One of the (many) amazing aspects of the traditional media coverage in the last couple of months is how so many have fallen into step in asking: "Why can't Obama win working-class white votes?" We see this again in the post-primary coverage of Pennsylvania, with the question variously rephrased as "Why can't Obama win white Catholic votes?" or "Why can't Obama win with older white women?"
But as far as I have observed, and as recently noted in a diary here,...no one seems to be asking Hillary: "Why can't you win with African American voters?"
First a few data points to illustrate the relative importance of the African-American vote: In 2004, there were nearly 25 million African Americans of voting age, according to the US census. CNN states that Catholics today number about 70 million voters, and there there are about 47 million older white women voters.
Clearly, the total possible votes among African Americans are fewer than the total possible among Catholics and white older women (African Americans made up about only 11% and 12% of the total vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively)...but African Americans have voted overwhelmingly democratic in the last decade: 90% for Gore in 2000, and 88% in 2004. In 2000, white women went for Bush over Gore by three percent. In 2004, Catholics went for Bush 52-47%. So while the total vote of African Americans might be smaller than white women, or Catholics, it is hardly insignificant.
So why aren't we hearing fretting among the punditocracy about Hillary's inability to win African-American votes? Or about how they might vote if Hillary got the nomination? No one seems to be asking, breathlessly, if African-American voters might stay home, or vote for McCain, or cast a protest vote.
One can only assume that the traditional media
a) think the African-American vote is somehow insignificant; and
b) think that Hillary's near-total loss of African-American support is insignificant.
If they didn't think these things, there would be a story--wouldn't there?
This thinking is insidious: Why aren't the traditional media concerned with Hillary's unprecedented collapse in the black community? Is this lack of concern based upon the notion that African-American voters support Obama simply on the basis of identity? That African Americans will always vote for a democrat, no matter who the nominee is? That somehow it's OK that so few African Americans support Hillary, even after the Clinton's (until now) longterm positive relationships with the black community? If this logic was applied equally in the case of white older women, we should expect to see 85% of white women supporting Hillary--shouldn't we? But we don't: in Pennsylvania, Hillary won 65% of that group.
I find it interesting that so few talking heads are talking about Obama's ability to win white votes, and white female votes, in many, many states (JedReport did a nice piece on Obama's "mythical white problem")...and, by not doing so, are suggesting that the demographic voting patterns in Ohio and Pennsylvania somehow apply to the rest of the country. But, even, taking them at face value: If Ohio and Pennsylvania are so important, wouldn't it then also be important that Hillary couldn't win more than 13% of the African American vote in Ohio, and 10% in Pennsylvania?
I do think that most democrats will support the eventual nominee; my concern is with the traditional media narrative, which I think betrays a paternalistic and dismissive attitude toward African-American voters in the coverage of demographic voting patterns. If they are going to pay so much attention to demographics in trying to game out what will happen in November, they should hold Hillary's performance up to the same microscope...and they should focus much, much more attention on age, which seems to be one of the strongest patterns across the country...