Here we go again. What's the deal with the constant demographic breakdowns?
Think about the polls that are taken by likely voters accross the U.S.. They all ebb and flow a bit, depending on who is being criticized more vociferously in the press. But here is heart of them: Obama is beating Clinton. Obama's favorables are high and Clinton's are low. Only 20% of likely Democratic voters gave Obama a 'disfavorable' rating in a recent poll, while Clinton got a 49%--almost half.
Further polls show Obama doing well against McCain. Most polls show Obama comparing well with most of Clinton's core constituency (women) and taking majorities in most of the states so far. But there's one lingering group that keeps coming up in all of this discussion: white men.
There are two reasons this keeps coming up: one is that we, as a demographic are still in power. We represent the majority, even though we represent so little of the overall population. Obama could win a landslide election without getting a single vote from a white man anywhere in the country--and this wouldn't even require unanimous support from women and other minority groups. But there is another issue that is brought up in this discussion, and it is the sick, depraved subtext: white men are racists, and if this black man can't break through, then he is no different than any other black man. This is the line of reasoning former Pres. Bill C. used when he said (essentially) even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina--an intentionally racist and derisive comment that splatters the filth not only on Obama, but on every African American.
Here's a new story on Yahoo! that shows the SOS: "Polls: Race helps Clinton with whites". Even last week's Washington Week on PBS fell to these same demographic issues that are little more than race-bating between two minority candidates. This is the status quo among Washington insiders that are afraid of an ideological revolution (see the Rev. Wright controversy).
But I have two claims to make.
First, white men, as a demographic, is useless. Urban white men, educated white men, white men of a defined age group, are all more useful. White men are useless. (Hey, Ladies! This one's for you!) It is the albatross in this race the same way "NASCAR dads" and "Soccer Moms" were the albatross in the 2000 and 2004 elections: this isn't the Democrats core. Someone else has this group. Besides, we are the most diverse demographic because we are the "majority" or powerholders. White men doesn't work.
Second, think about the very notion of the demographic splits, and see where strengths and weaknesses really are. If I were to break them up they might look like this:
Think about the polls that are taken by likely voters accross the U.S.. They all ebb and flow a bit, depending on who is being criticized more vociferously in the press. But here is heart of them: Obama is beating Clinton. Obama's favorables are high and Clinton's are low. Only 20% of likely Democratic voters gave Obama a 'disfavorable' rating in a recent poll, while Clinton got a 49%--almost half.
Further polls show Obama doing well against McCain. Most polls show Obama comparing well with most of Clinton's core constituency (women) and taking majorities in most of the states so far. But there's one lingering group that keeps coming up in all of this discussion: white men.
There are two reasons this keeps coming up: one is that we, as a demographic are still in power. We represent the majority, even though we represent so little of the overall population. Obama could win a landslide election without getting a single vote from a white man anywhere in the country--and this wouldn't even require unanimous support from women and other minority groups. But there is another issue that is brought up in this discussion, and it is the sick, depraved subtext: white men are racists, and if this black man can't break through, then he is no different than any other black man. This is the line of reasoning former Pres. Bill C. used when he said (essentially) even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina--an intentionally racist and derisive comment that splatters the filth not only on Obama, but on every African American.
Here's a new story on Yahoo! that shows the SOS: "Polls: Race helps Clinton with whites". Even last week's Washington Week on PBS fell to these same demographic issues that are little more than race-bating between two minority candidates. This is the status quo among Washington insiders that are afraid of an ideological revolution (see the Rev. Wright controversy).
But I have two claims to make.
First, white men, as a demographic, is useless. Urban white men, educated white men, white men of a defined age group, are all more useful. White men are useless. (Hey, Ladies! This one's for you!) It is the albatross in this race the same way "NASCAR dads" and "Soccer Moms" were the albatross in the 2000 and 2004 elections: this isn't the Democrats core. Someone else has this group. Besides, we are the most diverse demographic because we are the "majority" or powerholders. White men doesn't work.
Second, think about the very notion of the demographic splits, and see where strengths and weaknesses really are. If I were to break them up they might look like this:
- Obama's strengths: African Americans, Millenials, Gen Xers, the educated, the poor, rural voters, and urban voters.
- Clinton's strength: Baby Boomers, white men, and big states.
- A wash: women.
The truth is, that the polls aren't measuring the demographics that are trending toward Obama, because they have not been taken as demographic groups by a candidate before. White 30 year-old men with a college education aren't a demographic group that pollsters isolate, but you can be sure that Obama is winning them.
A second truth is that Obama's strengths are proved in his performance in small states where people actually get to meet him and talk with him. The idea that individual demographics really decide these races and not public perception is patently ridiculous. But that's what the media specializes in. When are these journalists going to realize that increased racism helps Clinton?
A second truth is that Obama's strengths are proved in his performance in small states where people actually get to meet him and talk with him. The idea that individual demographics really decide these races and not public perception is patently ridiculous. But that's what the media specializes in. When are these journalists going to realize that increased racism helps Clinton?
No comments:
Post a Comment