WaPo looks at Obama hurdles in expanding black vote
With a Macon, GA, byline the story finds some daunting challenges:
If 95 percent of black voters support Obama in November, in line with a recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, he can win Florida if he increases black turnout by 23 percent over 2004, assuming he performs at the same levels that Democratic candidate John F. Kerry did with other voters that year.
Obama can win Nevada if he increases black turnout by 8 percent. Ohio was so close in 2004 that if Obama wins 95 percent of the black vote, more than Kerry did, he will win the state without a single extra voter. But an increase in overall black turnout could help offset a poorer performance among other voters.
The push has also raised Democrats’ hopes of reclaiming Southern states with large black populations, such as Georgia and North Carolina, where low turnout among voters of all races has left much more untapped potential than in traditionally competitive states such as Ohio. Obama, who himself led a huge voter-registration drive in Chicago in 1992, has said he could compete in states such as Mississippi by increasing black turnout by 30 percent.
A Post analysis suggests it will take more than that to win across the South. If Obama matches Kerry’s performance among white voters and increases Democrats’ share of black voters to 95 percent, he will still need to increase black turnout in Georgia by 64 percent and in Mississippi by 51 percent to win. Virginia and North Carolina would be in closer reach, requiring increases of 30 and 36 percent, respectively.
The drive is unprecedented in scale and exemplifies Obama’s call for government that works “from the bottom up.” But as Bass’s efforts in Georgia show, the undertaking is laden with challenges, raising questions about the kind of return the campaign will get on its big investment of manpower.
I’ve been hyping the hope of an Obama win in Georgia — helped along by Bob Barr’s libertarian candidacy. The more I read the more I see just how much of a long-shot that would be:
Black turnout overall does not lag behind the national average by much, and Obama’s rise already inspired many blacks to get involved for the first time during the primaries.
That means that in seeking to further drive up black turnout, the campaign is in many places reaching out to a disconnected segment of the population that long ago gave up hope in politics.
For many of these disengaged people, racial solidarity with Obama does not automatically trump apathy or despair. Even if volunteers manage to get them registered, it will require intensive follow-up to make sure they know where to vote, have the necessary identification and then turn out.
Some unscientific numbers:
In three hours, Bass collected 20 registrations — a good haul. After a month, she and two other volunteers have collected more than 700.
In the area around Macon, an estimated 40,000 African Americans are eligible to vote but are not on the rolls, out of about 600,000 black people in the state who are eligible but unregistered. The campaign’s goal is to sign up at least 4,000 in Macon.
With months to go before the Oct. 6 registration deadline, there was an increase of 367 black registered voters in Macon’s congressional district in June, compared with 24 white voters. Statewide, the rate of registered African American voters is 28.1 percent, up from 27.2 percent in January.
Bass is aware of the hurdles ahead in turning the registrations into votes, though the campaign has signed up 300 Macon volunteers to assist with that.
Hm. Tough, but doable.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “WaPo looks at Obama hurdles in expanding black vote”
Of course, the flip side is that there is no demographic group where the Repubicans can expand their vote. The Republicans get few non-white voters and has been losing upper class whites by a huge margin. The Republicans have probably maxed out the number of middle class whites that they will receive.
Since whites as a percentage of the population are shrinking, there is no way that the Republicans will remain in power.
A better question is what will happen when the U.S. is left with one political party. How will a Democratic controlled Justice Department interpret the Voting Rights Act will the U.S. only has one relevant political party? Will blacks gain power or lose power as the Republican Party completes its own collapse.
My guess is that in the long run, blacks will lose power as the U.S. becomes a one party state. Blacks like Cynthia McKinney can only exist as long as their is two political parties and see just needed the black vote to win. In a Democratic Primary where all of the former Republicans are voting, blacks will lose power since there will be fewer black-only safe seats.
I think it's a mistake to assume that among other groups Obama will do roughly as well as Kerry did in 2004.
First, I think it's obvious Obama is running a much better campaign than Kerry did in 2004 and secondly, the mood of the electorate is vastly different than it was in 2004.
None of this means Obama will carry Georgia or Nevada, but he certainly could.
Latinos will outnumber both blacks (they already do) and whites (they will soon). But let's talk about American voters. America has been sold a bill of goods. Since Reagan, we have been told that if we (further) empower the rich, they'll make the economy hum and that will lift all boats. Nonsense. The spending power of the middle class has fallen steadily under “Reaganomics” or “trickle down” economics. Once the middle class gets it (they may be getting it) that they've been screwed, there is truly no safe harbor for these policies.
This is a truism: well over 1/2 of the population is below average in wealth. Policies that give them a better shot should be the democratic (small d) choice. Right now, that's the Democratic (big D) platform. Shift the rules to protect consumers, increase educational opportunities, slay the health care dragon, stop sending our resources overseas and show some fiscal responsibility, and we're on the right track.
Greendreams,
When you look at pay parity, fee healthcare, free college, paid time off; it seems like blatant pandering without to the effect on the economy. Why are we back to the quesiton of how do you have employees withouth employers. The problem with the Democratic Party's economic platform is that everyone cannot work for the government. Why would anyone start a new business while the coming Obama Administration is proposing new regulatory programs.
Business need not be unregulated to be profitable. But I know the platform, believe me. Unfettered corporate capitalism is the goal, and no social spending. Privatize everything, including defense and disaster relief, disappear the government entirely, then everything will be perfect. (For 0.1% of the population.)
It's probably pointless to debate it, because you believe in that ideology.
The record is pretty clear: public wealth is turned into private wealth, of which the wealthy have plenty; and private debt is turned into public debt, of which we have plenty. Your solution is more of the same?
[...] Taniel wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama, who himself led a huge voter-registration drive in Chicago in 1992, has said he could compete in states such as Mississippi by increasing black turnout by 30 percent. A Post analysis suggests it will take more than that to win … Read the rest of this great post here [...]