Obama Survives Wright; Party Still Racially Split [UPDATED]

Barack Obama's largely uncompromised victory in North Carolina and his finishing Indiana on Hillary's heels demonstrate that he has survived two months of blunders, bad news, and pastors coming home to roost.  I think this means not only that his core supporters have waved all that off, but more crucially, that Obama's own demeanor in handling the crises has reassured enough undecideds that he is sincere about loving this country and about coming, himself and his wife, from roots more "regular" than either of his opponents. In the process, Obama's rhetoric has lost its gauziness and acquired more concreteness, pertinence, and bite.  It's been a good test, and he's gotten through it and is a better candidate for it, better known to us.  Time will tell what lies ahead, whether determined oppo research will dig up new revelations of either radical association or political corruption, the two areas in which we have learned he is vulnerable.  (Refreshing to get a break from sex scandals.  Rest assured that someone will try, and hopefully fail, to cook one of those up; as Ann Althouse has noted, Obama's close family  unit is one of his greatest strengths.)

There are still some disturbing trends -- hopeful trends, if you're a Republican.  Hillary has dominated two segments of the party:  white women -- certainly not all white women, but older ones and those voting on a second-wave feminist "home team," identity-politics basis (a factor as well in the overwhelming black support for Obama) -- and those whites who are more conservative by virtue of age, residence, and/or educational level.  Creepily, some Hillary voters interviewed in exit polls had bought into the e-mail campaign claiming Obama is a closet Muslim.  Those voters expose a seam of xenophobia that perhaps has melded distrust of the darker "other" within and without, seizing on a one-letter displacement in the alphabet:

With Clinton posing [at the Indianapolis Speedway] alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama - for reasons that are disturbing.

"I'm kind of still up in the air between McCain and Hillary," said Jason Jenkins, 32, who cited information from a hoax e-mail as a reason to spurn Obama.

"I'll be honest with you. Barack scares the hell out of me,"he said. "He swore on the Koran."

Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood, Ind. 

"I can't stand him," the man said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

McCain could have trouble holding on to some of those same voters, however, if he is perceived as being soft on immigration.  In that case maybe they'll write in Lou Dobbs.

Even more troubling for the Democrats  is the large percentage of Hillary voters in both Indiana (half) and North Carolina (55%) who told exit pollsters they would not vote for Obama in the fall.  Of Indiana Hillary voters, a third said they would vote for McCain and 17% that they would stay home; in NC the percentages were 38% and 12%.  By contrast, about 60 and 70 percent of Obama voters, respectively, declared their willingness to vote for Clinton were she the nominee.

These percentages, of course, are not cut in stone.  They can and will change, depending on how familiar and unthreatening Barack Obama can make himself to some of these suspicious voters over the next six months, and what new revelations are dragged out about both Obama and McCain, and whether people feel more comfortable with someone vital but green or someone seasoned but past his prime, and world events, and economic trends, and yadda yadda yadda.

It remains to be seen how big a crowbar the Clintons will be unable to resist shoving into that class, race, and age divide, and how irremediable is the resultant damage her candidacy's prolonged death struggle does to the party.  Because it seems evident that, barring the very unforeseen, Obama's the nominee.

UPDATE:  But wait!  This analysis says that some or even much of the apparent divide in Democratic voting is being driven by non-Democrat voters, both Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" saboteurs -- who may have succeeded in keeping Clinton's candidacy alive -- and independents:

While self-identified Democratic voters continue to express support for both candidates as the nominee, and overwhelmingly support each in the general election, the story changes among others who showed up to vote today.

While much has been made about polarization within the Democratic party, as evidenced by the primary electorate, much of the apparent division can be attributed to voters who do not actually consider themselves Democrats.

Obama's ability to attract and motivate independent voters has been evident throughout the primary season. Indiana was no exception. In the state's open primary, 23 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary were self-identified independents, and 25 percent were voting in a presidential primary for the first time. Obama won the overall independent vote 53 percent to 47 percent.

In North Carolina the story was different in terms of the vote choice. Clinton won independent voters in North Carolina by four points - 50 percent to 45 percent. These independents, who made up 19 percent of the primary electorate, were more conservative than those turning out in Indiana, 26 percent conservative to 18 percent respectively, potentially accounting for the difference in the results. [...]

independent voters in Indiana and North Carolina had many similarities. Both made up substantial portions of each primary electorate, one-fifth in North Carolina and nearly one-quarter in Indiana. Yet, despite their choice to join the voting in their state's Democratic primary, sizable numbers said they plan to vote for McCain in the general election, especially those who support the candidate not in the match-up. They are also much more likely to be dissatisfied with one or the other candidate as the party nominee than are self-described Democrats. [...]

[There are] deep divisions in independents' willingness to support the opposing Democratic primary candidate in the general election, again demonstrating the polarization many have attributed to Democrats. [...]

Few of the self-described Republicans who turned out to vote in the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana seem to actually support the candidate for whom they voted. Perhaps most intriguingly, however, is an apparent effort by Republicans to promote Clinton's candidacy when they feel Obama is the better nominee.

In each state Clinton carried the vote of Republican voters - 52 to 44 percent for Obama in Indiana, and 61 to 32 percent in North Carolina. Republicans made up only 5 percent in North Carolina's Democratic primary electorate, but made up 11 percent of the vote in the Indiana Democratic primary, enough to provide Clinton's expected margin of victory. [...]

While taking the time to turn out and vote in the Democratic primaries, Republican voters in both states have plans to vote for McCain in November. [...]

The exit polls reveal striking evidence of strategic voting by Republicans in both primaries, voting for the candidate they find least likely to win. Even though a majority of Republicans in each state voted for Clinton, they give Obama the better chance in November.

Republicans' strategy would be twofold:  try to steer the nomination to Clinton, the weaker November candidate, but even if that fails, keep her candidacy alive and fighting long enough to do maximum damage to Obama and soften him up for McCain's operatives. 

As an independent, I can tell you from the horse's mouth that the "problem" with us from a Democratic standpoint is not that we necessarily hate the "other" Democratic candidate all that much, but that we don't mind and even like McCain.  Someone's merely being a Democrat is neither necessary nor sufficient reason for us to vote for her or him.  So the polarizing appearance of the independent vote is the paradoxical effect of our nonpolarization.

Comments

[amba]

Was that too subtle about the one-letter displacement in the alphabet?

[Peter Hoh]

For all the talk about racial/gender identity politics, the whole "Obama is a Muslim" smear relies on a form of faith-based identity politics that the GOP has been playing since 1980.

Romney's candidacy floundered on that issue. He could win in Massachusetts and Michigan (hardly known for their evangelical fervor) but not in Iowa, South Carolina, or Florida.

[Donna B.]

I think the Muslim smear is based in a tiny fact - Obama's mother and step-father enrolled him in elementary school as a Muslim. He was taught that religion for a year or so as a very young child.

It was his parents' decision, not his. But couple that with the other Muslims in his extended family in Kenya and the smear-mongers have a hook in "the truth".

I registered my children in Catholic school, as Catholics, through the 8th grade. None of them are Catholics now. Some would judge them for being unfaithful to Catholicism, others for ever having been a Catholic.

Both views are wrong, IMHO.

[wj]

I harbor a nasty (and quite possible unwarranted) suspicion. It is that many of those who are repeating the "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense don't necessarily deep down believe it themselves.

But it is much, much less unacceptable in America today to spurn a candidate for his religion than for his race. (The current wave of xenophobia notwithstanding.) And if the reality is that you simply cannot bring yourself to vote for a black man, how much easier to say that it is his religion which keeps you away!

[David]

I think wj is exactly right. As far as a fair number of rural white voters are concerned, African American in the White House = Muslim under the bed = Danger, Will Robinson!

[Melinda]

Was that too subtle about the one-letter displacement in the alphabet?

Yes. I kept re-reading to see if I'd missed the word "jigger" or "witch."

the "problem" with us from a Democratic standpoint is not that we necessarily hate the "other" Democratic candidate all that much, but that we don't mind and even like McCain.

Whew! I'm not nuts! I'm not nuts!

Or if I am, you are too, so I'm in good company.

[amba]

wj -- exactly, my jibe about the alphabet was that the M-word is just a step from the N-word, and more acceptable in polite company. All the -ots can unscrew big- and screw on patri- figuring after 9/11, they're less likely to be called idi- .