Michigan and Obama's ground game, anecdotal evidence division

By Kathy G.

When I came home last night there was an interesting message on my voicemail -- I'd received a phone call from Obama headquarters asking if I wanted to come to Michigan to work for the campaign as a volunteer (which, alas, I am unable to do).

I'm not surprised that the campaign contacted me (because, as everyone knows, they are very, very good at organizing their volunteers). But what is a bit unexpected is that they wanted me for Michigan. I live in Chicago, and I would think that if they wanted to deploy me elsewhere, Ohio is where they would send me, because it's such a crucial swing state. Or possibly Wisconsin, where Obama is narrowly ahead, and where Gore and Kerry just barely eked out victories in '00 and '04. Or maybe even Indiana -- a red state, to be sure, but it's closer to where I live than Michigan is, and the race there is surprisingly tight (Obama has an outside shot of taking it).

But Michigan? Michigan should be in the bag, right? The economy there is in the crapper, labor is still a strong presence, and the Dems have taken that state in every presidential election since 1992. Alas, as Nate Silver explains here, Michigan is problematic for Obama for a number of reasons: McCain is popular there, the Democratic governor is not, the state has a troubled history where race is concerned, and the scandals involving the recently resigned mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, have not helped any.

What's maddening, though, is that one probable reason the race so close there is that the DNC revoked Michigan's delegates after the state violated the party's rules and moved up the date of the primary. Because of that decision, Obama withdrew his name from the primary ballot and did not campaign there. As a result, he's gotten a late start in organizing and building a presence in the state.

Looking back, I have to ask myself -- what the hell did was the DNC thinking when they made this decision? That they revoked the delegates not only in Michigan but in Florida looks like sheer madness, at this point. Those are two of the most important states in the electoral college, worth a total of 44 electoral votes. And the DNC did this -- why? So they wouldn't piss off Iowa and New Hampshire, with their grand total of 11 electoral votes? It might have seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but now it looks like sheer folly. I pray that it doesn't come back and bite the Dems in the ass come November. Even without Michigan, Obama could still win, but his chances of doing so would be dramatically smaller.

That said, I'm mostly feeling optimistic about Obama's chances these days. But I'd feel a whole lot better if he started to open up a commanding lead in the polls. At this point, the race looks close enough for the Republicans to steal, and there's no doubt in my mind that the right will be pulling out the stops to do all they can to suppress the vote -- Palin's ardent fans on the Christian right in particular.

Another concern I still have is the wild card of Obama's race. We've simply never had a major party African-American candidate for president before, and because of that, all bets are off, I'm afraid. While people I respect have made persuasive arguments that there's little evidence that the Bradley effect exists anymore, I'm not entirely convinced. Like John Judis, I worry that the Bradley effect "could show up in some . . . swing states where the votes of white ethnic Democrats are going to make the difference." And I agree with him that if you're an Obama supporter, you'd want Obama to be polling at at least 50% on the eve of the election. Anything less than that is definitely cause for concern.

Speaking of Obama supporters -- you've donated to Obama, right? If not -- or if you want to give some more -- you can do so here. And you can visit this page to find out how to become involved in the campaign. Obama is far from being the perfect candidate, but I fervently believe that it's crucial for American democracy that he be elected. As we've seen with 9/11 and Katrina, and are seeing with the current financial meltdown, when a crisis occurs, it's vital to have people in charge who are sane, competent, and at least minimally ethical. The alternative can be tragic -- as was the case with 9/11 and Katrina, and as may be the case now.

Comments

[HR]

There's also the issue that Obama himself his thought of as less "black" than "an arrogant SOB." Race has much less to do with this election than class.
Moreover, there's a largely under-the-radar debate in the African American community about whether the African Obama understands the historical issues of descendants of slavery. He is not really an African American in this regard. So consider these issues when you talk about "race."

[dcase]

HR,

I suspect that the discussion you cite is largely confined within the domain of the intellectual classes. Rank and file African-Americans rarely question Obama's identity as a black man because they often operate under the assumption that he looks like us, he doesn't have a foreign accent, he is from the USA, thus he must be one us. Moreover, much of this discussion stems from the concern that Obama's potential election serves for whites a false proof of the weakening of institutional racism. Rather, his detractors argue that Obama's rise as a biracial, non-descendant of slaves raised by whites does nothing to undo this structure. Instead, his success is largely a function of a perfect storm of events: namely, an exceptional candidate, current economic and societal problems and the decline of overt racism. These detractors however, would argue that these events would do nothing to undo institutional factors that limit the typical black as opposed to the exceptional one.

[HR]

dcase -- well in higher ed it is more than an intellectual discussion -- do African students "count" as fulfilling "diversity" goals? Does it matter if many of the students of color on campuses are offspring of African or West Indian educated families rather than descendants of slaves from the forgotten places in America?

[amy]

In my (very limited) experience canvassing in PA, I have encountered a couple of white people who brought up the issue of race ("we're not ready for a black president"). But when i probed, the issue seemed to be not so much with obama himself, but fear that the symbolic significance of a black president would give blacks in general too much power - "they would think they can do whatever they want." This kind of sentiment is immune to arguments about obama himself, but speaks to something a lot deeper. I'm still hopeful that it can be addressed -- eg, by focusing on economic issues and shared interests in that realm -- but no question it's a huge stumbling block (though i have no idea how widespread it is).

As for your other point, is it possible that the michigan people are just particularly zealous / well organized?

[touhy]

I visited family in Michigan this summer, and was somewhat flabbergasted at the way my well-educated 50 something cousin was talking about Kwame Kilpatrick. After a few minutes of that, she started going into "the made-up names" or African-American children. (Perhaps we have something to thank Sarah Palin for after all). This is the daughter of a Michigan State professor, probably the most well-educated branch of my entire family, who was born and raised in East Lansing. Gah. That's why they want you to go to Michigan. But I'm not sure whehter there is anything any of us can do about someone like that.

[Ninja Zombie]

touhy, read up on Kwame Kilpatrick. There are some very good reasons to rant about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick#Controversies

[Barry]

Yes, NJ. Kwame's a sh*t. However, by that same standard, John McSame is much, much more disqualified by the record of his hugee, Bush.

[touhy]

I'm not defending Kilpatrick, but I'm also not repeating the language and unsubstantiated claims my cousin was making about him. The slide into "made up names" kind of clinched it--her point was A-A's are stupid and criminal and they are too stupid to name their kids "normal" names, like Track and Trig, I guess. This is what the Obama people are up against in Michigan.

[Observer]

> what the hell did was the DNC
> thinking when they made this decision?

They were thinking that if they were going to publish rules with very clear penalties they would have to enforce those rules to ever be taken seriously in the future.

[lt]

Kathy, is there any history of relationship between Kilpatrick and Obama besides both being African-American democrats? If not, that's some pretty dirty guilt-by-association for it to be a factor.

[Hattie]

There's the Hillary factor. I still feel a lot of bile about the way she was treated,and I'm sure plenty of Michigan voters feel the same.
What I would like to see is fair treatment under the law. Get rid of the system that interprets the law one way for one group and another way for another group. Then we could stop caring about people's stupid prejeudices.

[Kathy G.]

Just to be clear -- Barack Obama has no relationship, political or otherwise, to Kwame Kilpatrick, that I am aware of (other than the fact that they're both Democrats, of course). But I worry that Kilpatrick may hurt Obama in Michigan, because some people, in a totally unfair and totally racist way, will connect Obama and Kilpatrick, and jump to the conclusion that Kilpatrick's sleaziness is somehow a reflection on Obama. Commenter touhy points to one example of this, but I'm sure there are many others.

One of the more bizarre aspects of racism is that a lot of white people seem to hold every African-American person on earth accountable for the controversies or misdeeds of every other African-American. For example, a couple of years ago, when Harry Belafonte made controversial remarks about Bush, Barack was grilled by Tim Russert as to what he thought about what Belafonte had said.

But why the fuck should Obama be obliged to comment on something that some washed-up calypso singer from 50 years ago had to say? It's completely absurd! It would be like holding Dick Durbin accountable for some stupid-ass thing Pat Boone said.

But yet, somehow, Obama was expected to respond. Russert's questions about this were the essence of outrageousness and dumbassery, but there you go. This is just one of the many hurdles in the path of any African-American who wants to succeed in politics.

Which is why, in a sense, I'm glad this country is in the shitter. Because if it wasn't, no black person -- and especially no (ever-so-slightly) left-of-center black person -- would have a prayer at becoming president. But because things are so profoundly crappy on so many levels, Obama has a fighting chance. And huzzah and kudos for that!

[HubyB]

I think that Obama was asked about Belafonte because there is this perception that A-As always support other A-As, right or wrong. Think of the coverage of OJ, the statements made above here regarding A-A supporting him because he looks like them. Perhaps an unfair stereotype, but the question regarding Belafonte went to that issue/question in people's minds.

Whoever becomes president will not be able to hide from all the stuff going on. If Obama can hold on he is going to have one tough job. And again, future A-A candidates will benefit or suffer on his success even more than on his election.

[Barry]

Posted by: lt:
"Kathy, is there any history of relationship between Kilpatrick and Obama besides both being African-American democrats? If not, that's some pretty dirty guilt-by-association for it to be a factor."

Simply standard racism.

Posted by: Hattie:

"There's the Hillary factor. I still feel a lot of bile about the way she was treated,and I'm sure plenty of Michigan voters feel the same."

I agree. The elite MSM, in between kissing McCain's *ss, was happily dishing the sexism all over Hillary. Note that this would not be Obama, but the same elite MSM a-holes who luved them some Bush, no matter what he did.

"What I would like to see is fair treatment under the law. Get rid of the system that interprets the law one way for one group and another way for another group. Then we could stop caring about people's stupid prejeudices."

What are you talking about? In the case of the Michigan primary, it was Hillary wanting the rules changed, after the fact. Rules that she had both agreed to beforehand, and which she had far more influence over the formation of than Obama did.