Clinton v Obama: Mississippi Divided (Redux)
I’ve written what has proved to be a bizarrely popular post about the divided nature of the Mississippi primary - which, as I noted, resulted in a very small division of delegates in Obama’s favor. I thought we should revisit it, given that there are now additional numbers.
The NYT today, perhaps picking up on the sudden injection of race into the debate via Ferraro’s comments, broke down those numbers along racial lines:
The Tuesday primary in Mississippi, a state where the electorate has historically been racially polarized, generated one of the most divided votes. Mrs. Clinton received 8 percent of the black vote, and Mr. Obama received 26 percent of the white vote, according to exit polls by Edison/Mitofsky for The Associated Press and television networks.
The article ends with a further racial breakdown of - well, I don’t think we can say key states (Delaware?) - so, let’s just say ones that the AP had numbers for:
Race has been a defining feature of the primary contests. Beyond Mississippi, Mrs. Clinton was backed by 5 percent of black voters in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state; 8 percent in Wisconsin, where black voters made up 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote; 9 percent in Delaware; 10 percent in Virginia; and 11 percent in Georgia, all states Mr. Obama won.
Mr. Obama’s 26 percent support among whites in Tuesday’s primary was one of his worst performances with this group.
He had previously been supported by 16 percent of white voters in Arkansas; 23 percent in Florida, where the candidates did not actively campaign; 24 percent in South Carolina, where John Edwards was still competing; and 25 percent in Alabama.
In the middle, we find this nugget:
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said Wednesday that they were concerned about her standing among blacks, once a core constituency for her and her husband, but that they also believed that black support for Mr. Obama was a foregone conclusion at this point.
They said they were wrestling with ways to make inroads with blacks in Pennsylvania, which holds the next primary, on April 22.
Does this seem odd? Clearly the AP/NYT have had these numbers for a while, but haven’t brought them to the forefront until now - at least I haven’t seen them gracing the front page of the NYT (I’m sure you can do a google search and find them).
It seems as though the sharp division in Mississippi, coupled with Ferraro’s comments, have allowed the media to ’suddenly’ address this issue. But, as you’ll notice, the larger issue of race is still pretty well tied to the ‘numbers’ and not a deeper discussion, which I think argues somewhat the point I was making yesterday.
Does anyone think this whole debate over which Democrat is getting the black and white Democratic votes is a bit strange? It’s not being addressed in the context of the general at all, which seems to be the more important issue. Will either/both of these candidates be able to hold on to the Democratic base? I think the answer is clearly yes.
This sudden race thing seems more like the press has finally been released on something they’ve been chewing the bit on for some time…
I think we’re going to be seeing more of it now. And that is not a good thing. We need to see less gender in this race, and we certainly don’t need discussion about Obama race. How about some issues, campaigns and media?
Sphere: Related Content