Every election season, voters decry negative advertising, and campaigns continue to sling mud. The reality is, negative campaigning is nearly as old as the Republic, and rightly or wrongly, it serves an important function in our electoral discourse.
A strategic campaign makes sure that its opponent defines itself and its opponent first. They want to set the tone of the campaign and (positively) control their image to the fullest extent possible. And they want the opponent to have to be on the defensive for the entire campaign if at all possible. Negative campaigning (when done well) allows candidates to emphasize their strengths and their opponent’s weaknesses.
It is important to keep in mind that negative campaigning is broad term which encompasses both fair and unfair critiques of candidates. Candidates have a right, even a responsibility, to contrast their strengths and weaknesses with their opponents. If one candidate takes position A on a particular policy, while his or her opponent takes position -A on the same issue, voters should know the difference and what the implications of those differences are, and sometimes, those differences must be portrayed starkly if not harshly in order for people to understand.
Voters no doubt get the most queasy when the attack moves from the substantive to the personal. One can easily defend the idea that you shouldn’t spread false rumors about your opponent or dig up dirt about what they did in fifth grade (though such things do happen in campaigns). However, pointing out some character flaws that might be relevant to the question of a candidate’s ability to govern are arguably fair game. The Bush campaign did this humorously in 2004 with their windsurfing ad. Using John Kerry’s voting record (fairly or unfairly), they were able to successfully paint Kerry as being indecisive or unprincipled. In doing so, the campaign was able to undermine voter perceptions of Kerry’s fitness to be an effective leader.
There is some debate about the impact of negative campaigning on the electorate. Some, like Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar, argue that negative campaigning can mobilize strong partisans while compelling less partisan voters to sit out elections. Other political scientists dispute this claim, citing survey data that suggests that those who remember or complain about negative advertising still reporting voting at the same if not higher levels than those who were unfazed by negative ads.
This year’s election will no doubt be remembered for the negative ads (See examples below). While both campaigns have traded barbs, a lot of media attention has gone to the high proportion of negative Republican ads. These ads appear to have been less than effective this year, though. Why is that the case? There could be a couple of factors. For starters, the Republicans do not appear to have found an attack that resonates broadly across enough of the population for it to make a difference in voter preferences. Some voters can be riled up by William Ayres or Tony Rezko, but most are not moved, especially given the current financial crisis. In light of this crisis, the personal attacks may ring hollow.
Should Barack Obama win this election, someone will say that negative campaigning is dead because it did not work (for John McCain) in this election. That is likely very premature. Campaign operatives have been engaging in negative campaigning every since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went at each other in 1800. Candidates have continued doing it for more than 200 years because they think it works. It is very unlikely that one election will put the final nail in the coffin of negative advertising.
For Further Reading:
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. Going Negative. New York, NY: The Free P, 1995.
Wattenberg, Martin, and Craig L. Brians. "Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer
or Mobilizer?" American Political Science Review (1999): 891-99.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Race-Baiting, Campaign Style
Even when black candidates run campaigns in which they try to deemphasize race (See our post from three weeks ago), race often rears its ugly head in American political campaigns. While elections of yesteryear featured very explicit, virulent forms of racism, the most effective race-baiting of today is not an explicitly racist ad. Rather, candidates or surrogates will use coded language to implicitly prime voters’ subconscious racial fears.
In 2001 political scientist Tali Mendelberg published the book The Race Card, in which she outlines the practice of implicit priming. Because it is no longer socially acceptable to use explicitly racist language to rally voters (As we have seen with John McCain very openly challenging voters who proclaim that Barack Obama is perjoratively Arab), campaigns and surrogates opt for more subtle means to convey their point. They will use racial code words. More important, they use imagery to convey what words cannot express.
A classic example of implicit priming is the 1988 “Willie Horton” ad that aired in support of George H.W. Bush. The ad featured a menacing picture of a black convicted murderer, who under a
There are more recent examples of implicit priming as well. In 2006, the RNC ran an ad in support of Bob Corker, who was running against Harold Ford Jr.’ for the U.S. Senate seat in
The reason why implicit priming works is that it seeps into voters’ psyches unawares. Because the ads are not overtly racist, voters internalize the messages more readily than if the ads had been more forthright and said “Elect Dukakis, and white women will be raped!” or “Don’t elect Ford! He dates white women!” People would readily dismiss such statements as being racist and not factor those positions into their voting decision. However, they don’t readily dismiss a more subtly racist depiction unless someone points it out as racist.
The problem in both 1988 and 2006 was that the affected candidates or their surrogates took too long to condemn the ads as racist. As a result, voters had a chance to digest the ads as their producers had intended. Bush solidified his lead after the Horton ad aired, and Corker prevailed in a narrow victory against Ford.
This election season, Barack Obama has been the victim of explicit and subtle racial attacks. Both Democratic and Republican opponents tried to paint Barack Obama’s image as a foreigner, inexperienced, radical and a Muslim. Pictures of him dressed in foreign garb with a headpiece appeared on millions of television screens and newspaper covers. Surrogates reiterate his middle name, Hussein. By highlighting Obama’s connection of Obama to Pastor Jeremiah Wright or Minister Louis Farrakhan, they tried to frame the candidate as a racist, militant black extremist.
Obama seems to have learned the lessons of his forebears though. Instead of politely refusing to dignify such attacks, he has attacked racist rumors head on. From the March speech on race to his public defense of his wife, who has been called “Mrs. Grievance” and his “baby mama,” the Obama campaign has rightly defended itself. In doing so, it played good racial defense.
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Gender and the Race: What Will Women Do Minus Hillary and Plus Sarah?
Women were given the constitutional right to vote in 1920, but we did not observe consistent, discernable differences between the voting behaviors of men and women until 1980. That year, women began to distinctly favor the Democratic Party in their voting choices, and this trend has continued into subsequent elections. When observing this trend and how it might operate in the upcoming election, it is important to consider the factors that have caused this preference of women for the Democratic nominee. And given the fact that the Republicans have a woman on the ticket this year, we must ask whether women are likely to support the GOP in greater numbers this year because of some sort of gender solidarity.
Democrats have held an advantage among women for the better part of thirty years in large part because the Democratic Party is perceived to do better on issues that are important to women. Women are still responsible for the majority of reproductive labor in this country, and thus, kitchen table issues such as education and health care tend to rank high on their lists of concerns. Democrats have long been perceived as the stronger of the two parties on this issue. Therefore, it would be rational for women who are concerned about these issues to vote Democratic. Moreover, women have historically been more opposed to military intervention than men. As such, the Republican Party’s advantage on national security issues have historically not resonated with women.
Although most candidates, both Democratic and Republican, avoid running on feminist issues such as reproductive and equal rights, Democrats have consistently held the more progressive stance on these issues. Women who are moved by these issues will be inclined to vote Democratic. Moreover, because women are also generally disadvantaged financially than men, they may be more receptive to the Democratic Party’s stances on economic safety net issues.
None of this should be interpreted to mean that women are alike. Women from different backgrounds and from different stations in life respond differently to political conditions and policy proposals. Recently, certain dissimilarities have been noted within the political behavior of women. The 2004 election exemplified the fact that women are beginning to have more diverse political outlooks, based on their distinct identities. Single women were more likely to vote Democratic, while married women were more likely to vote Republican. Educated women were more likely to vote Democratic, while blue collar women were more likely to vote Republican. The greater movement towards the Republican Party and the narrowing of the gender gap in recent election can be attributed to several things. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” strategy that reached out to women narrowed the gender gap from the election of 2000 to the election of 2004. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 also helped to narrow the gender gap, as suburban mothers were motivated by security reasons to migrate towards the Republican Party.
With less than a month before America will vote in the most historic election of the modern era, the reactions of women our current political condition are important to consider. Sarah Palin was chosen as the Republican vice presidential candidate in response to speculation that Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama, and this strategy was designed to appeal to working class white women. Palin’s ability to identify with the concerns and values of women in America might have an impact on the voting behavior of women in the upcoming election. In reality, it is unlikely that most Clinton supporters, especially the most ardent feminists among them, will disregard what they would perceive to be the antipathy that the Republican Party has shown for women’s issues and vote for the Republican ticket out of spite or even because Sarah Palin in the GOP vice presidential nominee. The fact that Obama has made a concerted effort to promote equal rights this year only further diminishes this likelihood.
For Further Reading:
Susan Carroll and Richard Fox (Eds). 2006. Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anna Greenberg. 2006. “Moving Beyond the Gender Gap.”
Anna Greenberg. 2008. “Angry White Women.”
Anna Greenberg. 2001. “A Gender Divided: Women as Votes in the 2000 Presidential Election.”
You may also be interested in the following:
Kellyanne Conway. "Women Voters in the United States." E-Journal USA (US State Dept.)
Democrats have held an advantage among women for the better part of thirty years in large part because the Democratic Party is perceived to do better on issues that are important to women. Women are still responsible for the majority of reproductive labor in this country, and thus, kitchen table issues such as education and health care tend to rank high on their lists of concerns. Democrats have long been perceived as the stronger of the two parties on this issue. Therefore, it would be rational for women who are concerned about these issues to vote Democratic. Moreover, women have historically been more opposed to military intervention than men. As such, the Republican Party’s advantage on national security issues have historically not resonated with women.
Although most candidates, both Democratic and Republican, avoid running on feminist issues such as reproductive and equal rights, Democrats have consistently held the more progressive stance on these issues. Women who are moved by these issues will be inclined to vote Democratic. Moreover, because women are also generally disadvantaged financially than men, they may be more receptive to the Democratic Party’s stances on economic safety net issues.
None of this should be interpreted to mean that women are alike. Women from different backgrounds and from different stations in life respond differently to political conditions and policy proposals. Recently, certain dissimilarities have been noted within the political behavior of women. The 2004 election exemplified the fact that women are beginning to have more diverse political outlooks, based on their distinct identities. Single women were more likely to vote Democratic, while married women were more likely to vote Republican. Educated women were more likely to vote Democratic, while blue collar women were more likely to vote Republican. The greater movement towards the Republican Party and the narrowing of the gender gap in recent election can be attributed to several things. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” strategy that reached out to women narrowed the gender gap from the election of 2000 to the election of 2004. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 also helped to narrow the gender gap, as suburban mothers were motivated by security reasons to migrate towards the Republican Party.
With less than a month before America will vote in the most historic election of the modern era, the reactions of women our current political condition are important to consider. Sarah Palin was chosen as the Republican vice presidential candidate in response to speculation that Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama, and this strategy was designed to appeal to working class white women. Palin’s ability to identify with the concerns and values of women in America might have an impact on the voting behavior of women in the upcoming election. In reality, it is unlikely that most Clinton supporters, especially the most ardent feminists among them, will disregard what they would perceive to be the antipathy that the Republican Party has shown for women’s issues and vote for the Republican ticket out of spite or even because Sarah Palin in the GOP vice presidential nominee. The fact that Obama has made a concerted effort to promote equal rights this year only further diminishes this likelihood.
For Further Reading:
Susan Carroll and Richard Fox (Eds). 2006. Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anna Greenberg. 2006. “Moving Beyond the Gender Gap.”
Anna Greenberg. 2008. “Angry White Women.”
Anna Greenberg. 2001. “A Gender Divided: Women as Votes in the 2000 Presidential Election.”
You may also be interested in the following:
Kellyanne Conway. "Women Voters in the United States." E-Journal USA (US State Dept.)
Saturday, October 4, 2008
What Is Deracialization, And How Does It Impact This Election?
How should African American candidates try to reach out to white voters? Because of a legacy of racism in the United States, black candidates have historically faced difficulties convincing some whites to vote for them. Some voters will never be convinced to vote for a black candidate, but how does a black candidate win over non-black voters who may be able to be convinced to vote for a black candidate? Some candidates have resorted to a strategy called deracialization to maximize their crossover appeal.
Deracializtion is a campaign strategy in which black candidates deemphasize racial issues in their campaign, choosing instead to focus on issues that have a broad appeal. Charles Hamilton first recommended this strategy in the 1970's after Republicans won working class white voters who thought that Democrats spent too much time embracing civil rights issues. In effect, African American candidates should, according to deracialization theory, focus their campaigns on issues that can be seen as benefiting, unifying,developing platforms that appeal primarily to the African American community.
For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is running a deracialized campaign. When Obama began his presidential campaign at the old state capital in Springfield, Illinois, Obama’s rhetoric emphasized such tenets as uplifting our economy, focusing on healthcare reform, revitalizing our education system, ending the War in the Middle East, and fixing the broken system of bureaucracy that defines Washington. These goals are not racially driven and were designed to appeal to all Americans.
While Senator Obama’s use of deracialized tactics has obviously been largely responsible for getting him within striking distance of being elected to the highest office in the United States of America, and arguably the world, we must carefully examine some of the ways in which his candidacy can be compromised by deracialization. Some blacks will be offended by his tendency to deal gingerly with racial issues. For instance, in an interview on "The Tavis Smiley Show" just after Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Drs. Cornell West and Julianne Malveaux criticized Senator Obama for failing to explicitly mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. They thought it was awkward at best and cowardly at worst for him to not mention King by name on the 45th Anniversary of the March on Washington.
Additionally, we have seen in this race and in previous races that deracialized strategies do not provide candidates from immunity from racial attacks. Harvey Gantt ran deracialized campaigns against Jesse Helms in North Carolina in 1990 and 1996, and Helms still primed white consternation over affirmative action to help him win.
On the whole, should Senator Obama indeed be elected in November, it will be fascinating to see how he addresses race. Does his deracialized campaign strategy mean that racial issues will not be a priority in an Obama White House? If he does not address racial disparities, will blacks be as enthusiastic about his reelection bid in 2012? And if he does address racial issues, will non-blacks abandon his political coalition? These are questions that only time can answer.
For further reading:
Charles Hamilton. 1977. "Deracialization." First World. March/April 1977.
Georgia Persons (Ed.). 1993. Dilemmas in Black Politics. New York: Harper Collins.
Deracializtion is a campaign strategy in which black candidates deemphasize racial issues in their campaign, choosing instead to focus on issues that have a broad appeal. Charles Hamilton first recommended this strategy in the 1970's after Republicans won working class white voters who thought that Democrats spent too much time embracing civil rights issues. In effect, African American candidates should, according to deracialization theory, focus their campaigns on issues that can be seen as benefiting, unifying,developing platforms that appeal primarily to the African American community.
For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is running a deracialized campaign. When Obama began his presidential campaign at the old state capital in Springfield, Illinois, Obama’s rhetoric emphasized such tenets as uplifting our economy, focusing on healthcare reform, revitalizing our education system, ending the War in the Middle East, and fixing the broken system of bureaucracy that defines Washington. These goals are not racially driven and were designed to appeal to all Americans.
While Senator Obama’s use of deracialized tactics has obviously been largely responsible for getting him within striking distance of being elected to the highest office in the United States of America, and arguably the world, we must carefully examine some of the ways in which his candidacy can be compromised by deracialization. Some blacks will be offended by his tendency to deal gingerly with racial issues. For instance, in an interview on "The Tavis Smiley Show" just after Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Drs. Cornell West and Julianne Malveaux criticized Senator Obama for failing to explicitly mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. They thought it was awkward at best and cowardly at worst for him to not mention King by name on the 45th Anniversary of the March on Washington.
Additionally, we have seen in this race and in previous races that deracialized strategies do not provide candidates from immunity from racial attacks. Harvey Gantt ran deracialized campaigns against Jesse Helms in North Carolina in 1990 and 1996, and Helms still primed white consternation over affirmative action to help him win.
On the whole, should Senator Obama indeed be elected in November, it will be fascinating to see how he addresses race. Does his deracialized campaign strategy mean that racial issues will not be a priority in an Obama White House? If he does not address racial disparities, will blacks be as enthusiastic about his reelection bid in 2012? And if he does address racial issues, will non-blacks abandon his political coalition? These are questions that only time can answer.
For further reading:
Charles Hamilton. 1977. "Deracialization." First World. March/April 1977.
Georgia Persons (Ed.). 1993. Dilemmas in Black Politics. New York: Harper Collins.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Special 9/26 Debate Coverage
The first presidential debate always provides a new perspective on the prowess and legitimacy of each candidate. By pitting them against each other in front of an audience of millions of viewers, the candidates were forced to answer questions that they would otherwise avoid. Although it is not completely clear who came out on top, both John McCain and Barack Obama were reintroduced to the public in a whole new light.
In light of the current Wall Street crisis, economic issues dominated much of the debate. It provided a chance for both candidates to differentiate themselves on the subject, both of them attempting both to build themselves up and shoot down the other. Senator Obama, who has in recent weeks sought to make economics a prime focus of his campaign, pinned the breakdown on George W. Bush’s deregulatory policies while at the same time linking McCain to the unpopular incumbent president. This new focus on economics seems to represent what will become a broader scheme in the Obama campaign, a strategy which has provided him a boost in the polls during the current economic turbulence. It is likely that Obama will continue to cite his opponent’s previous statement that “The fundamentals of our economy are strong”, and cast him as economically incompetent and out of touch.
Another continuous theme in Obama’s debate rhetoric was an appeal to the middle class, especially in relation to taxes and the economy. Since Friday he has continued to slam McCain on this issue, releasing a new attack ad stating that “in 90 minutes of debate, John McCain mentioned the middle class zero times”. Judging from the success of negative ads thus far, it is possible that Obama will surge forward as a result, deepening his current lead in the polls.
When asked about how to deal with the economy, McCain emphasized accountability of individuals rather than deregulatory policies. He introduced this Idea with an historic anecdote from Dwight Eisenhower on the eve of D-day. By mentioning Eisenhower, McCain is trying to reinforce his role as the seasoned war hero and while casting his opponent as an amateur. This strategy is also manifests itself in the way he addressed Obama. McCain would often start with “what Senator Obama does not understand is….,” trying to make him seem inexperienced in the eyes of the public. In much the same manner, Obama would say that McCain “just doesn’t get it” in an attempt to cast him as the out of touch old-timer. The debate was largely characterized by this kind of subtleness as opposed to many of the primary debates that involved the candidates sniping back and forth.
Although some post-debate polls showed that Obama was perceived to have won the debate, Friday did not result in a clear winner as many had hoped. The race continues to be a close contest, with Obama still slightly ahead. However, we can be satisfied that the night provided the public with a much more definitive idea of the differences between the two candidates.
To watch the full debate go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nNIEduEOw
For Further Reading:
CnnPolitics.com.2008 Obama slams McCain on middle clash Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/campaign.wrap/index.html, 9/29/08.
Bergen, Peter . 2008. Debate Skipped key Iran-Israel questions. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/bergen.debate/index.html, 9/29/08.
In light of the current Wall Street crisis, economic issues dominated much of the debate. It provided a chance for both candidates to differentiate themselves on the subject, both of them attempting both to build themselves up and shoot down the other. Senator Obama, who has in recent weeks sought to make economics a prime focus of his campaign, pinned the breakdown on George W. Bush’s deregulatory policies while at the same time linking McCain to the unpopular incumbent president. This new focus on economics seems to represent what will become a broader scheme in the Obama campaign, a strategy which has provided him a boost in the polls during the current economic turbulence. It is likely that Obama will continue to cite his opponent’s previous statement that “The fundamentals of our economy are strong”, and cast him as economically incompetent and out of touch.
Another continuous theme in Obama’s debate rhetoric was an appeal to the middle class, especially in relation to taxes and the economy. Since Friday he has continued to slam McCain on this issue, releasing a new attack ad stating that “in 90 minutes of debate, John McCain mentioned the middle class zero times”. Judging from the success of negative ads thus far, it is possible that Obama will surge forward as a result, deepening his current lead in the polls.
When asked about how to deal with the economy, McCain emphasized accountability of individuals rather than deregulatory policies. He introduced this Idea with an historic anecdote from Dwight Eisenhower on the eve of D-day. By mentioning Eisenhower, McCain is trying to reinforce his role as the seasoned war hero and while casting his opponent as an amateur. This strategy is also manifests itself in the way he addressed Obama. McCain would often start with “what Senator Obama does not understand is….,” trying to make him seem inexperienced in the eyes of the public. In much the same manner, Obama would say that McCain “just doesn’t get it” in an attempt to cast him as the out of touch old-timer. The debate was largely characterized by this kind of subtleness as opposed to many of the primary debates that involved the candidates sniping back and forth.
Although some post-debate polls showed that Obama was perceived to have won the debate, Friday did not result in a clear winner as many had hoped. The race continues to be a close contest, with Obama still slightly ahead. However, we can be satisfied that the night provided the public with a much more definitive idea of the differences between the two candidates.
To watch the full debate go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nNIEduEOw
For Further Reading:
CnnPolitics.com.2008 Obama slams McCain on middle clash Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/campaign.wrap/index.html, 9/29/08.
Bergen, Peter . 2008. Debate Skipped key Iran-Israel questions. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/bergen.debate/index.html, 9/29/08.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Can Jesse Jackson Teach Barack Obama Anything About Presidential Campaigning?
While Barack Obama is the first black person to ever head a major party’s presidential nomination ticket, he is definitely not the first black person to run for a major party’s nomination. Because of the earlier efforts of Shirley Chisholm (1972), Jesse Jackson (1984, 1988), Doug Wilder (1992), Al Sharpton (2004) and Carol Moseley-Braun (2004), Barack Obama can stand where he stands today.
Of the previous black presidential candidates mentioned above, Jesse Jackson was clearly the most successful. Today, Jackson is maligned as a race-baiting gadfly who threatened to cut off Obama’s scrotum, but it would be helpful for us to look back at his campaigns to draw contrasts and similarities between him and Barack Obama.
As early as 1972, blacks started running for president not necessarily to win but to draw attention to issues that were being ignored in public debate. Shirley Chisholm knew that she was a long shot candidate, but she hoped that her candidacy would bring greater attention to civil rights issues on behalf of women and blacks.
Similarly, Jesse Jackson hoped to use his candidacy to wrest concessions from the Democratic Party for blacks. Because blacks are a reliable Democratic voting bloc, they often feel overlooked in internal party politics and in campaign outreach. If Jesse Jackson could win an overwhelming majority of black votes in the Democratic primary, he would have influence to make demands of the Democratic Party on behalf of blacks.
Jackson’s performance in 1984 and 1988 demonstrate the effectiveness of such a strategy. In 1984, Jackson won a majority of black primary voters, but significant factions in the black community resisted his campaign. Older, less educated blacks were less likely to support him, and black elites such as Coretta Scott King and Andrew Young refused to endorse his candidacy. Moreover, Jackson had very little crossover appeal in 1984. Jackson ended up winning a little more than a tenth of the overall primary vote and even fewer pledged delegates. As such, he had very little leverage to make any credible demands on behalf of blacks.
Jackson retooled in 1988. Having learned from his mistakes, Jackson in his 1988 campaign became a much more mainstream candidate by appealing not only to African Americans but labor groups and poor whites. His strategy worked. In 1988, he won nearly 30% of the overall vote and 27% of the pledged delegates. With a larger share of the vote and the delegate pool, Jackson was able to be influential in party proceedings at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. The party adopted a strong anti-apartheid plank to the platform, and many attribute Jackson’s strong showing to the elevation of Ron Brown as the DNC’s first black chair.
The question for us is how this relates to Barack Obama. There is no indication that Obama ever adopted a leverage strategy. From the start of Obama’s campaign, he has made attempts to appear as a universal candidate and has positioned himself as a candidate serious about winning the nomination and presidency. Obama tries not to target specific voter bases; instead he uses general language to keep a majority of the American public intrigued. Even when Jackson attempted to use general language there was still a targeted aspect behind it; a clear example of which can be seen in his 1988 announcement speech. Describing problems with drugs, education, and most specifically the outsourcing of “our” jobs and economic violence, Jackson targeted issues that most suit the concerns of African Americans. Obama, understanding that this eliminates a major constituent base, has made efforts to appeal to the American public as a whole by making clear generalizations about what we as a nation can do to make changes.
Still, it appears that both Obama and Jackson have been impaired a little by racialized generalities about leadership. Work by Charlton McIlwain of NYU shows that part of the reason that white voters did not support Jackson in 1988 was that they did not perceive him to be a serious leader. Obama clearly has more support in Jackson, but there are some factions that clearly have trouble seeing Obama as a leader, particularly in the South. In an August poll by Winthrop University/ETV, John McCain enjoyed a more than 20 point advantage over Barack Obama when southern voters were asked to assess whether the candidates were strong leaders. While Obama’s lead in the polls has grown in the last week because of the economic crisis, he will still have to shore up his leadership credentials if he hopes to win.
For Further Reading:
Charlton McIlwain. 2007. “Perceptions of Leadership and the Problem of Obama’s Blackness.” Journal of Black Studies. 38(1): 64-74.
Katherine Tate. 1995. From Protest to Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Russell Sage Foundation.
Ronald Walters. 2005. Freedom Is Not Enough. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Of the previous black presidential candidates mentioned above, Jesse Jackson was clearly the most successful. Today, Jackson is maligned as a race-baiting gadfly who threatened to cut off Obama’s scrotum, but it would be helpful for us to look back at his campaigns to draw contrasts and similarities between him and Barack Obama.
As early as 1972, blacks started running for president not necessarily to win but to draw attention to issues that were being ignored in public debate. Shirley Chisholm knew that she was a long shot candidate, but she hoped that her candidacy would bring greater attention to civil rights issues on behalf of women and blacks.
Similarly, Jesse Jackson hoped to use his candidacy to wrest concessions from the Democratic Party for blacks. Because blacks are a reliable Democratic voting bloc, they often feel overlooked in internal party politics and in campaign outreach. If Jesse Jackson could win an overwhelming majority of black votes in the Democratic primary, he would have influence to make demands of the Democratic Party on behalf of blacks.
Jackson’s performance in 1984 and 1988 demonstrate the effectiveness of such a strategy. In 1984, Jackson won a majority of black primary voters, but significant factions in the black community resisted his campaign. Older, less educated blacks were less likely to support him, and black elites such as Coretta Scott King and Andrew Young refused to endorse his candidacy. Moreover, Jackson had very little crossover appeal in 1984. Jackson ended up winning a little more than a tenth of the overall primary vote and even fewer pledged delegates. As such, he had very little leverage to make any credible demands on behalf of blacks.
Jackson retooled in 1988. Having learned from his mistakes, Jackson in his 1988 campaign became a much more mainstream candidate by appealing not only to African Americans but labor groups and poor whites. His strategy worked. In 1988, he won nearly 30% of the overall vote and 27% of the pledged delegates. With a larger share of the vote and the delegate pool, Jackson was able to be influential in party proceedings at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. The party adopted a strong anti-apartheid plank to the platform, and many attribute Jackson’s strong showing to the elevation of Ron Brown as the DNC’s first black chair.
The question for us is how this relates to Barack Obama. There is no indication that Obama ever adopted a leverage strategy. From the start of Obama’s campaign, he has made attempts to appear as a universal candidate and has positioned himself as a candidate serious about winning the nomination and presidency. Obama tries not to target specific voter bases; instead he uses general language to keep a majority of the American public intrigued. Even when Jackson attempted to use general language there was still a targeted aspect behind it; a clear example of which can be seen in his 1988 announcement speech. Describing problems with drugs, education, and most specifically the outsourcing of “our” jobs and economic violence, Jackson targeted issues that most suit the concerns of African Americans. Obama, understanding that this eliminates a major constituent base, has made efforts to appeal to the American public as a whole by making clear generalizations about what we as a nation can do to make changes.
Still, it appears that both Obama and Jackson have been impaired a little by racialized generalities about leadership. Work by Charlton McIlwain of NYU shows that part of the reason that white voters did not support Jackson in 1988 was that they did not perceive him to be a serious leader. Obama clearly has more support in Jackson, but there are some factions that clearly have trouble seeing Obama as a leader, particularly in the South. In an August poll by Winthrop University/ETV, John McCain enjoyed a more than 20 point advantage over Barack Obama when southern voters were asked to assess whether the candidates were strong leaders. While Obama’s lead in the polls has grown in the last week because of the economic crisis, he will still have to shore up his leadership credentials if he hopes to win.
For Further Reading:
Charlton McIlwain. 2007. “Perceptions of Leadership and the Problem of Obama’s Blackness.” Journal of Black Studies. 38(1): 64-74.
Katherine Tate. 1995. From Protest to Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Russell Sage Foundation.
Ronald Walters. 2005. Freedom Is Not Enough. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Friday, September 19, 2008
How Will Minorities Vote In This Election?
On the surface it seems that answering this question would be the main reason to study race and politics. Why else would studying minority voting matter? Studying the voting patterns of any group is useful mostly for answering the question why different groups of people vote a certain way? Throughout our history, minority voters have been affected by the same issues that have affected the majority, but there have been other issues that didn’t directly affect the majority, White Americans, in the same way. Civil Rights, segregation, racism, job discrimination, to name a few. So why are these things important today? Because they affect where we are and where we’re going. How do today’s prejudices affect voting? These are difficult complex questions.
African Americans today overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, but this has not always been the case. From the 1860’s until the Great Depression the Republican Party enjoyed very consistent African American support because Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. There was a major shift of African American support from the Republicans to the Democrats resulting from Roosevelt’s New-Deal Coalition. From the 1930's to the 1960's, the Democratic and Republican Parties competed on a roughly equal level (if we compare their civil rights platforms) for black votes, and Republicans could earn a substantial minority of the black vote. This changed in 1964, when presidential candidate Barry Goldwater refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At that point, blacks began to perceive that the Democrats had the more progressive civil rights platform. Since then, blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates.
In the upcoming 2008 election, there seems little to suggest that blacks will change their voting behavior. We have a strong Democratic candidate who also happens to be Black, and Democrats retain their substantive advantage on civil rights issues. However, Asians and Hispanics voting is a little harder to predict.
For starters, the terms “Latino” and “Asian American” encompass many different ethnic groups, whose political outlooks can vary. For instance, Cuban Americans are more likely to identify and vote as Republicans, while Mexican, Puerto Rican and Central Americans are more likely to identify and vote as Democrats.
Recently, the Republican Party has done particularly well among Latino voters. After engaging in targeted outreach efforts to Latinos in 2000 and 2004, Bush saw his share of the of the Latino vote increase 9 percentage points between 2004 than 2000. However, given the Republican Party’s more recent anti-immigrant stances, it is unlikely that Republicans are going to replicate that level of success among Latinos in this election.
For Asian Americans, there has been an overall trend towards the Democratic Party. While many Asian Americans do not profess to have a partisan preference, those who do express a partisan preference are more likely to identify with the Democratic. Asian immigrants from totalitarian regimes are more likely to identify with the Republican Party, though. However, both parties have done a lackluster job in reaching out to members of the Asian American community. This means that both parties may potentially overlook key votes that could change the course of the election in moderately competitive states such as Washington State.
For further reading:
Edward Carmines and James Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rodolfo de la Garza and Louis DeSipio (Eds.). 2005. Muted Voices: Latinos and the 2000 Elections. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Pie-te Lien, Margaret Conway and Janelle Wong. 2004. The Politics of Asian Americans. New York: Routledge.
Tasha Philpot. 2007. Race, Republicans and the Return of the Party of Lincoln. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
African Americans today overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, but this has not always been the case. From the 1860’s until the Great Depression the Republican Party enjoyed very consistent African American support because Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. There was a major shift of African American support from the Republicans to the Democrats resulting from Roosevelt’s New-Deal Coalition. From the 1930's to the 1960's, the Democratic and Republican Parties competed on a roughly equal level (if we compare their civil rights platforms) for black votes, and Republicans could earn a substantial minority of the black vote. This changed in 1964, when presidential candidate Barry Goldwater refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At that point, blacks began to perceive that the Democrats had the more progressive civil rights platform. Since then, blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates.
In the upcoming 2008 election, there seems little to suggest that blacks will change their voting behavior. We have a strong Democratic candidate who also happens to be Black, and Democrats retain their substantive advantage on civil rights issues. However, Asians and Hispanics voting is a little harder to predict.
For starters, the terms “Latino” and “Asian American” encompass many different ethnic groups, whose political outlooks can vary. For instance, Cuban Americans are more likely to identify and vote as Republicans, while Mexican, Puerto Rican and Central Americans are more likely to identify and vote as Democrats.
Recently, the Republican Party has done particularly well among Latino voters. After engaging in targeted outreach efforts to Latinos in 2000 and 2004, Bush saw his share of the of the Latino vote increase 9 percentage points between 2004 than 2000. However, given the Republican Party’s more recent anti-immigrant stances, it is unlikely that Republicans are going to replicate that level of success among Latinos in this election.
For Asian Americans, there has been an overall trend towards the Democratic Party. While many Asian Americans do not profess to have a partisan preference, those who do express a partisan preference are more likely to identify with the Democratic. Asian immigrants from totalitarian regimes are more likely to identify with the Republican Party, though. However, both parties have done a lackluster job in reaching out to members of the Asian American community. This means that both parties may potentially overlook key votes that could change the course of the election in moderately competitive states such as Washington State.
For further reading:
Edward Carmines and James Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rodolfo de la Garza and Louis DeSipio (Eds.). 2005. Muted Voices: Latinos and the 2000 Elections. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Pie-te Lien, Margaret Conway and Janelle Wong. 2004. The Politics of Asian Americans. New York: Routledge.
Tasha Philpot. 2007. Race, Republicans and the Return of the Party of Lincoln. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
