White flight — at the ballot box

April 14, 2006

Republicans are poised, for the first time, to run three African-American candidates for statewide office in the same campaign cycle (Blackwell in Ohio, Steele in Maryland, and Swann in Pennsylvania). GOP leaders like Ken Mehlman suggest campaigns like these will help lure African-American voters away from the Dems. What seems to go unmentioned is disheartening evidence that these same candidates may also drive white voters away.

Bad news for Michael S. Steele, the leading Maryland Republican candidate for Senate in November: The scuttling noise he hears on Election Day could be the sound of tens of thousands of white Republicans crossing over to vote for the Democrat.

In fact, white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black, says economist Ebonya Washington of Yale University in a forthcoming article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. White independents are similarly inclined to vote for the white Democrat when there’s a black Republican running, according to her study of congressional and gubernatorial voting patterns between 1982 and 2000, including five Senate races in which the Republican nominee was black.

Her analysis suggests that GOP “white flight” in the Maryland Senate race could mean at least an additional 1 or 2 percent of the vote goes to the Democrat, and perhaps more — but only if the candidate is white. Together, independents who would otherwise vote for a white Republican plus GOP deserters may easily swamp any increase in black Democratic crossover to Steele.

In this case, we are not ony talking about Republican racism — the study from the Yale economist suggests racially-motivated crossover voting may be bi-partisan, at least at the local level. As the WaPo noted, “In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.”

Admittedly, I have not yet seen the journal article that details these trends, and the Post article hints there may be a difference between House races and statewide Senate races. Nevertheless, I had naively believed that most of the country was way past allowing race to influence voting patterns so strongly. It’s discouraging, to put it mildly.

April 14, 2006 at 11:33 am

Racism?

Or do Black Conservative candidates like Alan Keyes just seem so much like right-wing flakes that they scare moderate to conservative voters away?

Now, in the case of Democrats fleeing a black democratic confresssional hopeful, that is a case of racism. Just the last remenants of northern ‘Don’t let them live here’ or southern ‘Don’t let them rise up’ racism of yellow-dog democrats.

We just need to put up more compelling and interesting black candidates then support them against the cruel attacks of the Republicanite party. Racism tends to wear down if you confront it boldly but fairly.

I think Lance is on to something regarding what kindof black candidates the Republicans run. I also think all kinds of bigotry comes out in the privacy of the voting booth, stuff people would never ever admit to in public, that never gets picked up in public opinion polls.

That said, I’ll take every vote for our side we can get, regardless of the individual voter’s motivation for so doing. Better they vote for us out of their ignorance than vote for the scumballs.

In fact, white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black,

Given this deplorable fact, can we put to rest the notion of Rice as the GOP candidate for President in 2008 once and for all?

Now, in the case of Democrats fleeing a black democratic confresssional hopeful, that is a case of racism. Just the last remenants of northern ‘Don’t let them live here’ or southern ‘Don’t let them rise up’ racism of yellow-dog democrats.

Lance, I believe that the term “yellow-dog democrat” means the exact opposite of what you state. IIRC, a yellow-dog democrat is a voter who would vote for the Democrat on the ticket no matter what, even if it was a “yellow-dog”.

If Obama were a Pennsylvanian running for Senator against Santorum or Spector, I’d cross-racial lines to vote for Obama. It’s not his race that’s the issue. It’s his policies. I can’t stand Santorum, and Specter is becoming a concern with his comments about the FISA court law being unconstitutional.

Lynn Swann is a hero in Pittsburgh, but for me, he doesn’t have the policy background. His answers are like W’s, all fluff.

In Philly, all the Dems have to do is show off Swann’s four Pittsburgh Superbowl rings. That’s where I believe Swann will lose it. He’ll gain some in Pittsburgh (depending on how Rendell handles the Arena/Slots deal); Swann will gain some in the Central “T” of the state, but I believe he’ll lose to the Eagle fans and moderate Republicans.

“Lance, I believe that the term “yellow-dog democrat” means the exact opposite of what you state. IIRC, a yellow-dog democrat is a voter who would vote for the Democrat on the ticket no matter what, even if it was a “yellow-dog”. ” – Edo

That’s why they still register as Democrats. But as Tom says, in the privacy of a voting booth, their latent racism kicks in, and they have to vote for the white guy. You are right about the definition.

“Given this deplorable fact [25% desertion of black candidates by Republican voters], can we put to rest the notion of Rice as the GOP candidate for President in 2008 once and for all?” – Edo

Actually, I feel that black women are preceived differently than black men. I don’t have any research on that, but Rice probably wouldn’t suffer the same 25% auto-lose as Steele might. Besides, I just think Rice is the only logical choice to carry the ‘Bush Legacy’. Hopefully, the grass-roots Republicans will decide to throw out the Texas mafia and choose some Republicanite politican who won’t have to carry the mantel of Bush (Chuck Hagel, maybe?).

I don’t have any research on that, but Rice probably wouldn’t suffer the same 25% auto-lose as Steele might.

You have more faith in the white southern voters than I do. I just can’t see them voting for either a woman or a black, much less a black woman. They probably wouldn’t vote for a Dem either, I assume they’d just stay home or vote for some Constitution Party wingnut or someone along the lines of LaRouche.

“You have more faith in the white southern voters than I do.” – Edo

Well, Rice would be running country-wide, so I get some benefit from country-club Republicanites who would be dazzled by her dominatrix allure 😉

This kind of research provides an excellent example of why the time is not ripe for a second Clinton presidency. My guess would be that the same “flight” occurs when a woman is the candidate and that having a woman run as a Dem for president would bring many “red state ray-publicans” our in droves to vote for anyone else (except perhaps a minority man? that would be a curious match up).
Trust me, my experience as a woman in the south indicates that one thing that could really energize that conservative base would be for the Dem candidate to be a woman. More than gay marriage or “snow flakes”.

Lance: ” Besides, I just think Rice is the only logical choice to carry the ‘Bush Legacy’. ”

Lance, I hope you are right about Condi and she gets the Repug endosement. Who in the world wants to carry on the Bush Legacy, when that legacy contains single mindedness, a failed Middle East policy, a failure to contain a country the size of California, and killed 2300+ Americans while lying about the basis for disaster in Iraq. We might also get to add an Iranian fiasco to this legacy, unless enough of the military brass gets the juevos to resign in protest of another adventure doomed to failure. Let’s not forget that the Bush legacy is one of messianic proportion (GOD has made him president for this reason) whose own ignorance and lack of counter thought has led to this failed presidency.

GO CONDI!!

It’s really not so off-the-wall to think. I have always been of the opinion that having Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be a guaranteed loss, since I don’t think Americans are open-minded enough to put a woman in the White House. Despite our claims of ‘freedom’ and ‘Democracy’, the U.S. is comfortably within the realm of the more conservative nations on the planet.

Comments are closed.