Unifying "Real" America

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias writes:

When you listen to white people talk about Barack Obama, talk of “uniting the country” is almost universally taken to mean some kind of gesture toward bipartisanship or postpartisanship. . . . But when I’ve heard Obama’s black supporters, the ones from the grassroots like the man in the video rather than the “official” black political leadership, it always sounds to me like they’re hearing a very different message. Uniting the country means, to them, something more like bringing African-Americans into the mainstream of American politics. An Obama presidency would be a stark contrast to the rhetoric of the “real” America — which is basically defined as the part where everyone is white — versus the unreal America comprised of non-whites and the white people who deign to live near them. Of course to some extent any Democratic Party electoral coalition represents a rebuke to that way of thinking.

(Emphasis supplied.) More than "to some extent." The coming landslide for the Democratic Party coalition is indeed a rebuke of the racist notion of the "real" America. It is the manifestation of the Emerging Democratic Majority Texeira and Judis predicted 8 years ago. More . . .

I refer again to the DKos/R2000 poll internals and compare them to Kerry in 2004.

Barack Obama holds a 5 point lead while winning 39% of white votes according to DKos/R2000. John Kerry lost by 2.5% while winning 41% of the white vote in 2004. How is this possible? In part, because whites will be a smaller portion of the electorate in 2008 than they were in 2004. The other reasons are Obama will garner a larger share of the African American (95% compared to Kerry's 88%) and Latino (63% to Kerry's 53%) vote than Kerry did.

This is Pat Buchanan's nightmare. Remember, whenever a Democrat wins, it means the choice of the majority of white Americans lost. Or as Buchanan might put it, "real" America lost. Of course, in our view, real America includes ALL Americans.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< It Begins | Thursday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Unifying "Real" America | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

To reinforce the point on race (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05:27 AM EST

The bulk of the GOP advantage among white voter exists in the South. Draw your own conclusions.

If southern whites (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST

voted the way northern and midwestern whites did, The Republicans would win Utah, Idaho, and maybe the Dakotas.


lol (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Faust on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST

it's funny because it's true.


This is why Bush and Rove (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST

Fought so hard against the Tancredo-wing of the GOP, if-- as appears to be the case-- the extremeist on immigration end up driving the Republican it could quite literally be a death blow.

I'm not talking about a setback of decade or so like we suffered in the 90s or even a 20 year move like the GOP suffered in the 1930s, I'm talking quite literally about the GOP going the way of the Whigs. If the GOPs actions in the last 4 or 5 years have the same effect on Latino support that there actions in 1964 had on African-American support: I believe Nixon in 1960 may have been the first GOP canidate to ever fail to garner a majority of African-American voters, but it was nominating Goldwater (with his opposition to the Civil Rights Act) that basically began/accelerated(?) the realignment of Southern White and African Americans vis a vis the GOP and the Democratic Party; then the GOP will simply cease to be a political party with a chance to have majorities, instead it will become the party of Southern Whites and Evangelicals.


Republican "death-nell" talk is nonsense (none / 0) (#38)
by pluege on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST

"republican" is presently an identity for people known for racism, violence, greed, and authoritarianism trending to totalitarianism. The name "republican" can wither and go bye-bye, but the people with the foul personality traits remain behind. Whether they change their identity to Democrat or Timbuktuatarian doesn't matter, the people remain among us. (The sole useful contribution attributable bush is his identifying the ultra slime-ball percentage of the population as roughly 30%, with another 30% too lazy or ignorant to care much what's going on around them until the disastrous affects smash them in the face.)

And to think that whites have cornered the market on the craven, cretin personality type and that there is some kind of purity among non-whites is also complete delusional foolishness. The ONLY difference in whites and non-whites is who has controlled the power. Obama represents some long over due balancing that hopefully, both the power gainers and losers will accept the transition peacefully.


the 40 % of Latinos (none / 0) (#42)
by bigbay on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:45:32 PM EST

who voted for Bush in 2004 were racist ? (45% Latino males)

Yglesias has got the liberal guilt thing down well.

Through in a Jindal, and this identity-politics based way of politicking is very easy to dismantle.
That will be apparent enough in the future.


: throw in a.. (none / 0) (#43)
by bigbay on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST

This "real America" stuff.... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST

is so laughable. However number of Americans there are equals the number of versions of the "real America" dancing in each of our heads. My version bears zero resemblance to the McCain/Palin version, and shares little with the Obama/Biden version.

And that is the beauty of America, in a way...she can be all things to all people, provided we pull the reigns on the police state and give liberty a chance. From little white churches in the bible belt to illegal gambling dens in NYC...it's all real and it's all America.

The talk of change (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST

the politicians are not changing, the electorate is.

: Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Faust on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST

Electorate changes ----> politicians get dragged along.

BTD, question (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM EST

is this now mirroring the California demographics? California white voters did not "turn progressive overnight", the makeup of the voters changed. I am curious about the numbers.

Is California's status as a Democratic (none / 0) (#11)
by JoeA on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM EST

stronghold more a factor of changing demographics in the state, rather than White voters there becoming more liberal? I do know much of whatthat what Republicans there are in California are a special brand of crazy.

I don't know one way or the other so it would be interesting to find out.


Caucasian is fast becoming the (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST

minority in CA.

P.S. I've never heard the people who move to CA become more liberal after they arrive.


Liberal? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST

Yeah, that is why they vote all those loony state propositions. I call Californians, anti war libertarians.


What are your predictions on Prop 8 (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST

the the one requiring minors to notify a parent before having an abortion?


Prop 4? (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:33:31 PM EST

Proposition 8 and 4. (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST

I'm jealous... (none / 0) (#46)
by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST

they don't let us proles vote on nuthin' in NY.


: I'd just as soon we didn't have (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 05:44:56 PM EST

so many such opportunities.

The young transplants do (none / 0) (#14)
by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM EST

The secrete formula of transformation= Avocado (fresh- much of the country doesn't know)+ sprouts (fresh- again ignorant of its powers) + Fresh Tomatoes + tofu or meat of choice + good bread + Sierra Nevada beer, while eating next to a black, white, gay dude talking about football= why didn't my parents smoke this?


yes (none / 0) (#44)
by bigbay on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST

but California is also the 6th most unequal state in the country. So , the idea that diversity means equality doesn't follow. And there are many new minority demographics that aren't even close to liberal, but just mad at the xenophobia on the right.The strength of Prop 8 shows that.

Quell blatant xenophobia, and the Republican party can make a pivot to the future.


Interesting post by Yglesias (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM EST

It will certainly be a good thing for Obama to push back against the notion of Real America.

Uniting the country means, to them, something more like bringing African-Americans into the mainstream of American politics.

I hope this happens. But I think Obama is purposefully offering both messages when it comes to unity.

As far as the contrast between Bill Clinton and Obama goes, what is the point of all this talk of Kansas and Patton's army then?

Hubris (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:45:08 PM EST

Obama is outspending McCain by approximately 8:1 and yet he is only 5 or 6% points ahead with the economy in shambles and the most unpopular President since Nixon. And all of this is taken as the Nation's embrace of the Democratic Party's ideals?

Good luck with that.

I hope Obama wins and am still planning on voting for him, but I am shocked that no one seems concerned that with all of these advantages, Americans STILL aren't solidly in Obama's camp. Rather than simply calling people racists, or blaming the Republicans for everything... maybe now would be a good to examine our message?

Nah.

Please outline your suggestions (none / 0) (#23)
by JoeA on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:05:45 PM EST

for the campaign Obama could have run that would have him 20 points up . . . ?


Hillary Clinton? (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:42:22 PM EST

Bill Clinton?

Unifying the party? Consolidating his base before the convention?


You think Hillary (none / 0) (#29)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM EST

would be 20 points up? Seriously, wow you're delusional, the "PUMA" effect was largely a media creation, and Hillary didn't appeal as strongly to the centrists.


: The Clinton brand is worth a lot. (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST

A lot more than Biden, that's for sure.

I think it's bigger than racism. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by coigue on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST

The use of racism, classism, and any other polarization/tribalization of Americans is a useful distraction from the fact that the people with power and money in this country are by and large screwing us all.

The recognition of us (by Obama and his supporters) as one people is a huge insult to the power structure, and I am very interested to see how this all plays out, at this time.

Hook line and sinker (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by koshembos on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST

Matt Y has bought Obama garbage racist talk from the primaries and tries to use it time and again. White people are not a block and even African Americans are not one.

When will people stop reading blogs by Bush-like intelligent people?

: Um (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST

Did Matt make up the quotes about "real" Americans, because I'd honestly like an explanation of what one is that doesn't involve race and culture-- I think we all know what they mean by that remarks. Now, to a certain extent they ran the same stuff against Clinton and Kerry, but with Obama its exploded-- for godsakes you had National Columnist questioning whether a man who was "American in Blood" could be our President-- that's some Stormfront level stuff. Call me crazy but I don't remember Bush having rallies where people would call for Kerry's death; or Clinton being called "uppity" by sitting Congressmen. Maybe I'm just forgetting those things but I don't think so-- I think the normal GOP-tactic of questioning an opponents patriotism has taken on an even uglier edge; it might not be racism, it might just be desperation but you can't deny that something raw and ugly has been present this year.

Bob Somerby this week (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST

has been doing a great job of "What they said...then and now."

Some of it is pure hackery - opinions unsupported by any facts. Some are just amazing reversals - Hillary the Devil then, Hillary the Saint now.

There are the usual suspects - Maureen Dowd.
Then there are pundits I once enjoyed - Bob Herbert.

Somerby (none / 0) (#30)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM EST

is basically bitter that his canidate didn't get the nod.


Maybe he doesn't like (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:06:04 PM EST

shills, hacks, opportunists and hypocrites?

Neither do I, no matter which candidate they support. Joe Klein supporting Obama? I wouldn't trust that dissembling weasel if he petitioned the Pope to canonize Hillary Clinton.


That happens from both sides though (none / 0) (#36)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST

There are actually people who still believe nuts like Larry Johnson; people who before the primaries were respectable individuals, in terms of Somerby in particular (I don't think he ever bought the Johnson stuff to his credit) I stopped reading him in the primaries when it became increasingly apparent that he'd only call out bias if it was against Hillary, the press could insinuate whatever they liked about Obama and Bob would let it slide (occasionally picking out token remarks to appear impartial).

Yglesias, has been a solid blogger for years; he has basically been one the two bloggers (along with Ezra-- who went wonk when Jesse where went humor) of my generation to move to more respected media outlets, and I'm sorry but I think you're against him almost solely because of who he backed in the primary-- seriously, there was on both sides of that contest people who called out former allies yet remained blind to their own bias.


i think you (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 05:11:39 PM EST

don't have a clue what you're talking about. somerby was among the few that called out the bias of the dowd's (obambi), et al, with regards to obama.

it's called reading comprehension socraticsilence. try it, you might actually learn something. if nothing else, you'll not make a blithering fool of yourself in public.


: Bob Somerby has done a fine job for years (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Iris on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST

and he does a particularly good job of nailing Marshall and others for their former fact-free admiration for John McCain in 2000. A lot of people were guilty of that, and yet in spite of this I think we forget is that Josh Marshall also played a key role in coordinating the fight against Social Security privatization, and has done outstanding work investigating the political corruption in the DoJ.
I agree that it's a problem to have such a prominent blogger spreading perpetuating falsehoods against Bill and Hillary, who are still out there fighting like hell to change this country for the better. But that doesn't make Marshall evil or completely inept. The same goes for Matthew Iglesias.

150 years ago, people like (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST

Pat Buchanan were not "Real Americans".
When did his sort get to decide who is a Real American today?

Hear, hear (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM EST

Changing demographics is only a temporary (none / 0) (#10)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST

advantage, however. Younger Blacks, for example, are increasingly voting Republican (this year is not a good example ovbiously).

Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST

younger African Americans are NOT voting Republican. Obama will break the record for A-A vote, both in turnout and in percentages this year.


: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST

Well, when almost the entire group votes Democratic, it doesn't take much of a shift for the younger group to be "increasingly" Republican. For example, the most recent Gallup poll of Jewish voters found that younger Jews are "more likely" to be Republicans. So what? All it means is that they're not quite as monolithically liberal as the older generation.

: non-responsive. (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST

: Don't taze me bro... (none / 0) (#48)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 05:36:52 PM EST

I said this year is not a good example, but before Obama came on the scene, there was evidence that young Black's did not feel the same allegiance to the Democratic party that their parents and grandparents felt.

A July Gallup Poll of minorities' political opinions indicated that black voters overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party, and the percentage of African-Americans who consider themselves Republicans lingers at about 9 percent. However, according to the poll, of those blacks who vote GOP, most are under age 50 -- a generational shift that could be an opportunity for Republicans and a headache for Democrats.

Actually this year (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST

is a great example-- forget if they're voting for Obama, younger African-Americans are seeing the true face of the GOP this year, the one that instinctively distrusts them and thinks they're less than true Americans, after this year what little shift there may have been is going to fade away.


don' t think so .. (none / 0) (#45)
by bigbay on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST

I haven't heard a whisper of that .


W(h)ither the GOP? (none / 0) (#16)
by robrecht on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST

Good perspective, BTD. I expect the Republicans to become even more reationary, similar to what we've seen in Europe as their traditional populations have dwindled. The Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs of the GOP will continue on the ascendancy. Jeb Bush will seem like a moderate saviour of the GOP. Bush-Palin in 2012??? Crist might be a more moderate voice of reason, but will he have any national influence?

: Bush-Palin 2012? (none / 0) (#53)
by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 08:17:33 AM EST

Dude, I'm thinking Palin-Bush 2012 and that's pretty iffy for Jeb considering that his big brother utterly destroyed his family name/leadership along with the party they serve :)

CA is far too large & diverse (none / 0) (#17)
by wurman on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM EST

for sweeping generalizations about the people & demographics, the politics, the economies (yes, plural, such as ag, hi-tech, industrial, financial, etc.), the levels of government, & the history.

Mentally imaging the differences among San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, & Redding should obliterate any attempts to arrive at an overall view of the state or its politics.

First, by 2012 the A-A population will no longer be the largest minority group. This is perhaps already a fact in CA. The "real" America, contrary to McCain & his ilk, may speak a lot of Spanish & English & take ever larger pieces of the economic pie as the Democratic Party sets out to "SPREAD" the wealth--which is very different than re-distributing it. In my opinion, Sen. Obama really intends to "unite," & it will include a much more vast variety of differences (racial, ethnic, religious, economic, geographic, etc.) than any of the rightwing conservatives are prepared to think about.

Sherman Alexie was on Colbert the other night & stated that about 90 percent of Native Americans are pro-Obama. Oh yes, let those roulette wheels spin & roll those dice my friends because all of the folks who are not white males over 36 years of age may be coming to dinner.

And how about that (none / 0) (#21)
by jondee on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM EST

crypto-racist, anti-immigration "lightning rod" that the knuckle dragging shocktroops attempted to forceably insert into the national dialogue awhile back?

Was that a piece of farsighted, tactical genius or what?


: Perhaps the vigilantes (none / 0) (#35)
by wurman on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST

will decide to unite, too, somewhere near Calexico.

It's the party (none / 0) (#51)
by Cream City on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:44:42 PM EST

that once was the working-class party and turns to attacking a plumber, for pity's sake, that has problems of its own. Dithering about the problems of Republicans is for them to do.

Dancing on your own grave, Dems.

Oh Yeah, and when the Dems (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 08:14:24 AM EST

run everything and they get those 60 Senators, I had better get an Equal Rights Amendment and I mean it damn it!!!! There's no excuse! That would fix so many things for so many people!