The South Will Fall Again
By THOMAS F. SCHALLER
Washington
THE interim between the primaries and the parties’ nominating conventions is, according to ancient writ, a fertile period for presidential campaigns to talk about how they plan to expand the political map in the fall. This year is no different. Barack Obama’s strategists are suggesting that the first African-American presidential nominee of a major political party can parlay increased turnout among black voters into a string of victories in the South.
Given that roughly half of all African-Americans live in the 11 former Confederate states, the idea seems intuitive enough. It’s also wrong. Prying Southern electoral votes away from the Republicans is not so simple.
Two pervasive and persistent myths about racial voting in the modern South are behind the notion that Mr. Obama might win in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi.
The first myth is that African-American turnout in the South is low. Black voters are actually well represented in the Southern electorate: In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows.
And when socioeconomic status is held constant, black voters go to the polls at higher rates than white voters in the South. In other words, a 40-year-old African-American plumber making $60,000 a year is, on average, more likely to vote than a white man of similar background.
The second myth is that Democratic presidential candidates fare better in Southern states that have large numbers of African-Americans. In fact, the reverse is true, because the more blacks there are in a Southern state, the more likely the white voters are to vote Republican.
Mississippi, the state with the nation’s highest percentage of African-Americans in its population, illustrates how difficult Mr. Obama’s task will be in the South. Four years ago, President Bush beat John Kerry there by 20 points. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mr. Obama could increase black turnout in Mississippi to 39 percent of the statewide electorate, up from 34 percent in 2004, according to exit polls. And let’s assume that Mr. Obama will win 95 percent of those voters, up from the 90 percent who voted for Mr. Kerry four years ago.
If that happened, the black vote would yield Mr. Obama 37 percent of Mississippi’s statewide votes. To get the last 13 percent he needs for a majority, Mr. Obama would need to persuade a mere 21 percent of white voters in Mississippi to support him. Sounds easy, right?
But only 14 percent of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry. Mr. Obama would need to increase that number by 7 percentage points — a 50 percent increase. Mr. Obama struggled to attract white Democrats in states like Ohio and South Dakota. It strains credulity to believe that he will attract three white voters in Mississippi for every two that Mr. Kerry did.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
this isn't what he's trying
this isn't what he's trying to do. what he wants to do, is spend enough money to make mccain expend resources on the state. of the readers who actually make comments here, you and ptc are probably the only ones who were alive and conscious the last time the gop actually had to spend money on the south.
well...maybe they spent loot when carter ran, increasing the number somewhat.
I disagree with him on GP
Because his entire argument is for the Democrats to write off the entire South, thus completely ignoring the MAJORITY of the Black population in the US. That's not his concern; it is MINE. So, go Obama Go.
why would ignoring the
why would ignoring the majority of the black population matter, if schaller's argument were correct?
I think the strategy of
I think the strategy of forcing the GOP to expend resources in areas where it would prefer not to use any resources is sound. McCain is not going to be able to raise as much money as Obama and contesting him in those states that he presumes are safe for his candidacy puts a strain on his campaign's bank account.
It also, more importantly, places a psychological and a physical strain on Mccain and his campaign. McCain and his campaign will have to spend more time in those states and any polling bumps achieved by Obama and his people, no matter how small, will cause McCain and his folks to worry. The physical demands of campaigning in 50 states will eat a 71 year-old person up much sooner than a 46 year-old one.
exactly. as a tangential
exactly.
as a tangential sidenote, why did i just get my first request to join the aarp? at 39!
"why did i just get my first
"why did i just get my first request to join the aarp? at 39!"
AARP either has you confused with someone else or they know you have young children and will break down soon.
(:~)
I think the strategy of
As long as he doesn't make any stupid promises in the process.
"As long as he doesn't make
"As long as he doesn't make any stupid promises in the process."
There is a thin line between ambition and hubris. And there are always enough men and women around to encourage one to step over that line.