A comment about racial "bloc" voting . . .

[EffieBlack]

Several posters have claimed that the fact that Obama captured 80% of the black vote in South Carolina is evidence of a pattern among black voters of consistently voting in "bloc." That is an over-simplistic assumption that needs to be addressed.

If we are just looking at whether a large number of black voters vote one way, yes, it could be argued that black voters vote in a "bloc." But this fails to take into account that white voters ALSO vote in blocs - it's just that the structure of our political races makes this reality less obvious.

For example, in 2004 in South Carolina, 99% of white voters voted for one of the white candidates (Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Kucinich), with 1% voting for Al Sharpton. Twenty percent of black South Carolina voters voted for Sharpton that year; the other 80% of those voters voted for a white candidate. Thus, 99% of white voters voted for a candidate of the same race while only 20% of black voters voted for someone of their race; 80% of black voters voted across racial lines while only 1% of white voters did.

This pattern is a long and very consistent one throughout the country in most presidential primary races. White voters have been much more likely to vote in a bloc than than black voters have - black voters tend to spread their votes between black candidates and white candidates. White voters tend to spread most of their votes only among white candidates.

It is sometimes difficult to recognize patterns within the demographic of the majority population since that population is often viewed as just "the people." But white voters have always been much more likely to vote for candidates who look like them than black voters are to vote for black candidates. This has been masked by the fact that there have always been many more white candidates than black candidates and usually no black candidates at all.

So if there are 5 white candidates in a primary race and 1 black candidate, we will usually find that a large majority of whites voting for one of the white candidates, while a much smaller percentage has voted for the black candidate. On the other hand, in such a scenario, we have found that, while a large number of black voters often, but not always, voted for the black candidate a larger portion of black voters more often than not votes for the white candidates.

However, let's assume the following vote tally in a hypothetical primary race between 4 white candidates and 2 black candidates. If 80% of the black voters voted for the two black candidates, they would be seen by many to be voting in a "bloc," even though they didn't all vote for the same candidate. The same goes for the white voters who overwhelmingly vote for white candidates, even if their votes are spread out between more than one candidate.


Interestingly, yesterday's results flipped this dynamic on its head. For the first time, a much larger percentage of white voters than usual (20%) voted for the candidate that DIDN'T look like them while a large portion of black voters (80%) voted for the one who did. In other words, yesterday, white voters voted the way black voters usually do and black voters voted the way white voters usually do.

Of course, none of this can be a predictor for the General Election, since how white/black voters vote in a primary will not tell us how they will vote in the general. And because we've never had an African American candidate go head-to-head against a white candidate in a general election contest for president, we just don't know what would happen if Obama were to be the nominee. However, the fact that Obama did not get a majority of the white vote in South Carolina no more suggests that those voters will vote Republican in the fall than the fact that a majority of black voters did not vote for Edwards or Clinton would mean that black voters would vote Republican in the general election.

But I do think it's important to put the erroneous "white voters vote the issues while black voters vote in a bloc" assumption to rest. I hope this post helps to do that.

[aquart]

1. You won. Be happy.

[EffieBlack]

3. Whatever

[Cleita]

2. You make sense.

However as I said in another post, I don't blame a disenfranchised bloc of people voting for someone who is more like them after centuries of no choice. I just hope their choice doesn't disappoint them down the line. This is the reason I can't support Hillary now as a woman candidate even though I am a woman. I don't care for her policies and other principles and that make me turn to a more populist candidate even though he is a man.

[EffieBlack]

4. I agree

I'm just making the point that it's not only the "disenfranchised" who vote for people like them. The majority does it as well - it's just not as obvious because there are so many more people like them from which to choose!

And given that black voters have always been much less likely to vote as a racial bloc, the fact that so many voted for Obama this time indicates that the vote was based on much more than race. Otherwise, Al Sharpton would have gotten considerably more than 20% - and John Edwards would have gotten much less than 35% - of the black vote in the 2004 South Carolina primary.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Compare white and black voters' patterns in '00 & '04. White vote split. There you go. nt

[EffieBlack]

7. White voters voted in a bloc for white candidates. There you go. nt

[Captain Hilts]

8. Apples. Oranges. We're talking about the bloc of voters, not the bloc of candidates. nt

[EffieBlack]

9. Not at al - you can't determine what constitutes a "bloc" until you know what they're voting in

"bloc" for or against. If you're calling black voters a "bloc" because they vote in large numbers for one candidate, you're wrong, since black voters much more often spread their votes between candidates of different races. If you're calling them a "bloc" because you believe that they vote in a "bloc" for black candidates, you would also have to call white voters a "bloc" since they much more often vote in a bloc AGAINST the black candidate.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Bloc voting is common, but unpredictable

I have never been able to find a pattern to it in 40 pears of following elections (my first was in 1968, when I was 10). Black people are supposed to be strong bloc voters, but that isn't true in Philadelphia. On the other hand, white voters in Philly are very strong bloc voters, and the city is almost exactly 50/50 black-to-white.

South Carolina has always been more of an aberration than a bellwether. Obama supporters would be wise to consider it an indicator of their present momentum, but not think the job is done. Hillary's supporters, of course, have their work cut out for them.

--p!