Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME: BLACKS ALREADY TURN OUT AT HIGH RATES AND VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC IN THE SOUTH.
In the past 18 months since my book was published, I feel like I have had to repeat nearly a thousand times that the "problem" of blacks not turning out to vote in the South--a "fact" that an Obama candidacy (at the top or the bottom of the ticket) would purportedly remedy--is not a fact at all, but rather a complete fiction that people do not take so much as five seconds to confirm before spouting off about as some sort of partisan problem for Democrats.
Let's be clear: According to Census Bureau estimates, in 2004 African Americans were 17.9 percent of age-eligible southerners (in the 11 former Confederate states) and they were--buckle-up here--17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004. That is proportionate, for starters. But when you consider that blacks are, on average, poorer and/or from a lower socioeconomic station than southern whites, it means that, controlling for status, blacks actually turn out at higher rates than comparable whites. Put another way, a middle class 40-year-old black plumber and husband and father of two is more likely to vote in the South than a comparable white plumber.
And yet, we have to suffer careless assertions like this one from a Mississippi Sstate Rep. Earle S. Banks, who recently suggested to the L.A. Times that "the Illinois senator's presence on the ticket could spur dramatic increases in black turnout. And that, he said, potentially could put Mississippi in the Democratic column for the first time since 1976, when it went to Jimmy Carter."
Oh, please. Which brings me to my second myth-busting point, which I wrote about here at the Prospect long ago: The blacker the state, the wider George W. Bush's victory margins were in the southern states in 2004. Again, this is not because blacks fail to turn out (they do) or fail to vote Democratic (they do), but because the blacker the state the more Republican the white voters vote.
Look: Obama may be able to push up black turnout a bit in the South, but it's already pretty high and the Democratic share is already nearly maximized. The electoral black vote ceiling has not been reached yet, but Democratic presidential candidates are nearly bumping their heads against it already, Obama or no Obama.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (10)
There is something to what you write, but I think you're forgetting that the overall voting rate is in the mid-50% range. Therefore, there is still substantial room for improvement.
Posted by: JohnM | March 10, 2008 11:03 AM
I recommend reading this. Obama probably can't put the whole south into play, but even making three or four states competitive (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia) would make a big difference.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | March 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Nicholas, you're chasing the wrong unicorn. Schaller is pissing his pants at the thought that Obama may have to take up Edward's poverty tour in order to appeal to the white trash vote.
He's not afraid that Obama will then lose the election because he loses the socially liberal Republican vote in NJ. He's afraid Obama might actually win, considering most of the country is not that rich, and then he'll have to do something about it.
*That* has Schaller pissing his pants. Much better were the days when he could just take the black vote for given without actually having to deliver anything that makes a difference in their lives.
In that case, fine. Lose.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 11:50 AM
I doubt Obama can make much of a difference in the South. But it doesn't matter. If the Dems can win Ohio and a few of the Mountain West states, they win. How Obama helps is that he can win Colorado, New Mexico and Montana, while Hillary probably can't. It's his draw among independents that's his real value.
Posted by: fostert | March 10, 2008 12:37 PM
the key number here is 150,000 that's the number of newly registered African American voters who turned out in SC for Obama.
Care to guess how many votes Bush won the state by.
Posted by: Dirk | March 10, 2008 2:08 PM
You might also want to compare turnout numbers from Townsend's defeat in Maryland to O'Malley's victory.
African American turnout won't make the difference in the South [in the general] but try winning Michigan, Missouri, Ohio pr Pennsylvania if the turnout's low.
Posted by: Rick | March 10, 2008 2:18 PM
What John M. said. There's room for upside.
Tom Schaller is correct, insofar as he goes. Black folk vote at a pretty decent rate. It's even better than Schaller indicates, because so many black men are disenfranched by our crime of a justice system.
But what if black voters turned out at a Jewish rate? Obama has the potential for doing that. And that could make a material difference.
Posted by: Joe S. | March 10, 2008 2:22 PM
I can't believe how Democrats just pull so much nonsense out of thin air.
Obama takes Colorado and New Mexico, maybe, because these states have been trending more and more Democratic in recent years -- but the same argument can be made for Clinton, only more so, because she has demonstrated popularity with Hispanic voters who will be important to victory in those states. Still, making things a little more difficult for either Democrat in both states is the fact that McCain is from a neighboring state and is popular in the region.
Now, about Montana. What would lead ANYONE to think Obama would take the state? Does the poster who suggested he would know anything at all about Montana?
Posted by: roy | March 10, 2008 3:38 PM
Here's Montana's Democratic governor talking about the likelihood of a Democratic presidential candidate winning the state:
"...so I'll give you some of the math: Bill Clinton in Montana got 39 and 41 (percent of the vote.) Gore got all the way up to 32 percent. Kerry got 38 and a half percent. So if we were actually to improve that by as much as 25 percent, McCain would still win."
I would take the Obama "movement" more seriously if its members didn't indulge in so much magical thinking.
Posted by: roy | March 10, 2008 3:50 PM
roy, in response: Montana has McCain over Obama by 8 points, according to SurveyUSA. In 2004, Florida was lost by 5 points, and yet we think it's a swing state. I wouldn't put money on Obama taking Montana. But he definitely pressures McCain there, especially given his fundraising advantages.
Advocates of the 19 state strategy are being incredibly short-sighted. Change is possible. At the start of the 1990's, CA had voted for the Republican Presidential candidate every year since 1950 except 1964. Yet now it's an integral member of the Democratic coalition (it's a state that matters, in Clinton parlance). What's so bad about starting to make other states matter?
Posted by: Zephyrus | March 13, 2008 5:45 PM