In another ignorant white people moment, we have this comment from Elizabeth Edwards.
As her husband trails Clinton and Obama in national polls, Elizabeth Edwards has been an outspoken critic of his opponents. Last month, she said her husband would be a better champion for women as president than Clinton and more recently said, “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”
Some of her other points in the full AP article are legitimate, but this quote is just nonsense. Being white and male doesn’t get a candidate press? Being white and male makes it hard to raise funds? If this is the case, then why is it that out of the field of nearly 20 major candidates only 2 are not white and male.
The quote seems to suggest that Clinton’s gender and Obama’s race are why they get media attention and financial supporters. I’m not saying that the gender and race angles haven’t been covered, but to insinuate that that is the reason for their early success in fundraising and polls is unfair. Perhaps they are both getting attention because people like what they have to say. Maybe Clinton is getting attention because of her tremendous name recognition. Maybe Obama has hired a creative and talented campaign staff.
If white women, women of color, and men of color have been so successful at running for President then why have white men been the only ones to win?
This certainly isn’t going to help Edwards move up in the polls with white women and people of color (he’s already doing poorly with African American voters). I was thinking about voting for Edwards, but if the campaign is sending Elizabeth Edwards out to make these types of comments, John Edwards is moving down on my list of preferred candidates.
Being a person of color or a woman has certainly garnered a lot of press, though. And because of divisive politics, a lot of people have been saying things to the extent of “Hillary will appeal to the women’s vote” in spite of a less than stellar record of campaigning for women’s issues. In an era when America — for the first time ever — has both a person of color and a woman who could easily win a presidential nomination and the presidency itself, they’re getting attention for their demographics.
But that’s true when any “first” is occurring. It will be a great day when women and people of color don’t get the “novelty” factor working for them in the press, because it’ll be the day when people of color and women can be judged based on their views of the issues, not their demographics.
But jeanette they are not the firsts.
Al Sharton ran in the last election, Jesse Jackson ran, Shirley Chisolm ran for President in 1968 on a major party ticket.
They really aren’t the first, so the attention they are receiving has to be for more than that.
Obama is the first declared black candidate who was perceived as conceivably able to win the nomination and possibly even the general election. For Jesse Jackson – let alone relatively peripheral figures such as Sharpton and Chisolm – getting the Democratic nomination would have been a major miracle; winning the election would pretty much have required the direct and personal intervention of God, and pretty much by him appearing in a pillar of flame on November 2 on national TV and declaring Jackson as the second coming and ordering everyone in the country to vote for him.
And even then, he would probably have lost.
Whereas Obama (at least before the depth of his inadequacies were revealed) was thought to be a viable candidate.
I think Mrs. Edwards is half mistaken. There is no media interest in a candidate just because she is female (Hillary Clinton is notable as a Clinton, not as a woman), but there is still and has historically been considerable media interest in black candidates, generally at levels higher than those candidates’ intrinsic popularity or viability would seem to justify. That doesn’t translate into guaranteed electoral success, of course, but Mrs. Edwards didn’t claim it did; just that there would be more media buzz about her John if he was a black guy.
Once again a quote hits a little too close to the truth and the Edwards get hammered for it. If being white and male got a candidate decent press coverage, or if the MSM would focus on issues rather than celebrity and novelty, we’d be reading a lot more about Dennis Kucinich. He seems to be the only two Democratic candidate using plain language instead of speaking in sound bites tailored to prevent him from being held accountable later.
The plain facts are the junior senator from New York has the celebrity factor going for her big time — 15 years of being in the spotlight as a Clinton and as the woman the right wingers love to hate — and Obama has definitely cornered the novelty market. He’s personable, charismatic, and hasn’t been in office long enough to have much of a track record, and the track record he does have shouldn’t be particularly attractive to any progressive voter. He’s definitely viewed as non-threatening by Big Business and corporate interests because he’s so cozy with Lieberman — remember, Obama voted for that bankruptcy bill that screwed over the public big time. If that wasn’t a betrayal of the ordinary working folks who sent him to the Senate, nothing was. In contrast, corporate America gets very, very nervous about John Edwards and would probably go into full blown panic mode if any of the monied interests began thinking Kucinich had a snowball’s chance of winning. Both Clinton and Obama represent business as usual, minimal changes to the status quo, while Edwards and Kucinich have the potential for shaking things up a little.
Being white and male doesn’t get a candidate press?
No, it doesn’t. It’s not out of the ordinary for a white male to run for President, so neither his sex nor his race get him any extraordinary notice from the press.
Being white and male makes it hard to raise funds?
No, it doesn’t. However, it doesn’t make him stick out from the other candidates and attract funding that might be specifically attracted to a female or minority candidate, nor will it get him the attention and name recognition that a credible female or minority candidate gets in the press that secondarily leads to access to funding.
Being white and male will give him access, equivalent to all the other white male candidates, to press and funding that is attracted only to white male candidates. Judge for yourself how much that might be, and whether the lack of attraction is because of racism/sexism on the part of the prospective donors, whether the prospective donors simply judge that a female or minority candidate is less likely to win due to that status and thus don’t want to waste their money, or whether they just don’t agree with the particular female/minority candidate’s positions.
The quote seems to suggest that Clinton’s gender and Obama’s race are why they get media attention and financial supporters. I’m not saying that the gender and race angles haven’t been covered, but to insinuate that that is the reason for their early success in fundraising and polls is unfair. Perhaps they are both getting attention because people like what they have to say. Maybe Clinton is getting attention because of her tremendous name recognition. Maybe Obama has hired a creative and talented campaign staff.
I’m sure that both of those reasons given are involved to a certain extent. Hillary’s kind of a special case, since a great deal of her name recognition stems from her husband’s previous status as President, not because of her own legislative career; but in any case, much has been made of her gender. I remember Shirley Chisolm – I attended a speech she gave at Simmons College and voted for her in the primary that year. But as Robert states, Shirley, Jesse and Rev. Al were never seen as candidates who could attract a broad spectrum of voters; they did raise various issues to public notice and debate and their candidacies were useful in that regard, but they had no chance to win. Sen. Obama is rightly viewed as the first black candidate who has a chance to win, so that’s a first. It is not at all unfair to think that Hillary’s gender and Obama’s race are factors in their early success in fundraising. It’s not the only factor, or the other candidates mentioned would have raised more money. But it’s a factor.
As far as liking what the candidates say being a factor, that’s important to the candidate’s core constituency but it remains to be seen how it’ll work out as the campaigns develop and the candidates have to reach beyond them. I have to wonder how the core Democratic voters feel about Obama’s remarks with regards to Pakistan. He sounded a lot like President Bush there.
I really think that race, a lack of history, and his concentration on general issues instead of on racial issues are what has made Obama attractive as a candidate. The guy has only been a Senator for 2 years, after all, so it’s not like he’s a household name or has actually done anything much. The local stories in the Chicago area are about whether he’s “black enough” and whether he’s paying enough attention to racial issues to get the black vote.
Robert are you old enough to remember 1984? You know Jesse Jackson won the state of Michigan in the primary. Obama certainly may stand a better chance than Jackson, but Jackson was not a second tier candidate in the primary.
Nan said, “He’s personable, charismatic, and hasn’t been in office long enough to have much of a track record, and the track record he does have shouldn’t be particularly attractive to any progressive voter.”
Obama was elected a state senator in a predominantly black district in Chicago, and his pre-Senate voting record is very liberal. If he didn’t “move to the center” he would not be a mainstream candidate at all, and I think that definitely is related to race.
Nan said, “In contrast, corporate America gets very, very nervous about John Edwards and would probably go into full blown panic mode if any of the monied interests began thinking Kucinich had a snowball’s chance of winning.”
I do believe Kucinich is a true progressive, but Edwards, not so much. If John Edwards really was such a progressive candidate, there is no way he could have been elected to the US Senate from the not so liberal state of South Carolina. He’s just using the playing to the left strategy to garner votes in the primary; however, Obama and Clinton don’t really have the option to do that and that is at least in part because their race and gender render them less mainstream as candidates.
Can you folks please explain to me how the hell being a white woman or a black man is going to get you more money than other folks? Please let me know because I’m a white woman, and I’m married to a black man, which according to the Elizabeth Edwards model should mean we are rolling in the dough.
(Couldn’t resist a little sarcasm there.)
Robert are you old enough to remember 1984? You know Jesse Jackson won the state of Michigan in the primary. Obama certainly may stand a better chance than Jackson, but Jackson was not a second tier candidate in the primary.
I’m considerably older than you are, Rachel. (At least judging from photos.) Yeah, Jackson won a state in the primary. That’s nice. He was still a marginal figure with no chance of winning, and no expectation of winning.
Can you folks please explain to me how the hell being a white woman or a black man is going to get you more money than other folks?
It’s not. Nobody has made the claim that it would. Instead, she made a claim that if her husband had the same resume and history but were black, he would be getting more press than he is. I think that this is true.
She also said that this press would translate into some fundraising dollars. I think that this is also true; in fact, it seems obviously true when you look at Obama, who has had fundraising success that is utterly inexplicable in terms of his resume. Look at him and Clinton – they’re neck and neck in terms of fundraising, despite her massively greater public profile, her much more extensive experience, and her incalculably greater political network and contact base.
Maybe that’s a result of Hillary being dissed by sexist Democrats because she’s a woman, but that hasn’t been part of any narrative I’ve seen expressed, and by historical standards her candidacy seems to be at a normal level of success (fundraising, campaigning commitments from other pols). SOMETHING is causing Barack Obama to be successful, among liberals, in spectacular contrast to his resume; if it isn’t his race, then I invite you to identify what it is.
I suspect that your racial ideology is making it hard for you to acknowledge the (narrow and transient) advantages that black people have in some areas of life. It’s very true that a racist culture makes life harder, on balance, for blacks than for whites. But it’s also true that there are narrow exceptions to that general trend. I’d rather be white than black, but if I was trying to get a job with the state government I would be in a better position if I were black than if I were white. The latter narrow truth doesn’t invalidate the former wider condition. Mrs. Edwards is talking about one of the more bizarre narrow advantages that a black guy has; you don’t have to abandon anti-racism to see truth in her narrow claim.
why is it that out of the field of nearly 20 major candidates only 2 are not white and male.
It’s 3 — Clinton, Obama, and Bill Richardson (who’s Latino).
Ok, I stand corrected, sort of anyways. I’m not sure how Richardson identifies racially, but ethnically he does have a Latino background.
I wonder how Edwards would explain his poor showing–I guess it’s because people think he’s white.
I promised myself I’d stay away from blogs while I was on vacation, but this one was too special…
Hillary Clinton is who she is because she was a political powerhouse who helped get her husband elected and helped push for political change. She stayed in the game because she had her eye on the prize. Her popularity comes from both her work, her affiliation with a recent president and the stigma of an all out assault by a small but determined faction of the conservative movement. When the fact that she’s a woman comes up it’s a combination of the reality of a countrythat is yet to come to grips with it’s sexism (did anyone forget how Elizabeth Dole was basically left hanging with no financial and hence political support from her own party?) coupled with the possibility that she has some backing from a political machine she helped create.
Let’s see John Edwards track record shall we? Successful trial lawyer who went on to become a Senator in 1998. Two years later he unofficially began his presidential campain. He officially started his campaign late 2003 (as a Freshman Senator with a track record that was still unknown at the time but a dazzling smile nonetheless), lost out in the early primaries of 2004, only to be picked up as Kerry’s running mate while he was finishing his freshman term in the Senate. Since leaving Senate he hasn’t done much public work outside of working with UNC’s poverty research center… Now how is this different from Obama again? Obama started working with community organizations even before he went to law school.
There’s something else I’m forgetting, what was it…. oh yeah, Obama is black innit?
According to Elizabeth Edwards being a black presidential candidate in the U.S. provides wonderful press exposure with such positive headlines as “How black is Obama?” “Will Obama get the black vote?” “Is he really African-American or African and American?” “Is America ready for President Barack Hussein Obama?” “Obama attended Islamic School”… Yup, that’s the kind of controversial press any right thinking candidate loves to have…
It boggles the mind how folks are able to twist and bend logic to explain what is patently a racially ignorant statement away. It’s like Edwards is flashing the race and sex card, only to help her husband flash his white male victim card….
Sorry for the jumbled comment Rachel, the Philadelphia heat is making it hard to concentrate…
Ok, Robert let’s say your are right that fundraising is a narrow area where Blacks and White women have an advantage. Why would that be? Why would white women and black men be such great fundraisers? If they are such great fundraisers, why don’t we see more of them as top tier candidates?
FWIW, I think that view point by Edwards is totally ridiculous. Why not give Obama and Clinton some credit. They are doing good with fundraising because they are working hard and their message appeals to a broad swath of the general public. Why is it that when a black man and in this case a white woman do well they can’t get any credit for their hard work?
That comment by Edwards is such a sad sorry way to “play the race card”
Rachel writes:
Can you folks please explain to me how the hell being a white woman or a black man is going to get you more money than other folks?
Well imagine that there are racists and sexist people who donate to politics.
Imagine that 10% of them say:
Whites are better than blacks. I will only donate to a white candidate
10% say:
Blacks are better than whites. I will only donate to a black candidate.
Do the same for men and women.
Now imagine that all of the rest of the people distribute the rest of the money equally, and there are 10 candidates, one of whom is white, and one of whom is female.
The rest is simple arithmetic.
If this seems implausible, ask yourself if you would be more likely to donate money to a female candidate than a male one. I would, and this is the most liberal blog that I read.
Is this the sole effect? Of course not.
Clinton does have the major advantage that she has a pre-built administration that is experienced in cleaning up after Bushes.
Obama is young exciting and different, and doesn’t have much of a record to demonstrate where he is wrong.
Really a lot like Cheney and Bush 8 years ago (except for the fact that Cheney and Bush appear to hate everything that I like about America)
Ok, Robery let’s say your are right that fundraising is a narrow area where Blacks and White women have an advantage.
Just blacks. As I’ve said, I don’t think women have this advantage.
Why would that be?
Because there are a fair number of people who will give preferentially to blacks if they have the opportunity, and a fair number of people who will give preferentially to whites – but as Mittman notes, there are fewer blacks running. So Black Guys #1 and #2 get big checks from the first group, and nothing from the second group; White Guys #1 through #99 get smaller checks from the second group and none from the first group; and all the candidates split up the contributions from the folks who are colorblind. Net result, black guys have an advantage in the peculiar context of this kind of race. Run fifty black guys and fifty white guys and the advantage disappears or reverses – but we aren’t running fifty black guys.
Why would white women and black men be such great fundraisers?
They wouldn’t necessarily be any better than whites or men or Martians, for that matter. That’s not what’s being argued. They have more appeal to a certain set of donors; it has nothing to do with their individual ability as candidates.
If they [have this great advantage], why do[n’t] we see more of them as top tier candidates?
Racism, I would think. Some direct racism (Senator X doesn’t like blacks and won’t support them, Senator X’s support is critical for advancing in the nomination process, so few blacks make it through) and some indirect racism (disproportionately fewer blacks running because many of the precursors to running for president are racially biased).
FWIW, I think that view point by Edwards is totally ridiculous. Why not give Obama and Clinton some credit. They are doing good with fundraising because they are working hard and their message appeals to a broad swath of the general public.
Undoubtedly this accounts for a large proportion of their contribution base. A lazy Obama who never went to fundraisers or whose message wasn’t populist would doubtless do worse than the existing Obama who does work hard and who does have a populist message. But so what? At the margins, other factors come into play. Those marginal effects are real and can be discussed, even if they aren’t the whole picture.
Why is it that when a black man and in this case a white woman do well they can’t get any credit for their hard work?
They can have all the credit in the world. Why is an observation of an empirical phenomenon – a black guy who’s fundraising is grossly disproportional to the success level historically demonstrated by candidates with broadly equivalent electoral qualifications – automatically an attack on the guy himself?
It is incontrovertible that Obama has had great fundraising success. It is incontrovertible that this success is not in line with the historical performance of candidates who are similarly situated in terms of previous public service, “connectedness” to the party mechanism, etc. As I previously invited you to explain – if race is not the factor which explains the difference, what is?
I hope Elizabeth Edwards is embarrassed to see her comments in print. If she isn’t embarrassed I hope John Edwards is, and if he isn’t I’m sure not going to vote for him (not that I was planning on it anyway).
It makes my blood boil to see someone in public life expressing envy for the “advantages” of racist and sexist exceptionalism, as the Obama headlines quoted above so aptly illustrate.
Well gee whiz, Rachel! Maybe if you or your husband ran for president…
Mittman, You’re comment is really illogical. The money is not evenly distributed; some people raise more funds than others.
Robert, Clinton and Obama are not a trend. They are two individual people. In order to claim that black men and white women are somehow inclined to get better funding one could study the last three election cycles, and see which candidates got more money. I can gaurantee you that candidates like Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun did get more money that John Kerry.
Moreover, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that Clinton and Obama have raised more money than other candidates because of her gender and his race. You would have to actually ask people why they donated in order to figure out why each candidate was able to raise funds. Elizbeth Edwards is not making an empirically based claim; she is just giving her non-empirical opinion.
“Robert, Clinton and Obama are not a trend. They are two individual people. In order to claim that black men and white women are somehow inclined to get better funding one could study the last three election cycles, and see which candidates got more money.”
This is the crux of the whole thing. Does anyone here really, truly believe that if we did a comprehensive survey of money raised by all candidates in the US over a specific period of time, we’d find that blacks and women (because, as we all know, those are two mutually exclusive categories) would on average have raised more funds? Or are we going to be sensible and theorise that if we did such a survey, it would show that funds overwhelmingly go the white boys, individually and as a group?
Rachel, RonF appears to be making the statement in the instant case, whereas you’re responding in the overall case.
Because the country is widely racist, it is more difficult for blacks to attain positions of power. I.e., Fewer blacks have the opportunities and alumni connections to go to Harvard Law school. That’s a general statement.
However, for the limited subset of blacks who graduate from Harvard Law, their race is probably an advantage in hiring, because almost all of the top 500 law firms have huge diversity initiatives and are actively seeking qualified minority candidates. So if you look at the (biased by prior racism) group of Harvard Law graduates, then in certain circumstances there is a MARGINAL benefit of being black.
It’s not an OVERALL benefit, though: the overall benefit would have to take into account the enhanced difficulty of getting into Harvard Law in the first place. One hundred blacks with “twice the advantage” don’t counterbalance one million blacks with “half the advantage.” That’s the general case.
Same with Obama. It is much harder for blacks to get where Obama is because of racism. The answer to your question “why not more blacks in general?” is simple racism. That’s a general statement. And as above, any advantage that Obama may have because of his race does NOT erase, or counter, the general effect on other black would-be candidates.
However, that doesn’t mean Obama isn’t getting a MARGINAL benefit from his race. I’m inclined to believe he does.
If you changed Obama to white, he would not get as much press. Hell, he wouldn’t be nearly unusual. As everyone has acknowledged time and time again, the political process is highly biased towards white men. Common things are not news. White men running for president are not news; young, inexperienced Senators trying to change things are not always news.
The uncommon gets attention. That’s why I remember Geraldine Ferraro (why didn’t anyone else list her?) and not most of the other people who lost candidacies for the presidency.
This isn’t a value judgment–marginal benefits aren’t necessarily BAD. I think that Obama’s marginal benefit (if he has one) is a good thing. I think that minority initiatives in the Fortune 500 companies which marginally benefit blacks at the hiring stage are good things. After all, the general case is still quite clear: racism has a strong effect.
And I also would agree that pointing out marginal benefits to blacks, in the wrong context, can be racist.
But if we’re going to discuss the existence or truth of marginal benefits (which is what Edward’s statement was about) then I think you’re wrong.
What CrysT said. And Rachel is very patient in her comments, in my opinion.
We had a good laugh about this at the office yesterday. Sometimes you do have to laugh at these things, I suppose. But if White folks need to have a pity party about how Black men, White women and most certainly Black women(because of being both Black and female, which is a double bonus) are raking in the big donations at the expense of White men, all that can be asked I suppose is what planet you are from.
Just to clarify, we didn’t have a laugh at this thread, but at Edwards’ comments.
If you changed Obama to white, he would not get as much press. Hell, he wouldn’t be nearly unusual.
He’d still be a good looking, intelligent relatively young man who graduated from Harvard and is (apparently: I’ve never heard him personally) a good speaker. In short, Kennedy. And JFK managed to get a little publicity and raise a bit of money, despite thetragic weakness of being white and male…
Perhaps she worded it that way because saying that being a minority or being female is a fundraising advantage is not politically correct?
“Unusual”?
Is that for anyone who’s not “usual” or the default in this country of being White and/or male. Personally, I’d rather be liberated than remain “unusual”.
But what’s unusual about these folks is that they represent the miniscule population of people in this country who are zillionaires. The net worth of some of these candidates is enough to give someone the bends.
I get what you’re saying, but I disagree that the above situation is anything like what Edwards (and others) are asserting: she said, flat out, that being black or a woman will “get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars,” which is quite patently rubbish. Those particular two candidates are currently getting a lot of press, but they are hardly the only black and/or female candidates running for important offices, much less are they the only ones who have ever run for important offices. In general, belonging to a minority group means you get less attention from the press, unless they can hold you up as some sort of freak show.
I can gaurantee you that candidates like Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun did get more money that John Kerry.
Rachel S., I presume you meant, “did not get more money than John Kerry.
John Kerry married a whole lot of money and has been a Senator for quite some time, don’t forget; all advantages in fundraising.
Carol Moseley Braun had the backing of the regular Democratic Party in Illinois; I doubt that she had much problem with money for her first campaign, although I haven’t checked that. Her incompetence and her personal issues caused her to lose to Peter Fitzgerald, and thank God for that. You should too, considering what the U.S. Attorney that Sen. Fitzgerald had appointed subsequently did to the Illinois Reflublican party – even now it has yet to recover, and that was in turn a very large influence on Obama’s election. If the investigation of the Ill. Reflublican party and power structure by U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald (no relation to the Senator) hadn’t blown it’s organization up completely, they likely would have been able to mount a decent campaign with a candidate who didn’t try to get his wife to have sex with other men in a Paris sex club while he watched and Barak Obama might very well have lost and would not now be in the campaign.
Seems to me that Ms. Edwards is right; being black and/or female will, in fact, get you a lot of press and access to certain fundraising sources that you don’t get if you are white and male. She neither said nor (does it seem to me) implied that being black or female gets you more press or money than being white and male. But as has been pointed out upthread, a white male Senator with Obama’s experience and record would be much less likely to have gained as much notoriety as Obama has. It seems a fair assumption to me that his race has something to do with that, and that there are probably funding sources that are attracted to him because of his race.
Now, whether or not such press and funding can overcome what racism exists in America (on the part of both funders and voters) is another story. It’s also hard to sort out what funding and votes he might lose because of his race and what funding and votes he might lose because of his positions and lack of experience. But that’s not what Edwards was talking about.
RonF said, “Seems to me that Ms. Edwards is right; being black and/or female will, in fact, get you a lot of press and access to certain fundraising sources that you don’t get if you are white and male. She neither said nor (does it seem to me) implied that being black or female gets you more press or money than being white and male. But as has been pointed out upthread, a white male Senator with Obama’s experience and record would be much less likely to have gained as much notoriety as Obama has. It seems a fair assumption to me that his race has something to do with that, and that there are probably funding sources that are attracted to him because of his race.”
I’m sorry RonF, but that is utter rubush my friend. I can think of another candidate who wasn’t very experienced when he ran for (Vice President)–John Edwards. He was also a first term Senate when he ran with Kerry in 2004. However, unlike Obama Edwards had no experience in politics prior to serving in the Senate. In contrast, Obama had served in the Illinois State Senate since 1996 prior to serving in the US Senate.
I guess a black man’s years in office only count half of those of a white man.
I want to know who are these rich people who prefer black male and white female candidates? Give me some names. For every one of these names, give me the names of people who would prefer to donate to white male candidates.
BTW-I agree with you about the Illinois problems. It really was the craziness and corruption of the other candidates that contributed to Obama’s US Senate win.
As David pointed out, “Obama has more electoral office experience than Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Edwards, and Clinton.” Yet I’ve seen Obama’s inexperience emphasized far, far more often than that of the other candidates.
Putting aside the mysterious “why” as to why people talk so much more about Obama being inexperienced, it’s worth nothing that Romney, Giuliani, and Clinton have all been (iirc; I’m too lazy to look up the figures) successful fundraisers this year, despite the fact that they have less experience than Obama. So the idea, advanced by Robert, that Obama’s fundraising success (given his resume) is an anomoly that requires an explanation doesn’t seem true.
What’s more accurate to say, I think, is that having an impressive resume is obviously less important for fundraising than Robert believes. At least for this group of candidates, a long resume doesn’t seem to be important.
Responding to John McWhorter’s claim that “Take away Mr. Obama’s race and he’s some relatively anonymous rookie,” Cass Sunstein wrote:
Sure, John Edwards had the same experience level in national politics then as Sen. Obama does now. But there wasn’t nearly the buzz about John Edwards then that there has been about Obama. How much money had John Edwards raised by this point in the campaign back then? How much fewer column-inches did John Edwards have (O.K., that’s more a rhetorical question than one we’re actually likely to be able to research)?
BTW, I understand that Obama has state-level experience. That’s valuable in that he has learned how a campaign should be run and how to manage a political office, serve constituents, etc. But it gives him no experience in dealing with issues at a national level, especially military and diplomatic. As far as other issues goes, when it comes to a decision at a State-wide level I’m not familiar with his specific record. But the Illinois legislature is famous for pretty much being run by the 4 legislative leaders (the leaders of the two parties in each of the two houses). One of whom represents my district. There’s not a lot of independent voting going on in the Illinios legislature, but if Obama’s record represents a significant deviation from that I’d welcome knowing it. In any case, I discount State-level experience when considering someone’s record for Federal office; I do so for all candidates, regardless of race, etc.
Ah, yeah, the corruptness of Illinois politics. On both sides, BTW, but Daley the son of Daley is a lot smarter than he sounds and learned his art in the house of the master. The most powerful Democrat in the State of Illinios is highly unlikely to be in the cell next to George Ryan anytime soon. Or ever.
Indulge me briefly, all. Here’s why Sen. Barak Obama has that title. It starts with a part that fell off a truck on the highway, years ago. A van with a minister, his wife, and their 9 kids ran over it. The van caught on fire. The pastor, his wife, and 3 of the 9 children survived. Six children were incinerated. People wanted to know why.
Well, the State Police actually tracked down the truck and tried to interview the driver. I say “tried” because the driver didn’t speak English but only Polish. But that’s odd – you have to be able to speak and read English to get a CDL, which is Federally-required of all commercial truck drivers. So how did he get his license? Why, at a State of Illinois Secretary of State’s office. He paid good money for it – in fact, considerably more than the stated fee. But the person he bribed didn’t keep much of the money; instead, he paid it into the Secretary of State’s election campaign fund. It turns out he had to do so to keep his job.
At the time this was alleged but not yet proven, the Reflublican Secretary of State, denying all of this and trying to delay the investigation, was running for governor of the state. He won, and George Ryan became Governor George Ryan. Towards the end of his term, the entire chain of events above came out through a chain of some 60 trials starting with low-level Secretary of State employees getting convicted of a crime and then informed on their superiors and associates. This ran all the way up the ladder with some very powerful men getting convicted of felonies and going to prison. It became clear that George Ryan must have known where some of the campaign money had come from, and that there was a lot of corruption. It also came out that George Ryan was a very genial and gregarious man who often entertained people at his favorite Chicago restaurants and pulled out wads of cash to pay for this. That was quite curious, since he had only ever taken about $650 out of his bank account in any given year, saving the rest of his income.
George Ryan declined to run for re-election. The top of the ticket was open, and there was no obvious Republican to run for it. Also open was the top of the Illinois Reflublican party; the corruption probe had caught him (a State Senator) using state employees to do campaign work for him on the people’s time. He stayed as a Senator, but gave up his leadership roles in both the party and the legislature. Amazingly, the leadership of the party was unoccupied for more than 30 days in the middle of a critical state and federal campaign. A number of prominent Republicans (some with unassailable reputations) refused to take the job, reputedly because they feared that association with the party would sully those reputations, or that the inevitable failure would do so.
So, no governor, no party president. Meanwhile, the Federal Senate majority hung in the balance – one vote could make the difference. Illinois had a Senate seat up for re-election. The incumbent was Senator Peter Fitzgerald, Republican. Here was something that the party could unite behind, right? Right. They did unite. Opposing him. They wanted him out, and that’s what they got, and damn the national party and the Republican majority in the Senate. Why? Because Sen. Fitzgerald, exercising the customary perogative that the President grants to the senior Senator of each state that is a member of his party, selected the U.S. Attorneys of the State of Illinois, including the one that had spent that last 4 years picking up that truck part and using it to rip the hierarchy of the Illinois Republican party to shreds over their own corruption. And it was no accident that the U.S. Attorney in question (also named Fitzgerald, but no relation to the Senator) was so aggressive. He was from New York and was famous for tossing organized crime figures into jail. The Senator chose him for that and because he had absolutely no connection to anyone in Illinois, so he didn’t owe anyone favors and could go after corruption.
Sen. Fitzgerald had had a rough 6 years, has plenty of money, and decided to retire from the Senate. A good-looking, smart and relatively young white male became the candidate; Jack Ryan. Jack put together a good campaign and was running well. Jack used to have a beautiful wife. In fact, she is damn sexy; Jeri Ryan, who I and lots of other people will always remember for her portrayal of Seven of Nine on Star Trek:Next Generation. But they divorced, well before the campaign. Reporters decided to get a look at the divorce papers.
In an unusual procedure, the judge had sealed them. Reporters were persistent, lawsuits were filed, and finally the papers were unsealed. Turns out that Jeri had complained that Jack had taken her to a Parisian sex club and put pressure on her to have sex with another man while he watched. Jeri was contacted and stood behind her statements. All of a sudden, Jack didn’t look like Senatorial material anymore. After a bit, Jack withdrew.
So, no governor, no party president, no Senator, and the fair-haired boy goes down in flames. The party moderates give up on the deal and let the party conservatives pick a candidate, reputedly hoping that the conservatives will disgrace themselves. The conservatives oblige. They pick Dr. Alan Keyes, a resident of Maryland, it being a state that most Illinois residents couldn’t find on a map. Dr. Keyes is not precisely a right-wing nutball, but it turns out he does a damn good imitation during the campaign. Corrpution and internicene warfare blows up a desperately-needed Senate seat while the National GOP watches in horror.
This is the opposition that Barak Obama faced. All I knew about the guy was a) he’d been a State Senator, b) he gave a much-acclaimed speech at the last Democratic Convention, c) he was black, d) he seemed to be well-educated and most importantly e) he was not Dr. Alan Keyes. Obama won about 9:1, IIRC, in the only Senatorial election where two black candidates faced each other since Reconstruction. That’s how Obama became Senator.
You mean, other than being in the U.S. Senate, which normally is considered a high national position. No national positions at all have ever been held by Guiliani or by Romney.
A more rational “he’s inexperienced” argument against Obama is not that he has no national experience (he does), but that he’s never held elected executive-branch office.
By the way, national experience is not generally considered a requirement for a president. Carter had no national level experience. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Bush Jr.. Neither did Clinton (Bill).
I do think it’s true that there are some people more likely to donate to Obama because he’s black (me, for one; all else held equal, I’m more likely to donate to candidates who aren’t white men). But that doesn’t really answer the question of if being black is a net fundraising benefit. Personally, I suspect it’s a net disadvantage, but — like other scenarios we’ve seen presented in this thread — that’s speculation.
Amp, I don’t think that Barak Obama enjoys the position he now holds in American politics solely because of his race. I do think it’s a contributing factor, but as you (or someone …) said, people must like what he has to say or he wouldn’t still be in the race; he’d be down the same road that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton travelled. Regarding your examples, though –
Romney has been a governor, and in recent American history the populace has shown it likes to elect governors and not Senators. JFK was the last Senator to get elected President; Clinton and Bush were both Governors. My theory is that although they don’t have the national issue experience, they have executive experience, and that appeals in electing the Chief Executive. I tend to discount State-level experience in national elective office, but it does tempt me when we’re talking about a Governor of one of the larger states. It doesn’t necessarily sway me, I’ve voted for Senators over Governors. But the national results are otherwise.
Guliani is a special case, as he came to national recognition, admiration and sympathy as having been the Mayor of New York on September 11th and how he lead the city to deal with that. Otherwise, mayors have not been popular candidate for President. Without that special situation, we’re not here seeing him running.
Thompson? He was a Senator for at least one full term, so he’s had more national experience than Obama (As I say, I discount his state record; I do so equally for all candidates, and always have).
Senator Clinton is an obvious special case; no need to explain why here, I should hope. And in the same sense, she’s more experienced than Obama. Also a little less likely to put her foot in her mouth.
Let’s not speculate. Let’s compare. We have actual data, and do not need to rely on people’s feelings.
In the 2nd quarter of 2003 (the same time frame as now, but one cycle ago) President Bush blew past all previous fundraising efforts, bringing in about $35 million. (Source) There was considerable notice of it at the time.
Sitting President. Most powerful man in the world. If you gave the guy any more straight white privilege, he’d explode.
In the 2nd quarter of 2003, John Kerry was doing fine by historical standards, though nowhere close to the Bush blowout. He raised about $8 million (same source).
In the 2nd quarter of 2003, John Edwards raised $5.7 million. Not bad. (Same source.)
Now let’s look at 2007. (Source for the 2007 numbers.)
John Edwards has raised $9 million. Pretty good – nearly twice what he did last time around, even after he’s been defeated and had some bad press.
Guiliani has raised $16 million.
Romney has raised $21 million.
Hillary Clinton has raised $27 million.
Barack Obama has raised $33 million.
Barack Obama – a one-term Senator of no particular distinction – raised about as much money over the same time period as President George Bush – whose fundraising at the time set an all-time record. Clinton and Obama together raised more than the entire Republican field – more than Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee and Thompson combined. Obama alone raised more than the #1, #3, and #4 Republicans combined. He raised half again as much as the #1 Republican, twice as much as the #2 Republican – guys who (in Giuliani’s case) have been in politics for longer than Obama has had chest hair.
It appears that the empirical data flatly refute the proposition that there is nothing unusual about Obama’s fundraising. The data support Mrs. Edwards in terms of plausibility, if not mechanism. (Maybe it’s something other than race – although nobody here has offered a plausible theory other than Obama being such an amazing guy that his transcending of previous performances is just par for the course, nothing unusual to see here. Which I don’t see, but YMMV.)
So Robert are you saying if we don’t know why Obama has earned more money we should just assume it is his race?
That is quite spurious, and does not at all comply with the scientific method. If I came in and made the claim that white women and men and women of color were on average raising fewer funding dollar because of their race or gender. You would expect a random sample with control variables. Elizabeth Edwards comes in and makes a proposterous claim and a causation, assuming that Obama’s race and Hillary’s gender are the cause for their good fund raising, and you set the standard of “proof” excessively low.
This is one of those times when you are really acting like an ass…You damn well know if I made the reverse claim you would expect more evidence. In contrast Edwards doesn’t need to provide any evidence whatsoever.
Robert, that Obama has been extremely successful as a fundraiser — which is all your data shows — is not speculation. However, what your data shows is that there’s simply much more money in the game this year than there has been in the past at this point. Obama is the leader of the pack, but even third-place candidates and ludicrous Republicans have raised much more money this time around than the eventual Democratic nominee did four years ago. Regardless of race, the successful candidates this year are all raising ridiculous sums of money compared to anyone but Bush 4 years ago.
Those are facts. The suggestion that Obama’s fundraising success can only be explained by race, on the other hand, is pure speculation. You cannot prove such a thing from a sample size of one black candidate; and if you widen the sample to include past black candidates for president, that tends to show that no Black fundraising benefit exists.
(You might respond “well, the magical Black fundraising ability exists only for credible black candidates.” But Obama’s credibility as a candidate is partly based on his fundraising prowess; it’s therefore partly circular to say that his fundraising, which is part of the reason he’s credible, is due to his credibility.)
I think Obama has raised so much money primarily because he won the competition to be the person anti-war Democrats, by far the most energized portion of the base, consolidated around.[*] I guess Mrs. Edwards can tell herself that Obama beat Edwards in this competition because Obama is black, but it seems to me a more plausible explanation is that Obama isn’t saddled with having voted for invading Iraq, but Edwards is.
[*] Edited to add: Actually, this isn’t true; that’s a competition that’s still going on today, and Edwards might end up winning it. But Obama was an early leader in that competition, and certainly could wind up the winner.
So Robert are you saying if we don’t know why Obama has earned more money we should just assume it is his race?
No, Rachel, I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that I believe the explanation is his race. I have said why, and have explained the proposed mechanism. I have also expressed a willingness to listen to alternative hypotheses. So far you’ve restricted your alternative hypotheses to claims that the existing set of facts is preposterous.
If I came in and made the claim that white women and men and women of color were on average raising fewer funding dollar because of their race or gender. You would expect a random sample with control variables.
I wouldn’t expect that, because it would be extremely difficult to arrange. But I would expect you to demonstrate the existence of a lower average – the way I have demonstrated the existence of an unusual spike for Obama. I would expect you to formulate an explanatory theory – they way I’ve theorized that some political donors are more willing to donate to a black candidate. I would expect you to show some kind of conceptual model of how the theory could lead to the outcome – the way I’ve shown how a small number of preferred but underprivileged candidates can outperform a larger number of privileged candidates on a per-candidate basis.
If you’d done all that and my response to you was to say that you’re being an ass and that your scenario is preposterous and etc., what would be your conclusion regarding my intellectual honesty?
The suggestion that Obama’s fundraising success can only be explained by race, on the other hand, is pure speculation. You cannot prove such a thing…
True. I’m not trying to prove it; I’m trying to argue that Mrs. Edwards is not “ignorant” for having made the suggestion, and that her theory is at least facially plausible. I happen to believe that the (racial) part of her theory is correct, but I acknowledge I can’t prove it.
I’m not arguing that race is the only possible explanation. I’m arguing that I think it could easily be the explanation, or a big chunk thereof, in this case.
I think Obama has raised so much money primarily because he won the competition to be the person anti-war Democrats, by far the most energized portion of the base, consolidated around…it seems to me a more plausible explanation is that Obama isn’t saddled with having voted for invading Iraq, but Edwards is.
Hooray, an alternative hypothesis that doesn’t boil down to “racist!”
The glaring problem with this hypothesis seems to be Hillary Clinton. She also voted for the war, like Edwards, and in fact seems to be the Democrat’s most pro-war candidate. And she’s nearly tied with Obama, and has raised three times as much as Edwards has.
However, what your data shows is that there’s simply much more money in the game this year than there has been in the past at this point.
This is potentially a fair point. It can be easily compensated for in our analysis, however, by normalizing the fundraising totals and comparing relative performance across the time periods.
For example, in 2003, the Democratic front-runner (Kerry) raised a normalized 1.0. John Edwards raised 70% of that sum, so 0.7. In 2007, the Democratic front-runner (Obama) raised a normalized 1.0. John Edwards raised 27% of that sum, so a normalized 0.27. Hmm; in comparison the front-runner, John Edwards has declined in performance from 70% of the winner’s total, to 27% of the winner’s total.
Ah – but perhaps John Edwards has gone downhill in the meantime. Even the prettiest hair gets split ends. So let’s compare him from 2003 to 2007. In 2003 he raised $5.7 million. In 2007 he raised…$9 million. Hmm, he’s raised his totals by almost 60%.
So John Edwards has done much better this year – and yet he finds himself between two and three times farther behind the front-runner than he did last time around. The “it’s just that everyone’s richer this time around” explanation doesn’t appear to hold much water.
Robert, it has been a given for ages that Hilary Clinton would be a front-runner, and relative to the Democratic party base she’s pro-war. The competition was for who would be the anti-war alternative to Clinton.
Normalizing the fundraising data is reasonable, but the way you’ve done it is ridiculous. Edwards was a frontrunner for fundraising in 2003, and he’s not this year. To measure whether or not Obama’s fundraising lead is unprecedented, the fair question isn’t “how wide is his lead compared to John Edwards?”; it’s “how large is his lead over the second placer?”.
In 2003, in the second quarter, the second-place democrat (measured by fundraising), Edwards, raised about 75% of what the first-place candidate (Kerry) had raised.
In 2007, in the second quarter, the second-place candidate (Clinton) has raised about 81% of what the first-place candidate (Obama) has raised.
So compared to 2003, the magnitude of Obama’s fundraising lead is not at all unprecedented.
Edited to add:
I guess among Republicans jokes about Edwards’ hair passes for wit, in much the same way creationism passes for science.
A paragraph after you concede that it’s necessary to normalize data in order to compare 4 years ago to today, you’re comparing Edwards’ absolute totals from 4 years ago to today as if that’s a meaningful comparison.
4 years ago, in the second quarter, about 28% of all money raised by Democratic candidates had been raised by the Edwards campaign. This year, in contrast, about 11% of all second-quarter money raised by Democratic candidates has been raised by the Edwards campaign. If we normalize for the amount of money in play, Edwards is clearly doing much worse this time around than he did in 2003.
[edited to desnark a little]
If we normalize for the amount of money in play, Edwards is clearly doing much worse this time around than he did in 2003.
And the people who are doing better than him (he is #3) are white men, right?
Details aside, you and Rachel are in the position of arguing that in a primary where 72% of the money is going to one woman and one black candidate, while six white men split the remaining 28%, it is preposterous, ridiculous and ignorant to think that maybe being a woman or black isn’t a disadvantage right here and now.
If I showed you an economic scenario where two white guys were earning 72% of the money while six black women scrabbled for 28%, and I said that it would be ignorant to view this as evidence suggesting that black women were getting the shaft, you’d eat my lunch. And you know you’d eat my lunch.
I think you ought to eat your own lunch here, and see what’s in front of your eyes. It doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t happen or that the color-blind advocates win; it means that the world as we find it is a little more complicated than a theory can encompass.
For heaven’s sake, you ought to be celebrating this. Among the Democratic party, direct and personal racism and sexism have ebbed to the point where a woman and a black man can not only be the front-runners in the race, but have won access to the big money.
So one of your privileged white guys is whining about this a little bit (or his wife is); that’s to be expected. She’s whining, but she isn’t wrong; why not tick her for being a whiner, instead of trying to pretend that she’s wrong? It doesn’t gain you any credibility with people not firmly in your ideological camp to see you guys trying to deny numbers, instead of just admitting the numbers and saying that the numbers are what they should be. The Democrats have been saying that women and blacks should be getting their turn at the table, and now they are. What’s the problem?
Correction to my earlier post:
Contrary to what I wrote earlier, John Kerry was not the leader in fundraising among Democrats for the second quarter in 2003; he had the most total money left to spend, but that’s including a lot of stuff other than second quarter receipts. In terms of funds raised in the second quarter, Howard Dean was the leader at this time in 2003.
In 2003, the fundraising race in the second quarter was much “flatter” than it is in 2007. Edwards was the fourth placer for 2nd quarter fundraising, behind Lieberman, Kerry and Dean. Edwards had brought in 18% of all 2nd quarter money raised by Democrats, and the second-placer for fundraising in the 2nd quarter — Kerry — had brought in about 76% of what the front-runner – Dean – had brought in.
So, again, the magnitude of Obama’s fundraising lead at this time isn’t anything special; and, again, Edwards is clearly not doing as well this time around as he did four years ago, even though he’s raised more money in absolute terms.
I presume you meant to write “advantage,” not “disadvantage.”
I think it’s mistaken to think this situation proves that being a woman, or Black, or both, is a net fundraising advantage.
I’ve never heard the “eat my lunch” expression before. That’s an odd one.
If all the data we had to work with was the eight people in the sample you suggest, I don’t think it would be possible to draw any conclusions. In the real world, however, there is ample evidence that being black, female or both is a disadvantage for earning power compared to being white and male — and over the course of many studies, that’s a conclusion that is based on tens of thousands, and arguably hundreds of thousands, of data points.
It’s possible that there is a net fundraising advantage to being black, or to being female, as a major party presidential candidate. But you can’t prove that with only two data points. If we look at how black and female candidates have done in past races, it’s obvious that any fundraising advantage that comes with being female and black, if it exists, is less important to total fundraising success than other factors.
Given that, it’s reasonable to assume that Clinton’s and Obama’s success in fundraising, regardless of whether or not race and sex are contributing factors, has been caused primarily by factors other than race and sex. And that Edwards’ lack of fundraising success, likewise, is not caused by his race and sex.
I am seeing what’s in front of my eyes. The evidence from the last half-dozen or so presidential campaigns clearly shows that being black, or being female, is not sufficient to bring about fundraising success; and it also shows that being white and male is not a barrier to fundraising success. Therefore, Obama and Clinton’s fundraising success must be based on other factors, and Edward’s fundraising failures are not because he’s white and male.
I understand this. I also do think it’s possible (although not proven) that, in the current situation, for a candidate who has already overcome the racism and/or sexism barriers to becoming a credible major-party candidate, being black or female might be a net fundraising advantage.
There’s a big difference, however, between saying that there may be a marginal fundraising advantage that comes with being a black or female front-runner, and implying that the reason Edwards’ fundraising hasn’t been stellar is because he’s white and male. The former is a reasonable question to bring up, although it’s also pure speculation. The latter is just silly.
(Edited to add: I think it’s a reasonable question for a social scientist to bring up. I think it’s a nasty and divisive question for a professional political campaigner to bring up as a talking point against black and female candidates. The example of Elizabeth Edwards clearly is more like the latter than like the former, alas.)
This isn’t relevant to what Elizabeth Edwards said. It’s reasonable for me to believe that it’s great that a white woman and a black man can now be frontrunners (and I do think that’s great), and at the same time to believe that being a white man is not a significant barrier to fundraising success. The two beliefs do not contradict each other.
The evidence from the last half-dozen or so presidential campaigns clearly shows that being black, or being female, is not sufficient to bring about fundraising success; and it also shows that being white and male is not a barrier to fundraising success.
This would only hold necessarily true if attitudes towards race and gender had undergone no changes in our society over the last 20-30 years. Six presidential elections ago was 1984.
Things have changed since then. That’s the entire point.
[edited for clarity]
Unlike many of the people taking part in this discussion, I can remember 1984 quite clearly. And social attitudes in general towards both race and gender were if anything more progressive then than now. The idea that society is always moving forward regarding such attitudes is naive and wrong.
This would only hold necessarily true if attitudes towards race and gender had undergone no changes in our society over the last 20-30 years. Six presidential elections ago was 1984.
Things have changed since then. That’s the entire point.
While not disagreeing with your basic statement that things are different now than in 1984, I nonetheless strongly disagree with the implicit statement* that therefore all the disadvantages that a black or female candidate for high office faced then are now gone. In fact, if either Clinton or Obama gets the nomination and we get through the campaign without anyone from a major news organization or the opposition campaign making a seriously racist or sexist remark (i.e. one that I remember from Ferrarro’s candidacy “do the American people REALLY want a woman one heartbeat from being the leader of the free world”) I’ll vote for the Republican, run butt nekid down the street shouting “Robert was right!” and buy you a pony. You can see how likely I consider the possibility.
*If you didn’t intend this implicit statement, I’ll be happy to retract the attribution.
I didn’t intend that implicit statement.
I didn’t intend that implicit statement.
Well, forget the pony, then:) But my apologies for misstating your position.
To me, the whole thing that is objectionable about Elizabeth Edward’s statement is that she is suggesting that Obama’s and Clinton’s POLITICS have little to do with their success in fundraising and that it’s all about ascribed statuses. She’s essentially using the “affirmative action” argument of: “He/She only got this job because of affirmative action, not because he/she is qualified.” That’s insulting.
There are a lot of reasons that Obama and Clinton are front runners right now – many of which have nothing to do with race or gender. Clinton’s probably doing well because of name recognition and riding the coattails of her husband – I suspect that’s a fairer assessment than because she’s a woman. Obama’s doing well because he’s “fresh” and as of yet seems “untouched” by the foils of politics/corruption (at least, that’s largely the perception among his supporters from what I’ve seen), and it doesn’t hurt that he’s a compelling public speaker and dynamic personality. I suspect all of those factors explain quite a bit more of their relative fundraising success than their race or gender.
To me, the whole thing that is objectionable about Elizabeth Edward’s statement is that she is suggesting that Obama’s and Clinton’s POLITICS have little to do with their success in fundraising and that it’s all about ascribed statuses.
Actually, I don’t see where she is saying that at all. She said “those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollar.” That is not at all saying that their politics have little to do with their fundraising success. She is essentially saying that being black or female gets you some incremental press coverage, which is then worth some fundraising money. But she did not say that their politics have little to do with their success.
RonF: Heh. Fair synopsis of the background noise surrounding Obama’s election to the Senate—your description of what was going on with the Republicans was spot-on. I had a ringside seat to that downstate, and damn!, was that some fun stuff to watch!
However, I don’t want any non-Illinois readers to get the impression that Obama was elected to the Senate by default—which is what your post seems to imply. Granted, he couldn’t have had a less-worthy opponent than Keyes, and it would have been a different fight had Ryan remained in the race, but by no means was Ryan going to win by default, either. It would have been a real race. Regardless, Obama still worked it as if it were a real race, visiting BFE, Illinois, and stumping his heart out. He is a charismatic speaker, and the perception of him amongst downstate voters —not just Dems, but also those who are willing to consider a vote for a Democrat— is that he is “a uniter, not a divider”. That’s the phrase I’ve been hearing ever since he took that seat. Hell, before he got elected!
My union officially backed Hynes in the primary. I voted for Obama. I thought either one of them would be excellent in the office; I thought Obama was more likely to be my candidate—-meaning, he wasn’t part of the “old boy’s network”. I perceived him to be somewhat of an “outsider”, and someone who was canny enough to know which risks to take and when. He’d pissed off some of the old-school Chicago Dems and survived….I figured he’d know how to handle himself. Hynes? He’ll probably be our next Governor….and bravo, y’know? I like him. But when the choice had to be made, I went with who I identified with.
And that’s why I think Elizabeth Edwards commentary is bullshit—it’s reductive. Look, just because he’s white and male doesn’t mean he’s any more electable, which is what I think her comment implies—look at all the money going to that woman and that black dude, when you know they aren’t real candidates, because U.S. voters aren’t going to elect a woman or a black man!! (and the best indication of that is……all that money and all those crowds, right?) Bah. The only “white, male” disadvantage Edwards has is the one he’s creating for himself by not running a different race than say, Gore or Kerry.
La Lubu, to take your last comment first, I read the entire AP article and I can’t agree that Ms. Edwards’ comments imply what you say they do. I think that they mean what she straightforwardly said; a credible black or female candidate is going to stand out among a sea of white males and is going to get more press than a white male with the same positions, and more press equals more contributions. That makes sense to me. I don’t think she’s implying anything else.
As far as Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senatorial race; no, I don’t think Obama got elected by default, but the Illinois Reflublican implosion (richly deserved, don’t get me wrong) sure made a difference. Ostensibly a blue state, Illinois has elected a number of Republican senators since I’ve lived here and Jack Ryan stood an excellent chance of winning until the fecal material hit the mechanical ventilator.
It was interesting to note that while Illinois is 15% black, it has elected two of the three black Senators since Reconstruction and this last Senatorial election was (unless I am misinformed) the first such to pit two black candidates against each other since that time.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003627864
“In the derby for ‘free media’ exposure, Barack Obama overtook fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, who led in the first three months of the year…”
“Among Republicans, the race for media attention was a tight contest among John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. And one unannounced candidate, actor and sometime politician Fred Thompson, emerged as a leading recipient of coverage even without formally entering the race”
Note:
When I use http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php to try to pick a candidate,
the three major democratic candidates come up with nearly identical scores,
and Clinton and Edwards have nearly identical positions as shown on
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=868063604&size=o
So I doubt that a significant difference in donations (or TV time) is due to the candidate’s actual positions on the issues.
Part of the difference may be due to charisma (Obama) or having a pre-built infrastructure (Clinton), but given that two people on this list have said that they would donate preferentially to women or blacks, and no one has said that they would donate preferentially to men, I don’t find it inconceivable that in the case of ties, the non-white-male candidate gets the donation. (If I were going to make a donation, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden all got the same score)
And given that the population made up of people who post on Alas are pretty atypical of the American public in general, you can’t draw a single wider conclusion based on the comments of two (count ’em, TWO) commenters here.
In fact, not everyone who posts here even is American or living in America.
So how could the comments here shed any light on campaign-donation behaviour related to US elections in general?
Crys T writes that the population on this blog is not representative of the political donating population in the USA.
I agree.
However I also believe that of the people who would donate to the Democratic Party, people who would donate preferentially to a female or black candidate outnumber the people who would preferentially donate to a white male candidate. Does that seem implausible to you?
In fact, given that there are 3 white male candidates that among the 5 “centrist” candidates, being female is a fund-raising advantage if more than 20% of the people who would donate preferentially would donate to a female rather than a male.
Do you really think that of the people who would donate to democrats, more than 75% or them would prefer to donate to a male?
(Note: of the two republicans and one libertarian that I regularly trade barbs with, none of them will say that they would preferentially donate to a male.)
Hmm.
should be
…given that there are 3 white male candidates that among the 5 “centrist” candidates, being female is a fund-raising advantage if: a) more than 20% of the people who would donate preferentially based on sex would donate to a female rather than a male, AND if b) the woman-preferred and male-preferred donors give the same amount.
B is really important, though for some odd reason I was overlooking it entirely until I read your recent post.
If 90% of sex-preferential donors prefer women, and 10% prefer men, does that mean Hilary will get more money? Not necessarily. If those 10% are the rich Bill-Gates-types of the world, and the 90% are the poor artists of the world, then the 10% can easily win.
Same for race-preferential donors.
Which leads to the very interesting followup questions:
-In a race that includes one woman and many men, are sex-preference donors who prefer women likely to give more or less money to their favored candidate than the sex-preference donors who prefer men?
-In a race that includes one black and many whites, are race-preference donors who prefer blacks likely to give more or less money to their favored candidate than the sex-preference donors who prefer whites?
Do any of you think or consider that a black or female candidate could attract new money; people who might not otherwise contribute money at all otherwise?
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Race in The Workplace: The “50% Brother/Sister”