama loses nomination"?

You can't win a damn thing if you only get 5% of the white vote. There are more whites than blacks.