Did Obama win the Dem Primary cause of his race?

[Nicodeme Depape]

Yes.

Obama got nearly 90% of the Black vote in the primary in many states.
Woman gave BOTH Obama and Hillary majorities in different states.

If the Black vote is put to a more realistic level, assuming Obama is still very appealing to blacks and thus still gets a majority, Hillary would have won, given the razor thing margin.

Not to mention that Black votes have more power in the Dem primary, cause Blacks live in the big Democratic cities, where delegates are heavily allocated. This is shown in all the states where Hillary won the popular vote, but Obama got more or an even amount of delegates.

Its a contraversial subject for sure, but one that deserves review.

[Franzl]

not necessarily, no.

But the only reason he was in the primary was because of race.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're not taking into account the votes he lost because of his race. Look at Kentucky and West Virginia.

[ucscgaldamez]

Against the Iraq War a factor.

[Lief 🗽]

It was one of many factors that helped and hurt him, just like Clinton's lack of a Y chromosome was one of many factors that both helped and hurt her. To say that one specific factor was the only cause for one specific event is nearly impossible to do.

[Beet]

Yes, race was a decisive factor. This is not opinion; it is fact. Remove the votes of African- Americans and Clinton wins an overwhelming victory. The notion that this was somehow counterbalanced by massive racism among white Democrats in West Virginia and Kentucky fails because during the General election, these same white Democrats overwhelmingly turned out for Obama in approximately the same numbers as for John Kerry. And by the time those states voted in the primary anyway, Obama's lead was too much to overcome.

The demographics of the southeastern and African- American Democratic primary electorate, once the factor of race is removed, is heavily similar to the demographics won by Hillary Clinton: less education, lower income, "bread and butter" type Democrats. Obama's skin pigmentation allowed him to steal away a narrowly but firmly decisive chunk of primary voters that would otherwise have preferred Clinton.

The first evidence of this was the Michigan primary, where 79% of African- Americans voted uncommitted to keep Clinton at only 55% of the vote. But the decisive moment was South Carolina, without which Obama's viability would have been destroyed even before February 5.

Obama's race also played a key role in supporting his lead in the second half of the race; he was blown out by roughly 2-1 margins among white voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and North Carolina. It is also worth nothing that the Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson totals from the 1984 Democratic primary exceed those of Walter Mondale.

As Bill McKay has pointed out, there is never "a" decisive factor and the race factor shares its place with other factors, including Obama's charisma, the message of his campaign, etc. However, it is one of the least talked about factors. Especially among those anti- war, left wing blog- activist type Democrats who feel vindicated by the primary result as a rejection of "the DLC" or a rejection of "the Clintons", they ought to remember that the margin of decision for their candidate would not have occured without (black) voters who have no beef with the Clintons or the DLC, and simply preferred a fellow black. To think otherwise is to allow the maintenance of delusion. Had this election been a referendum on Clinton, Iraq position and all, she would have won in a landslide.

[Eraserhead]

You're not taking into account the votes he lost because of his race. Look at Kentucky and West Virginia.

^^^^

...not to mention Ohio. Race was simply one of many factors.

The fact is that the jig would have been up if he hadn't had won Iowa, and one of the main reasons he won Iowa was due to his opposition to the Iraq War. His race sure as hell wasn't much of a benefit there.

[Sensei]

Yes. He ran a great race.

[Aizen]

It was one of many factors that helped and hurt him, just like Clinton's lack of a Y chromosome was one of many factors that both helped and hurt her. To say that one specific factor was the only cause for one specific event is nearly impossible to do.

Yup.


If Hillary didn't want to get the stuffing beat out of her by Obama then she should have won Iowa where there are no blacks.

[humder]

 It helped him but that is too simplistic. Otherwise, any black person could have won if it was only to do with race.

[RosettaStoned]

Of course. If Obama was white, he would not be where he is right now.

[pragmatic liberal]

If Obama were white, he wouldn't be Obama, would he?

Obama's race probably helped him in several respects -- excitement, unified support among blacks, lots of press attention -- but it also hurt him in other areas.

Overall, every candidate -- and every person -- is the sum of their attributes. It's ridiculous to say that "if Obama were white, he wouldn't have won," because if he weren't white, he wouldn't be Barack Obama. Just as, if Hillary Clinton were a man, she wouldn't have been Hillary Clinton. You can't disentangle these characteristics from the candidates.

[Gustaf]

It's strange to believe that a person is heavily defined by the colour of their skin. I must disagree with that notion.

Anyway, yeah, obviously. You could probably say the same for other characteristics as well, but it is most clearly true of black voters. If Obama had not been black Clinton would probably have won the black vote. And Obama would have done better, but still lost, the white racist vote in places like WV or KY. The basic point is that he would have been smashed in SC and that would have altered the race a lot.

[Verily]

And Obama would have done better, but still lost, the white racist vote in places like WV or KY. The basic point is that he would have been smashed in SC and that would have altered the race a lot.

Why these? The rural white Southern and Appalachian voters had no particular loyalty to Clinton until after she rebranded herself--which was, of course, a mid-campaign shift in response to Obama's race. In fact, these were the sorts of voters among which Clinton was likely to run into some of her biggest problems, as her previous reputation was as "the biggest liberal around".

Would Obama have won South Carolina in a landslide? Of course not. But would Clinton have won South Carolina in a landslide? Possibly, but probably not. Edwards would have done much better among rural white voters with Clinton focusing her attention on blacks. Well enough, in fact, that white!Obama may have decided to basically skip the state and focus on areas with greater white liberal anti-Iraq voting blocs in the primary. Who would win in the battle of the white and black voters in South Carolina is hard to say. While Obama won in our timeline, that was because blacks supported him at 90%; they would be unlikely to support Clinton at any more than 65% or so. More importantly, however, the race in South Carolina is irrelevant.

New Hampshire is the most obvious example of where Obama would do better early on. It seems unlikely in retrospect that Clinton would have won New Hampshire without at least some of the observed Irish Catholic racism (incidentally, the only manifested "Bradley Effect" in the whole campaign--MA, RI and NH in the primaries). Certainly these voters owed some loyalty to Clinton anyway, but not to the extent at which they supported her. Moreover, white!Obama spends more effort courting these votes since he's not campaigning in South Carolina. White!Obama wins New Hampshire, and suddenly the race is over.

Unrealistic? Surely not. Not what would have happened? Certainly it's not the only logical extrapolation of the primary campaign with white!Obama. But, while we can't know for certain, I think this is the most probable scenario.

[Gustaf]

Rural Appalachian voters don't tend to vote for very liberal intellectual Northerners. But if you want to believe that they would have loved Obama go ahead. To suggest that Southern white Democrats had no particular loyalty to the Clinton name seems odd to me. I think Clinton loses only a relatively small fraction of white voters and gain over-whelmingly among black voters if Obama is white.

The time-line reasoning is complex and more difficult to ascertain. I think that the Democratic campaign showed that momentum was largely over-rated so I'm not sure it would have been that important.

[Verily]

Rural Appalachian voters don't tend to vote for very liberal intellectual Northerners. But if you want to believe that they would have loved Obama go ahead.

I didn't say they would; I said they'd support Edwards, who of course has much better ties to both. But my main point was that they would be irrelevant; the race would be over before South Carolina got to vote, let alone West Virginia or Kentucky.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing the racial dimension here. Southern white voters and black voters will not support the same candidate. Ever. If Clinton is the choice of Southern blacks, she is automatically disqualified in the minds of many Southern whites, to the benefit of John Edwards primarily but also probably to white!Obama somewhat. (The pattern is weaker in Appalachia, of course, but Appalachia voted very, very late this year.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; momentum was essential. Obama sputtered when he lost momentum, when the race underwent a long hiatus. Prior to that, the race was entirely about momentum (afterwards, it had become clear that the race was close enough and had gone on long enough that no one could end it definitively).

Obama wins IA and NH, and Nevada is a very, very, very difficult win for Clinton, who doesn't really gain much ground in the state from Obama not having black voters on his side. Remember, Obama barely lost Nevada despite having been devastatingly defeated in New Hampshire a few days previously; he almost certainly would have won in this timeline.

And three victories means the primaries are over. No candidate has ever won the first two primaries and then failed to win the nomination, let alone the first three primaries. Admittedly, this is an appeal to tradition, but Clinton would be absolutely crushed in the polls at this point.

[Mr. Morden]

You're missing the racial dimension here. Southern white voters and black voters will not support the same candidate. Ever. If Clinton is the choice of Southern blacks, she is automatically disqualified in the minds of many Southern whites, to the benefit of John Edwards primarily but also probably to white!Obama somewhat. (The pattern is weaker in Appalachia, of course, but Appalachia voted very, very late this year.)

What about 1992?  Clinton swept the South in the primaries.  Did Brown or Tsongas do particularly well with either whites or blacks?  Or did Clinton pretty much win everybody?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minor sidenote here: It was actually 11 days between NH and NV.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1972, Muskie won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and went on to lose the nomination.  Of course, McGovern came in a strong second place in both, and media coverage of these things was a lot different back then.....I don't think people really paid that much attention to Iowa yet at that point.  (At least, based on what I've read.  I wasn't born yet in 1972, so that's all I have to go on.  )

[Verily]

You're missing the racial dimension here. Southern white voters and black voters will not support the same candidate. Ever. If Clinton is the choice of Southern blacks, she is automatically disqualified in the minds of many Southern whites, to the benefit of John Edwards primarily but also probably to white!Obama somewhat. (The pattern is weaker in Appalachia, of course, but Appalachia voted very, very late this year.)

What about 1992?  Clinton swept the South in the primaries.  Did Brown or Tsongas do particularly well with either whites or blacks?  Or did Clinton pretty much win everybody?

Neither Brown nor Tsongas contested any Southern states except Florida (where Tsongas campaigned). Both were running out of funds by Super Tuesday and, in retrospect, had no shot even beforehand. (No idea on the voting patterns, btw, although Brown would later announce that he would consider Jesse Jackson as a running mate, so maybe he was trying black outreach at this point.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minor sidenote here: It was actually 11 days between NH and NV.[/quote]

"A few" was just shorthand for "I know it was the third primary, but I don't remember how long after NH it was and it doesn't really matter."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1972, Muskie won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and went on to lose the nomination.  Of course, McGovern came in a strong second place in both, and media coverage of these things was a lot different back then.....I don't think people really paid that much attention to Iowa yet at that point.  (At least, based on what I've read.  I wasn't born yet in 1972, so that's all I have to go on.  )[/quote]

Possibly; I don't know much about 1972, either. But, like you said, Iowa was not such a big deal, and McGovern probably didn't contest NH too hard because of Muskie's regional advantage.

[Mr. Morden]

You're missing the racial dimension here. Southern white voters and black voters will not support the same candidate. Ever. If Clinton is the choice of Southern blacks, she is automatically disqualified in the minds of many Southern whites, to the benefit of John Edwards primarily but also probably to white!Obama somewhat. (The pattern is weaker in Appalachia, of course, but Appalachia voted very, very late this year.)

What about 1992?  Clinton swept the South in the primaries.  Did Brown or Tsongas do particularly well with either whites or blacks?  Or did Clinton pretty much win everybody?

Neither Brown nor Tsongas contested any Southern states except Florida (where Tsongas campaigned). Both were running out of funds by Super Tuesday and, in retrospect, had no shot even beforehand. (No idea on the voting patterns, btw, although Brown would later announce that he would consider Jesse Jackson as a running mate, so maybe he was trying black outreach at this point.)

So we're not counting 1992, because it wasn't competitive enough?  I assume we're not counting 2000 or 2004 either because they weren't competitive enough.  So are there *any* other Democratic primaries in the modern era that were competitive, on which you can conclude that the white and black Democrats will automatically vote for opposing candidates?

1988, sure.  But again, that has the complication of one of the candidates being black himself.  1984?  Same issue.  Jackson wasn't nearly as competitive as in '88, but presumably still got most of the black vote in the South.  1980?  Carter beat Kennedy in every state in the South.  Is that disqualified for the same reason as 1992 (the race wasn't sufficiently competitive in the South to measure this effect)?  Do you have to go back to 1976 for an example of Southern whites and blacks voting differently in a Democratic primary, in which none of the candidates was black himself?

[Verily]

You're missing the racial dimension here. Southern white voters and black voters will not support the same candidate. Ever. If Clinton is the choice of Southern blacks, she is automatically disqualified in the minds of many Southern whites, to the benefit of John Edwards primarily but also probably to white!Obama somewhat. (The pattern is weaker in Appalachia, of course, but Appalachia voted very, very late this year.)

What about 1992?  Clinton swept the South in the primaries.  Did Brown or Tsongas do particularly well with either whites or blacks?  Or did Clinton pretty much win everybody?

Neither Brown nor Tsongas contested any Southern states except Florida (where Tsongas campaigned). Both were running out of funds by Super Tuesday and, in retrospect, had no shot even beforehand. (No idea on the voting patterns, btw, although Brown would later announce that he would consider Jesse Jackson as a running mate, so maybe he was trying black outreach at this point.)

So we're not counting 1992, because it wasn't competitive enough?  I assume we're not counting 2000 or 2004 either because they weren't competitive enough.  So are there *any* other Democratic primaries in the modern era that were competitive, on which you can conclude that the white and black Democrats will automatically vote for opposing candidates?

1988, sure.  But again, that has the complication of one of the candidates being black himself.  1984?  Same issue.  Jackson wasn't nearly as competitive as in '88, but presumably still got most of the black vote in the South.  1980?  Carter beat Kennedy in every state in the South.  Is that disqualified for the same reason as 1992 (the race wasn't sufficiently competitive in the South to measure this effect)?  Do you have to go back to 1976 for an example of Southern whites and blacks voting differently in a Democratic primary, in which none of the candidates was black himself?

It's true on the state level, and it was true to some extent in 2004 as well (blacks for Kerry [and Sharpton], whites for Edwards, although whites in Charleston voted for Kerry). I suppose I shouldn't have stated it in such strong terms; I back off from that. But it's really hard to deny that Edwards had much stronger appeal to such people, both in rhetoric early in the campaign and in background, than Clinton. I'm not so concerned about Obama; all that matters is that Clinton doesn't run away with those states when Obama doesn't contest them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Edwards actually won both the black and white vote in SC in 2004, though he won whites easily with a majority, and won only a narrow plurality of blacks over Kerry.

[Gustaf]

So, since Bill Clinton was "the first Black president" it follows clearly that he was deeply unpopular with Southern whites? I'm sorry, I don't buy your theory. I understand that if someone goes out and screams "I'm for civil rights, I love black people, I'm the black candidate" they may have trouble winning the white vote. But most succesful Democrats in the South in the last 20 years have won PRECISELY because they have managed to build bi-racial coalitions. I read a study on that.

Besides, you're making assumptions about New Hampshire that you have no basis for.

And let's do the math on Nevada. I believe Blacks made up 15% of the vote there. Obama won 83-14, so his margin there was 69%. Let's switch it to a Clinton win 60-37. That brings the overall margin to Clinton by 14%, moving her total margin from 6% to 20%. And this isn't even a state with that high a black population.

Let's do South Carolina, John Edwards second home state where he had won 4 years earlier and where put in all his chips towards the end and where he won the white vote (so, yeah, I'm going to not assume that all the whites would have flocked to him more than they already did so as to avoid voting together with blacks).
Obama won the black vote there 78-19. Let's switch that to 60-37 for Clinton as well. That produces a swing of 45% in the overall margin towards Clinton, giving her a 15% victory margin.

I could go on like this, but I think my point should be pretty clear by now. Clinton would have enjoyed an enormous structural advantage and she would have Super Tuesday decisively. Think about it this way. Clinton won the white vote in the vast majority of states. Nearly all, and in all the big ones. She won the Hispanic vote over-whelmingly, as well as the Asian vote. Obama countered this with his enormous wins among black voters. Remove that and the grounds for his candidacy is largely gone.

Now, keep in mind that Obama won South Carolina in a landslide after having lost in stunning upset defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada. Clinton won in Ohio and Texas after an 11-streak of losses. So I remain sceptical of the whole momentum argument. Similiarly, Huckabee won Iowa and got nowhere. If we want to argue from tradition there seems to be a resistance in New Hampshire to vote for the Iowa winner...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obama would've still won all the Super Tuesday caucuses, would've likely won New Mexico, had a better chance of winning California (He wouldn't do as badly among Hispanics if he was white.) and might still win some southern states like Georgia (where he also greatly benefited from whites voting against Hillary in addition to blacks.)