If you haven’t taken the research that far, do you plan to?

I haven’t done that kind of analysis, but I plan to — my focus was on sexism/misogyny because it jumps out at you simply by looking at a few of the state polls in the set. I actually never even planned on looking at “50 state” trends…I was looking at “swing state” first (states that could go either way in theory), then decided to expand it to “battleground” states (states like California and Texas which are all but foregone conclusion — but the GOP will campaign in Calif. and the Dems in Texas, because if they don’t then the other party can concentrate their resources on swing states). At that point, I had already cut and pasted and formatted the data from about 30 states, so I just went ahead and did them all.

the issue for me wasn’t whether there was evidence of sexism, but whether it could be quanified in some way. And it could be…but the results were surprising (like the data showing the South as having the least evidence of sexism).

I never had any intention of writing about racism in relation to sexism — basically, this piece started out as a footnote, then an appendix, to the third (and supposedly final) installment in a series on the evidence of sexism. Basically, the I just wanted to say that I could account for some of the variances in the evidence of sexism — that there was a relationship between the gender gap and the percentage of black voters. The original thesis was that it was the black voters themselves that were closing the gender gap — but while the size of the gender gap could be correlated to the percentage of black voters, the change in male and female voting patterns could not be attributed to black voters themselves. The change was too big for the size of the black vote — which is when I started looking at what happened to the white vote when the there were more black voters.

And that meant that the explanation was too big for an appendix.

In terms of the potential for racism to determine the election outcome, the answer is “in 49 of 50 states”, because except for Hawaii, every state is at least half white, and the maximum % of black voters is about 1/3.

If you exclude the states where racism has already determined the outcome (the south) or where racism will just add to the GOP margins (Mountain states) you’re looking at a whole bunch of states where racism is a very real potential problem.

But the evidence isn’t in this data set — its in the pre-primary polling for South Carolina, and the McCain v Democrat head to head matchups in Ohio that have been done over time. Basically, in SC, white voters only started really coming around to supporting Obama starting in Mid-December, and he had gotten to 29% of the white vote by early January. Then the whole “race-baiting” thing hit, and he lost 7 of those 29 points — and white voters flocked to Clinton — she went from 36% of the white vote to 50% in a two week period. What controversy died down, Clinton lost that white support that went to her as a result of the controversy, but only 1/7 of it shows up in Obama’s exit polls (he was at 22% of the white vote at the height of the controversy, and wound up at 24%.) The rest of that “white shift” went to edwards.

Then, there is Ohio. Obama was lagging well behind McCain in head to head matchups before the primary season focus shifted to Ohio, but by the end of February both Obama and Clinton lead McCain by 10 points. Then the Wright controversy hit… and Obama wound up behind McCain by 7 points in a little over two weeks (there are some weird things about the data that suggest that the real margin was Obama behind McCain by 2 or three points… for one thing, the party distribution of the poll shifted dramatically toward more republicans and fewer democrats, and while Clinton’s own numbers remained the same, McCain picked up 4 additional points, dropping Clinton’s margin over McCain to 6 points.)

Unfortunately SUSA hasn’t done a poll in Ohio sunce that mid-march one, so I can’t say what has happened since then. Other polls suggest that Obama has made up a lot of the ground that he’s lost, but I use only SUSA data because while their methodology leaves a lot to be desired in terms of predicting final totals because they get the overall distribution of the vote wrong, within specific categories (ie, gender, race, age, etc) their polls are remarkably accurate. (They’re polling is automated, which allows for very large samples — but they rely on that data to say what percentage of each group will vote.)

Ohio and SC tell us that Obama can attract the necessary support from white voters to win in November. But they also tell us a whole lot of his white support will evaporate very quickly if race becomes an “issue”

Citizen Lukasiak:

Thanx for the response…I think that you are bein’ FAAAR too charitable to Mrs. ClintoMcCain in both the 3AM ad and the “bitter” thing. I believe that she knew EXACTLY what the subliminal responses were gunna be ta BOTH and that the corporate media would see to it that those messages got through to any folks who missed it the first time (kinda like a media catapult, don’tcha know).

Further, I don’t think there is a single race or class attack that isn’t intended in this election and I thank you for presentin’ the data that makes it hard to believe that those who make these attack ads don’t understand what the reaction is gunna be.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS US MORE A THIS STUFF BUT COME OUT ONTO THE LIMB WITH US PAUL…IT AIN’T GUNNA GET OUT THERE IF YA DON’T KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD!!!

You must be glassy-eyed poring over all that. I do less extensive research and find it impossible to get blog readers to wade through the specifics. You might want to consider doing a separate page that’s this thorough, then focus the main post on a handful of points, a couple of illustrative graphs, a solid summary, plus a link for those in the wonkerati to explore more if they want to. (Just an unsought suggestion, well-intended).

In the primaries, I’d already deduced that Obama’s won every state that held a population of at least 20% Blacks. And that Clinton won every state with 15% or more Hispanics, except Colorado. (And New Mexico, the highest of them all at 44%, proved surprisingly close).

I understand your study focuses on anti-Black racism and sexism/misogyny, without direct use as predictives (as yet). So to my questions:

1) Typically, there’s a number of states so blue or red that they only shift in landslide years. From your data, do you see any red or blue states that could possibly shift on the strength of racism alone?

2) Also, ME, NH, PA, OH, WI, IA, MO, AR, FL, NM, and OR have the highest potential to swing either way. Some include MI, WA, TN and LA in that list, but it seems WA and MI have been trending fairly steadily blue while LA and TN trend redder. Among other possibles, let’s leave AZ out for this discussion because it’s extremely rare for a guy to lose his home state. However, MN, CT, NJ, VA, NC, CO and NV are not so hard to envision as within reach.

So that’s 22, with CT, NJ, VA and NC the longest shots to shift the other way from their recent patterns.

Have you extrapolated your findings and applied them to these swing states to try and determine:

a) where racism is likely to make Obama more disadvantaged, and

b) where it’s so minimal that it shouldn’t pose big difficulties for Obama to win certain states?

Or is the racism so consistent throughout that Obama could conceivably lose most or all of the swing states?

If you haven’t taken the research that far, do you plan to?

(Thanks for all the hard work. Both my empathy and sympathy are with you!)

So, don’t be afraid, Brother Paul, it’s like a really good dissertation – it’s gunna piss off a lotta people but you have the chops for it. Now what is it that the data tells us that we ken use ?

well, one use would be to use it to attack the media when it engages in “dog whistle” sexism and racism. (I’m really pissed at Clinton for trying to make an issue of the whole “bitter” thing, because (unlike the 3AM ad) there is a ‘dog whistle’ subtext to the criticism. I doubt if its intentional — Clinton saw an opening and she took it without thinking it through, and the media is playing it up for all its worth.)

Understanding that there are a lotta variables that you haven’t included in your calculus (most importantly CLASS)

actually, I did check the data against class (at least to the limited extent that the data set allowed, which were three income variables). And Obama’s white vote totals do go down more than Clinton’s as the percentage of the electorate making under 40K increases… but 0-40K is such a wide range — and 40K means something completely different in different parts of the county — that to try and draw any conclusion from the data would be very tough.

Citizen Paul Lukasiak:

OK Paul, let me try a different approach, sometimes my questions ken force answers into hidin’. First of all, your writing skills are more than adequate to present your own conclusions all ya hafta do is the hardest work…create some meaning from the data. I had a graduate advisor who told me once that the most important skill in research is knowin’ when to quit and attempt to make sense of the data. What you have here is a tremendously important cluster of data and each graph makes a statement of some kind. Understanding that there are a lotta variables that you haven’t included in your calculus (most importantly CLASS) the data you have messaged here should be able to tell us something about mass behavior in elections and political problem solvin that can guide us in our attempts to break through the institutionalized siege walls that the rulin’ elite have created around our electoral system.

So, don’t be afraid, Brother Paul, it’s like a really good dissertation – it’s gunna piss off a lotta people but you have the chops for it. Now what is it that the data tells us that we ken use ?

KEEP THE FAITHAND REMEMBER THAT FEAR IS JEST A WORD AND TRUTH AIN’T GOIN’ NO PLACE!!!

Now is that right so far?

well, its really close for someone trying to interpret my turgid prose ;).

What is it you are tellin’ us with this calculus of race and gender? Is there anything here that we don’t already know or intuit? How about a straight forward articulation of your thesis…jest what conclusions are you willin’ to draw from all a this?

When I’m doing this kind of thing, I try to avoid reaching conclusions — thinking in terms of conclusions can make you see things that aren’t there, and miss stuff that is there.

The thing is that I’m not writing about politics — I’m using political polling to write about the nature of American culture. Unfortunately, the political implications wind up being unavoidable.

And anyway, I don’t write well, and my opinions are far from unique, which is why I generally don’t include my own opinions when I write stuff. Plus, if someone disagrees with your conclusions, they are more likely to disregard the evidence that helped you reach those conclusions.

‘…We already know that race and gender are used to keep class interests from…” Comment #25

Citizen Paul Lukasiak and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Let me see if I have this right: 1. Race is both an issue and a factor in our society and in our elections. 2. Gender is both an issue and a factor in our society and in our elections. 3. The impact of each (in elections anywayz) changes based on the percentage of black population. 4.While the impact of gender is smaller as a consequence to elections, the impact of race grows as the percentage of Blacks grows. Now is that right so far?

What is it you are tellin’ us with this calculus of race and gender? Is there anything here that we don’t already know or intuit? How about a straight forward articulation of your thesis…jest what conclusions are you willin’ to draw from all a this? We already know that race and gender are used to divide our pluralistic society and are effective in keepin’ forces in power that do not represent the interests and politics of a majority of people. We already know that race and gender are used effectively to keep any kind of political consensus from bein’ forged electorally. We already know that both race and class are used to keep class interests from becomin’ visible and therefore determining in out elections. What is it that you would have us learn from this that we don’t already know?

I really love the way your mind works and how deep you ken penetrate the overwhelmin’ volume of data but it’s time to come back to the surface and take a deep breath and help us create some meaning out of our understanding of behavior in order to influence it (or not).

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BE AFRAID TO SAY WHAT YOU KNOW AND ADMIT WHAT YOU DON’T!!!