Then:
… Mississippi hasn’t really been in play in a general election since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980. The Republican nominee has won every election since, most of them handily.
But this year could be different, given the amazing drawing power of Obama. If he is the nominee and could produce a record African-American turnout, coupled with, say, 20 to 25 percent of the white vote, an Obama general election victory in Mississippi – while still a long shot – isn’t inconceivable.
Now:
John McCain continues to hold a double-digit lead over Barack Obama in Mississippi, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.
McCain now leads his Democratic opponent by 13 points 54% to 41%. That’s a couple of points more for McCain than he enjoyed in July. Counting “leaners,” McCain leads 56% to 43%, also a bit better than last month for the Republican hopeful.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 63%, Obama by 44%.
This new Rasmussen poll goes hand in hand with the news that Obama has decided to stop pissing his money away in Red battleground states (Caution, my netrootish friends: That’s a Fox News link, it might burn your eyes). The “map changer” isn’t exactly proving to be an expert political cartographer, is he? Nor is Axelrod.
And then there’s this:
A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a “reverence” inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics. In other words, Obama is willing — even eager — to risk what got him this far if it gets him to the White House.
If Obama’s young voters and starry eyed lefty supporters get wind of this, it’s going to be trouble. You know, and I know, dear readers, that Obama’s HopeChange mantra was always about building buzz, and never about a “New Politics” at all, but the fainting crowd at your typical Obama rally never understood that. Perhaps they are about to have it served to them, atop a pile of wilted arugula.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Joe Biden, Netroots, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs
Newsweek has already given the explanation for this in a recent cover article:
Translation: You southern folks are just too racist to know what is best for you. And what is best for you is Barack Obama.
As a Mississippian of 35 years, I feel somewhat qualified to speak on this topic. (However, I also recognize that I can’t speak for the entire state.) Here in MS, race is an issue. Obama is black and that just won’t do for many of my fellow citizens.
But it’s not as simple as Obama is black, therefore, they won’t vote for Obama. It’s much more generalized. The theme is this: Obama is a Democrat. Democrats like government programs. Government programs are for lazy black people. Therefore, they can’t vote for Democrats. Think I’m being too hard on my fellow Mississippians? Look at the historic voting patterns. Until 1964, white Mississippians almost exclusively voted for Democrats. Why? Because Republicans were historically the party of black folks. Lincoln set the slaves free, then came Reconstruction. Then came 1964 and the Civil Rights Act signed by a Democratic president. Johnson purportedly said as he signed the bill that he was handing the South to the Republicans, and he was right.
Since 1964, Mississippi has voted for only 1 Democrat for president — Jimmy Carter. There are more Republican elected officials now than since Reconstruction. Only one of our statewide elected officials is a Democrat. Our supreme court is uber-conservative — they can’t claim party affiliation, so they just say “conservative,” everyone winks, and the point is made.
Not everyone here is a racist. Progress is slow but steady. We do have more black officials than ever before, but that is just as much a function of segregated communities — lots of black communities=lots of black elected officials — than of some wide-ranging healing of racial wounds.
I am white and I’m voting for Obama. As between Obama and McCain, I do think that Obama is best for me, and I am in the minority in this state.
Interesting and well-said, superc, thanks.
It’s worth remembering, as well, that Richard Nixon (with the able assistance of Pat Buchanan and others) drove the wedge in with his carefully-planned and well-executed “Southern Strategy,” ensuring the southern electoral votes for the GOP in the election of 1968 — and, for the most part, in every election since.
This is not to say that a vote for the Republicans, or for John McCain, makes that voter a racist, or to say that Southerners are racist, or that there is necessarily more racism in the South than in other regions of the country.
But it’s a-historical to pretend that race has not played a signficant role in politics in the South in particular.
You’re absolutely correct and I agree 100% that a vote for McCain is not per se racist. I would disagree with anyone who claimed such.
However, as you said twc, it would be fallacious to act like race doesn’t play a factor — how big of a factor is something no one can say definitively. No one is going to state in an exit poll, “I voted against the black guy.”
Sorry to muck up your comments section, but I wanted to clarify that last comment. It should have read that it would be fallacious to act like race didn’t play a factor “in certain voters’ minds.” I don’t want to imply that I think race plays a factor in every voter’s mind. Some people, like me, couldn’t care less what color a politician is.