Given every metric, Barack Obama is obviously well positioned to win the Democratic presidential nomination. And yet, on Tuesday, he’s going to lose the West Virginia primary by a very large margin. A week later, he’s going to lose the Kentucky primary by a whole lot of percentage points, too.
Polling is a little sketchy, but Hillary Clinton should win West Virginia by about 40 points (Bill Clinton suggested the other day HRC’s margin could be as high as 80 points). Polls in Kentucky point to a Clinton victory in the 35-point range.
It’s not an altogether pleasant subject, but it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider why Obama, just as he wraps up the nomination, is going to get his hat handed to him. McClatchy takes a closer look at the landscape in Kentucky, and suggests race is a dominating factor.
More than one in five likely Democratic voters surveyed said being black hurts Obama’s chances of winning an election in Kentucky, compared to 4 percent who said Obama’s race helps him…. “Race is still the elephant in the room, and the Rev. Wright issue hits at remaining racial prejudices and fears that people here might have,” said Saundra Ardrey, head of the political science department at Western Kentucky University. […]
“I’ll be very blunt,” said pollster Del Ali, president of Research 2000. “Even if there wasn’t a Rev. Wright controversy, I think Obama would have a tough time in Kentucky, for obvious reasons.”
The thing is, Ali alluded to the “obvious” reasons, but didn’t want to come right out and acknowledge them. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but by virtue of his stated desire to be “very blunt,” I suspect the pollster was thinking, “A lot of white folks in Kentucky aren’t going to vote for a black man.”
The evidence is entirely anecdotal, but an analysis of the race in West Virginia produced similar results.
The LAT had a good, but painful-to-read piece today on why Obama is struggling in the Mountain State, noting local party leaders who worry that West Virginians “will be turned off by Obama’s black heritage.”
“My worry is there’s just too many people in this country who aren’t ready to elect a black president,” said Charles L. Silliman, a retired Air Force officer who is Hardy County’s Democratic Party co-chairman. “There’s a lot to like about him. But I’m just afraid that too many people will vote against him based on their fears and prejudice.”
Silliman and his wife, Carmen, are Clinton supporters, drawn by her healthcare plan and her endurance on the campaign trail. Still, the couple repeatedly have found themselves defending Obama, correcting acquaintances who relay baseless rumors about his name and religion.
Carmen Silliman has collected a sheaf of poisonous e-mails that have flowed into her in-box. “We do not need a Muslim to lead the good ole USA,” reads one. Obama is, in fact, a Christian.
Neil Gillies, an Obama supporter who runs a local environmental nonprofit group, glumly recounted the gibes that his wife, a schoolteacher, hears regularly from her students. “They’re convinced [Obama] is a Muslim, a terrorist, a guy who’s coming to take away their guns,” Gillies said. “It’s just sad.”
The LAT talked to a farmer, who voted for Bush but regrets it, but who appears more than a little reluctant to vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee. “Obama,” the farmer said, “just doesn’t sound right for an American president.” The president of the West Virginia Coon Hunters Assn. told the Times he rejects Obama “because of, you know, who he is.”
I’m also reminded of this New Yorker piece from George Packer a couple of weeks ago, about Obama struggling to win over voters in Kentucky.
After [a John McCain speech in Inez, Kentucky], I left the county courthouse and crossed the main street to talk to a small group of demonstrators holding signs next to McCain’s campaign bus. J. K. Patrick, a retired state employee from a neighboring county, wore a button on his shirt that said “Hillary: Smart Choice.”
“East of Lexington she’ll carry seventy per cent of the primary vote,” he said. Kentucky votes on May 20. “She could win the general election in Kentucky.” I asked about Obama. “Obama couldn’t win.”
Why not? “Race,” Patrick said matter-of-factly. “I’ve talked to people — a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man.” Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.
Why not? “Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race.”
What about race? “I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did.” He meant that it went Republican. “Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties.”
I thought about all of this after reading an item from MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong, who has made clear his strong distaste for Obama, and who argued yesterday that it’s offensive to accuse voters of bigotry. “Racism is ignorance, but unfounded accusations of racism are just as low on the scum-radar,” Armstrong wrote. He suggested that unless Obama’s supporters have proof of electoral racism, they shouldn’t carelessly throw the charges around.
Armstrong’s point is well taken. Unfounded accusations of racism are obviously wrong, and it’s especially awkward in the context of two Democratic primaries. There’s considerable anecdotal evidence that racial animus is driving voters in Kentucky and West Virginia away from Obama, but anecdotes are not data.
My only follow up would be this: what else can explain Obama’s 40-point deficits in West Virginia and Kentucky? The states are lacking in some of Obama’s most reliable constituencies, but so are states like Nebraska, South North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska, but Obama won each of those contests easily. What’s more, looking at county data, some of Obama’s worst performing counties just happen to be throughout Appalachia.
Unfounded accusations of racism have no place in the political debate. But if regional attitudes on race aren’t keeping Obama’s numbers down in Kentucky and West Virginia, what is? Given Obama’s otherwise-strong position, what else explains why he’s about to get trounced?