I base it on the fact that the entire campaign operated on two pillars of support: rejection of every aspect of whatever appeared to be the Bush legacy — including anything that could be even tenuously connected to it — and how wonderful it would be for the country to elect its first black President. Obama played the race card sparingly and carefully (his supporters were less discreet), but play it he did, less to claim his pre-eminence or vilify his opponents than to make it difficult for those opponents to criticize too closely or too harshly without facing charges of systematic racism. (Much good it did them; to the Left, racism was the only conceivable reason NOT to vote for Obama. This is not my judgment, it was an explicit statement by a liberal writer in a prominent blog or newspaper column.) A huge part of his appeal as a transformational figure was precisely that he is black/biracial. Black people voted for him 95%-99% because he’s black; many, many white people voted for him because 1) he presented himself in such a way that they could believe his political stance echoed their own, 2) ‘new and exciting’ generally comes out ahead of ‘same-old, same-old’ (and Obama genuinely was new and exciting), and 3) voting for an acceptable black candidate was a nifty way to show how tolerant and progressive and non-racist and superior they were.
As for early polls, many of those polls showed Hillary beating Obama, and Giuliani being the Republican nominee. Polls attempt to read public opinion; some are better than others, and opinions change over time. And, if the Democratic Party had selected a white candidate, the election results might indeed have come out mostly the same but for entirely different reasons. I believe that this election produced this result for this reason, among others.
No question, Obama had a lot of favorable winds behind him. He could not have beaten George W. Bush in 2004; the time wasn’t right. He was actually trailing McCain following the Republican convention, until the economic crash changed the national paradigm. Aside from Bush himself, he faced the ideal opponent, a crusty old balding white guy who could turn the occasional witty phrase but could NOT deliver an exciting speech. Many things were behind his success. Race was one of them. It was an attribute that he used to his advantage, used skillfully and effectively, appealing to positive elements of the American psyche as well as several that were superficial and partisan and (yes) intolerant. How much he used it, and to what extent that use was legitimate, can be argued passionately by both sides; THAT he used it is simply a fact.
I didn’t say he won ‘primarily’ because of race. I didn’t even say ‘mostly’. I said ‘largely’, and the word was chosen with care. Race was a large part of the result. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous at best.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-22 03:28 am (UTC)As for early polls, many of those polls showed Hillary beating Obama, and Giuliani being the Republican nominee. Polls attempt to read public opinion; some are better than others, and opinions change over time. And, if the Democratic Party had selected a white candidate, the election results might indeed have come out mostly the same but for entirely different reasons. I believe that this election produced this result for this reason, among others.
No question, Obama had a lot of favorable winds behind him. He could not have beaten George W. Bush in 2004; the time wasn’t right. He was actually trailing McCain following the Republican convention, until the economic crash changed the national paradigm. Aside from Bush himself, he faced the ideal opponent, a crusty old balding white guy who could turn the occasional witty phrase but could NOT deliver an exciting speech. Many things were behind his success. Race was one of them. It was an attribute that he used to his advantage, used skillfully and effectively, appealing to positive elements of the American psyche as well as several that were superficial and partisan and (yes) intolerant. How much he used it, and to what extent that use was legitimate, can be argued passionately by both sides; THAT he used it is simply a fact.
I didn’t say he won ‘primarily’ because of race. I didn’t even say ‘mostly’. I said ‘largely’, and the word was chosen with care. Race was a large part of the result. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous at best.