[Marxism] Blacks, Latinos and the Democratic Primaries -- a Bureau of Electoral Cretinism special report

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

        I suspect most people aren't paying as close attention to the
presidential campaign as we here at the Bureau of Electoral Cretinism, so
since we at the bureau are going to give a miss to the Republican Maine
caucuses now unfolding, we thought it only right to replace our regular
dispatch with one that takes up the racist canard making the while liberal
rounds: that Latinos won't vote for a Black candidate. 

        Here's a typical example from the Huffington Post: "Will Latinos
vote for a black candidate? Conventional wisdom and past practices do not
support this. With both groups at the bottom of the economic ladder, Blacks
and Latinos have long jockeyed for economic crumbs and influence."

        Really? Past practice? Actually, one need look no further than
Tuesday's vote in the Democratic Florida straw poll to see this just isn't
true. Obama got 30% of the Latino Democrat vote -- 1/3 more than his share
of the white vote. And that's without Obama making a single campaign
appearance or running a single ad in the state, in strict compliance with
Democratic Party rules punishing Florida after its Republican state
government defied the party's decision that no contests (with three
exceptions, which did not include Florida) could be held before Feb. 5.

        Of course, REALITY is one thing, "news" another. Consider the
following excerpt from last Tuesday's Florida CNN coverage:

*  *  *

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: ... I want to go to Soledad O'Brien and Bill
Schneider. They're standing by.

You have been looking at the exit polls that we have been doing, Soledad,
and you're looking at how Hillary Clinton managed to win tonight in Florida.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, that's the question we start out with this
evening, which is really how did she do it? How was she able to pull it off?


And I guess for that you just go right to the exit poll numbers, which are
pretty clear on why she won. Let's start with the first one. How did white
voters vote? 

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, this was a very clear
victory for Hillary Clinton. She dominated the votes among whites in
Florida, 53. Obama got 22 percent, which is just about what he got among
white voters in South Carolina.

But white voters in Florida were two-thirds of the vote. They were less than
half of the vote in South Carolina. So, this clear big lead among white
voters makes it a strong state for Clinton. And Obama's share, a little less
than a quarter, strong, but not enough. 

O'BRIEN: African-American voters Democratic side? SCHNEIDER: They're the
Obama base. And we see here that he did very well with African-American
voters, 70 percent Obama, 27 percent for Hillary Clinton. Again, she got a
healthy share of the African- American vote. It isn't totally racially
polarized.

But, in Florida, only 18 percent of the voters were African- American. In
South Carolina, it was 55, three times the proportion as in Florida. 

O'BRIEN: A healthy percentage, not that many actual in number.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. 

O'BRIEN: When you go to the Latino voters, that really spells trouble for
Barack Obama. 

SCHNEIDER: It does. Take a look here at the Latino voters in Florida. Now,
these are Democratic voters. They were mostly not Cuban-Americans, who tend
to vote in the Republican primary. 

Latino voters in Florida were two to one for Hillary Clinton, Clinton 59,
Obama 30. Now, that's a problem, because, in some of these big Super Tuesday
states coming up, you have got big proportions of Latino voters. 

O'BRIEN: California certainly. 

SCHNEIDER: California, Arizona, New York, a lot of Latino voters and Obama
is just getting here less than a third. 

O'BRIEN: That is going to be a problem for him. 

So, as we look forward to Super Tuesday, as you analyze the numbers,
especially of percentage of white voters, what does that mean? 

SCHNEIDER: It means that Obama has got a big problem on Super Tuesday.

*  *  *

Notice the spin. It isn't even subtle.

Obama's share of the white vote ... 22% ... is characterized as "strong, but
not enough."

Hillary's 27% share of the Black vote is called "healthy" and an indication
that "It isn't totally racially polarized." (Notice there is no "racial
polarization" when 78% of white folks vote white, only when Black folks vote
Black).

However, look at how Obama's 30% share of the Latino vote is described:

"O'BRIEN: When you go to the Latino voters, that really spells trouble for
Barack Obama. 

"SCHNEIDER: It does....

"Clinton 59, Obama 30. Now, that's a problem...".

Remember, that outcome is the product of zero Obama campaigning and
organizing in Florida prior to the election in which he was pitted against
the much better known Hillary Clinton, who has been a political figure on
the center of the national stage for a decade and a half.

Also, especially hidden behind those "white voter" averages there is a
different story waiting to be told, which is that the Florida primary was
the geriatric primary par excellence. About one third of the voters were
white people over 60, where Clinton swept with 62% of the vote. But half of
those 24 and under voted for Obama, giving him a 10-point lead in that
demographic.

The mantra about how Latinos won't vote for a Black man originates with
Sergio Bendixen, a leading Latino pollster and Hillary backer. It isn't a
description of reality, but rather, one more way in which Clinton campaign
operatives are playing the race card --the white supremacist race card-- by
constantly focusing attention on Obama being Black. Statements about Latinos
not voting for Blacks really are messages addressed, not primarily to
Latinos, but to whites. And it simply asks, "do you want a Black man in the
White House."

You can contrast that with the Obama campaign choosing not to play the sex
card. You don't see Obama surrogates out there, for example, speaking about
the very real gender gap in Hillary's support, with a difference of 12 to 22
percentage points in how many votes she got from men and from women, and
suggesting this raises real electability concerns come November. 

*  *  *

There is no doubt that Clinton, as the better known candidate, has a clear
advantage among Latino voters, a greater percentage of whom are not reached
by the English-language media coverage of the campaign. Obama is making an
all-out push for the Latino vote, especially in California, emphasizing his
oppositions to the war and his support for drivers licenses for the
undocumented (which Hillary opposes on) and his support to a legalization
leading to *citizenship* (Clinton has backtracked even more on the campaign
trail, speaking only about a path to legalization, meaning guest worker).

In the debate, Obama was even righteous in denouncing the scapegoating of
undocumented workers, and refusing to give credence to the canard that
Latino immigrants are to blame for unemployment among Blacks (on Anglos for
that matter) while Hillary, despite all sorts of sympathetic-sounding
mouthings towards the Latino community, did join in the chorus blaming the
immigrants.

Whether and how much of an impact this will have on the Latino vote given
Hillary's built-in advantage remains to be seen.

Tuesday will tell the tale.

Joaquin




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism