nimh wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:So, this ugly race is over and it looks like all the racial talk was overblown and overplayed. The voters, once again, made their voices heard and the politicians will have to heed them.
Why post this meaningless dribble? I don't want the election to be about identity politics any more than the next guy, but how does SC demonstrate that it isn't? The black guy got 24% of the white vote and 80% of the black vote... and we're supposed to use that as proof that race isn't where it's at? Again, I'm not suggesting it is outside of SC, but this Digby fool seems to think he's proven something. 55% for a black man is encouraging, and something we can all be proud of... but I wonder if Digby realizes what percentage of these voters were black.
Echo that!
For sure, it's definitely a hopeful sign that the white under 30's who voted in the Democratic primary were massively prepared to vote for Obama. But this youngest generation still makes up only a small segment of the overall vote. And look at the totals. If Obama gets 80% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote in a state, it's ludicrous to suggest that this proves that race isnt all that important and the media should just back off it already.
I mean, that's still a huge chasm. And it will likely be replicated in other states as racially divided as SC, so it's a sincere concern, and a real and important element in the outcome.
Even Digby's talk of "a bi-racial majority" is just hyperbolic. I mean, Obama got 55% of the vote, so that's a majority -- but of his voters, 81% was black and 19% was white. Is that a bi-racial majority? Let's keep it real here.
Race and gender are, as a simple matter of logical necessity, undeniable elements in this contest. Denying the signicance of either is simply to be blind. Denying that they are both inherently divisive is equally blind.
Fair enough, in one sense, to call digby's 'bi racial majority' a positive or hopeful spin on SC. But when you add in the prior primaries and caucuses, then the statement isn't so easy to dismiss.
As regards the youth vote, Obama's appeal is noteable. But in a more general overview, it reflects a broad and substantial shift in young people's voting and policy preferences and party membership over to the left, as Krugman and others have detailed. What consequence this will have for this election, we'll see, but over the longer term, this is a very important shift and it makes Obama's present appeal to them supportive of the shift.
But I take digby's post to be referring most acutely to the media appetite for ANY aspect of contention, and their tendency to promote and exaggerate in order to create a narrative of constant conflict. It is their bread and butter for viewer capture. Gender and race and the bordering-on-evil Clintons are the flavors of the day.
