Gallup Poll: Potential Effect of Race in Presidential Contest Neutralized

Gallup reports fascinating results from a recent poll that attempts to determine the potential impact of race in the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Frank Newport reports:

“While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.

“At the same time, 6% of voters say John McCain's race will make them less likely to vote for him, with 7% saying it makes them more likely to vote for him, leading to the same basic conclusion: McCain's race, like Obama's, is on balance neither a plus nor a minus.

‘These conclusions are based on eight dimensions potentially affecting the vote for both candidates. The dimensions were included in Gallup's Oct. 3-5 poll, and analyzed overall by Gallup's Jeff Jones.”

Read more.

Media’s Message to Women: “You Can Play, But It Won’t Be a Fair Fight”

Marie Wilson, a long-time women’s advocate, adds fresh insight in her piece at the Huffington Post to the ongoing post-primary discussion of sexism in the media. (You’ll have to Google it; I’m joining the boycott against linking to Huffington Post, a veritable cesspool of Hillary-bashing and misogyny despite an occasional pro-women’s rights post like Wilson's.)

Wilson offers a poignant anecdote:

“Back in the 1980's, I was on the NYC Human Rights Commission that held hearings on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in the construction sector. The most moving story I heard during that period came from a male construction worker. He talked about what a typical day looked like, including the standard lunch breaks on the curb with his male co-workers, and the usual rounds of catcalling out to women as they walked by.

“He never questioned any of it -- not until the day came when the face that looked back at him was his daughter's.

“The young women those construction workers called out to were not being raped, physically threatened, or grabbed at. Catcalling is a relatively light offense compared to what happened to the women working in construction zones in those days -- the heavy objects "accidentally" falling nearby, the lewd pictures, feces and threatening objects women found in their lockers every day.

“Yet what each young woman received was an early lesson about their bodies and their place in the world. While boys’ bodies were growing into a source of strength and power, respect and pride, theirs were growing into a source of shame, vulnerability and possible danger. Lessons no decent father ever wants his daughter to have to learn.

Connecting the construction site incident with today, Wilson continues:

“But our daughters are still learning these degrading and discouraging lessons -- most recently through the media coverage of the 2008 election. No one -- not even Clinton herself -- is saying that she lost the race for president because of sexism in cable news or the blogosphere, and the degree to which sexist coverage played a part is debatable. Yet we lost something for our nation's daughters who were sent a strong message about fairness during the primary season -- you can play, but it won't be a fair fight.”

I’ll repeat that message: “You can play, but it won’t be a fair fight.” And that is exactly why so many Clinton supporters continue to simmer with outrage even after our candidate graciously endorsed Obama and urged all of her followers to fall in line behind him.

Plus: Our outrage continues to be fueled by the unrelenting vitriol spewed by Obama supporters. Yesterday, as I mentioned in a previous post, devoted followers of the haloed Obama demonstrated their lack of civility at the Al Gore endorsement event in Michigan. Anne Kornblut reports in the Washington Post:

“DETROIT -- Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm received a deafening chorus of boos Monday night at her mention of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate Granholm once backed for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“The jeering from thousands of Obama supporters at Joe Louis Arena came after Granholm acknowledged her support of Clinton, and they seemed to take her aback. "Come on now," the governor pleaded before finally continuing, "I'm proud to say I'm standing with her and all of you" in supporting Obama.

‘“A few moments later the same fired-up crowd booed former vice president Al Gore when he urged Democrats to be respectful of the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. ‘In that case I'm glad I brought it up,’ Gore dryly responded.”’

Those of you who regularly scan the news sites on the Internet and even brave the readers’ comments on occasion can imagine the vicious retorts to Wilson and Kornblut posted by the ever- ready hordes of Obama supporters. From defensively arguing that women in minority groups have more important matters to worry about than gender discrimination to calling any Clinton supporter a racist who refuses to get onboard the Obama train, the abusive responses pile up as usual.

To those dismissive of gender discrimination in the lives of minorities, I’d like to ask an African-American woman how she feels about the sexist and violent language in the lyrics of hip-hop artists. And in response to the accusation of racism, I would point out that many Clinton supporters who can’t as yet bring themselves to sign on with Obama have been convinced from day one that he’s simply unqualified to be president. It’s not about Obama’s race; it’s about his skimpy resume, and his recent coronation by the Democratic party does not change that reality one iota.

Wilson’s post, titled Giving the "Daughter Test" to Mainstream Media, is well worth reading in its entirety even if you have to hold your nose at the Huffington Post.

Can Obama or Clinton Break the Patterns in Upcoming Contests?

Photo credits: Getty Images

Posting at Caucus (NY Times), John Harwood provides a good analysis of demographic patterns that in order to win the Democratic nomination either Obama or Clinton must break.

Crediting in part identity politics, Harwood notes:

“Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who would be the first woman to be president, has dominated among women; according to exit polls, they have consistently constituted 55 percent or more of the Democratic electorate. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, who would be the first black president, has dominated among blacks by even more lopsided margins.”

He then elaborates:

“But with the exception of a few states like South Carolina and Georgia, where blacks represented a majority and Mr. Obama won, they have represented a far smaller share of the vote.

“Mrs. Clinton, drawing on memories of prosperity during her husband’s presidency, has held steady advantages among Hispanics, older voters and blue-collar whites. Mr. Obama’s inspirational “Yes We Can” message has produced an edge among young people, independents, college graduates and higher-income Democrats.

“Those disparate collections can to some degree be distinguished using labels — Mrs. Clinton’s as more moderate, Mr. Obama’s as more liberal. But “the ideological differences clearly seem to be driven by demographics,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.”
The Harwood analysis goes one step further. He says, “Those differences have helped define another important element.”

That element would be the difference between caucuses and primaries:

“While Mrs. Clinton has performed best in primaries, like New Hampshire and California, Mr. Obama has excelled in caucuses that turn on organizational prowess, from the kickoff event in Iowa to the Washington and Nebraska contests over the weekend.
“That is partly because Mr. Obama invested more heavily in grass-roots organization in his bid to overcome Mrs. Clinton’s establishment advantages. Moreover, the time and information required for caucus participation attract demographic elites drawn to the Illinois senator in the first place — his “Starbucks Democrats,” rather than Mrs. Clinton’s “Dunkin’ Donuts Democrats,” as Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, puts it.”

Finally, Harwood predicts the outcomes of upcoming contests based on his analysis of Clinton’s and Obama’s strengths:
He predicts that Obama will take Washington D.C. with its heavy black population, and Maryland with its “above-average proportion of both blacks and college graduates.”

And he also puts Hawaii in Obama’s column as he grew up there.
Harwood suggests that Clinton is favored in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

In conclusion, Harwood acknowledges that either candidate could forge new patterns and come up with surprising outcomes of upcoming contests.

The GOP: The Party of Shriveled Hearts

In today’s Washington Post, staff writer Peter Baker reviews Michael Gerson’s book, “Heroic Conservatism.”

The insider glimpses of the Bush Administration offered by the president's former senior advisor no longer have the power to shock. They’ve become as “discouragingly familiar” to the rest of us as they have to Gerson:

A proposal to help the poor or sick would be presented at a White House meeting, but Vice President Cheney's office or the budget team or some other skeptical officials would shoot it down. Too expensive. Wrong priority.

It’s no wonder victims of Katrina waited in vain; Cheney was calling the shots:

Gerson writes that he urged Bush to fire Rumsfeld after the 2004 election, but that Cheney opposed the move. He recounts meetings in which Cheney's office tried to kill proposals to increase training of death-row defense lawyers, transition assistance for prisoners and aid for Hurricane Katrina victims.

And finally we’re allowed to see something that might even make the nation's self-righteous values voters wince:

"The storm had also revealed a political and moral chasm in the Republican Party," he writes. "The president and I saw Katrina as an opportunity to open a debate on race and poverty. Anti-government Republicans saw Katrina as an opportunity to cut off medicine to old people. It confirmed the worst image of Republicans as the party of shriveled hearts."

The party of shriveled hearts: how’s that for a campaign slogan in 2008?