Presidential Campaign Not About Race
At a casual glance the democratic presidential nomination seems to become more about race every day. In Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina a preponderance of white voters cast their ballot for Clinton. Nine in ten blacks voted for Obama.
The press has latched onto these statistics and made big news out of them. But the press may be simplifying things too much by implying that the country is becoming polarized on a racial divide. Here’s an alternate interpretation of the vote: it’s really about social class. Here's why.
The three most recent caucus states have large rural populations. Rural people tend to be white, and they tend to be working class. Clinton has done a good job identifying with this group, even if the recent revelation that she’s spent $10 million of her own on her campaign proves beyond doubt that she is not one of them.
The big cities, such as Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Gary and Charlotte largely went in Obama’s favor. These cities have large populations of educated whites who are more receptive to Obama's approach, which appears to be fueled by ideals, versus Clinton's campaign which tries to present itself as more pragmatic.
Rural whites and urban whites have different incomes, different educations, and different world views. This accounts for the way they have voted, race does not.
Urban blacks, who generally tend to not do as well economically as urban whites, nonetheless voted for Obama. But their preference can't be attributed simply to race. They voted for Obama for the same reasons that rural whites voted for Clinton: he appears to be one of their own, they can relate to him. Conversely, they didn't reject Clinton because she is white. The working class ideals that she talks about play outside the big cities, but she has not shown herself to be in step with urban workers.
The press has latched onto these statistics and made big news out of them. But the press may be simplifying things too much by implying that the country is becoming polarized on a racial divide. Here’s an alternate interpretation of the vote: it’s really about social class. Here's why.
The three most recent caucus states have large rural populations. Rural people tend to be white, and they tend to be working class. Clinton has done a good job identifying with this group, even if the recent revelation that she’s spent $10 million of her own on her campaign proves beyond doubt that she is not one of them.
The big cities, such as Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Gary and Charlotte largely went in Obama’s favor. These cities have large populations of educated whites who are more receptive to Obama's approach, which appears to be fueled by ideals, versus Clinton's campaign which tries to present itself as more pragmatic.
Rural whites and urban whites have different incomes, different educations, and different world views. This accounts for the way they have voted, race does not.
Urban blacks, who generally tend to not do as well economically as urban whites, nonetheless voted for Obama. But their preference can't be attributed simply to race. They voted for Obama for the same reasons that rural whites voted for Clinton: he appears to be one of their own, they can relate to him. Conversely, they didn't reject Clinton because she is white. The working class ideals that she talks about play outside the big cities, but she has not shown herself to be in step with urban workers.
posted by CatZoo at 9:24 AM
0 comments
