Follow GOVERNING on:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Ballot Box

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Caucus + Primary = Confused Voters | Main | Is Immigration a Political Dud? »

February 14, 2008

Rendell: Racism Helped Me Win Reelection

posted by Josh Goodman

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is being accused of racism and fear mongering for a comment he made over the weekend about the presidential election. I'll accuse him of something else: honesty.

Here's what Rendell said, as reported by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Tony Norman:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

That statement is true.

In a CBS News/New York Times poll last month, 6% of registered voters said that they wouldn't vote for a black presidential candidate (90% said they would). The 6% figure is a point for two higher than some similar polls in recent years, but fairly typical. I'm willing to guess that the real figure is somewhat more than 6%, since it's likely that some racists prefer not to announce their racism to strangers who call on the telephone.

In 2004, 122 million Americans voted for president. Using the conservative estimate of 6%, 7.3 million of them wouldn't have supported a black candidate. Undoubtedly, some of those people live in Pennsylvania.

The reason Rendell's remark caused a stir, however, is that he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Did Rendell imply that Democrats should nominate Clinton because Obama's race makes him unelectable?

If so, that's a lousy argument. When similar polls ask about other groups, larger percentages of voters express unwillingness to support a presidential candidate who is Hispanic, Muslim, Mormon, gay, an atheist or, yes, a woman.

Those results may say more about the acceptability of prejudice toward each group than the prevalence of prejudice. Still, Obama's race is likely to be both a help and a hindrance, with the net effect difficult to determine, much like John Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960.

I'd have to know more about the context of Rendell's remark to say whether he was really arguing that Hillary is more electable than Obama based on race -- whether Rendell was asked specifically about race or whether he brought the subject up himself. For what it's worth, Norman correctly describes Rendell as "voluble." I'd add that, quite frankly, he sometimes doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

For those interested in state politics, the second half of Rendell's quote was perhaps even more noteworthy. Here's what he said (the parenthetical comments are Norman's): 

"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

How often do you hear a politician say he benefited from racism? There are probably about a hundred ways you could describe that remark, but self-serving isn't one of them.



As a Republican, I'd love to use this against him, as most Democrats do against Republicans. Payback. However, in the spirit of fairness, he certainly isn't saying anything implying he is racist himself.

To your question regarding whether he was suggesting people not vote for Obama because of this fact, I am certain the answer is yes. I think that is why Republicans don't give Alan Keyes any traction from the very beginning. Do you blame the messenger here?

Unfortunately, the Democrat voters REALLY believe that their party contains no participants who would defect because of race. I think Democratic voters, by and large, are more idealistic and naive. The "feel" more than they "think." If a Republican tries to point something out like Rendell did, they automatically assume he is a racist.


One additional remark: although I would not vote for most Democrats because of their stance on issues, I applaud their party for again being the first to push a female and a black candidate to new heights in a national race. I think the Republicans are too cowardly to even chance it.

Here is a question to spurn even further debate. On the race issue, if Obama were a darker skinned black man, would he be received as well? I say no, as I've seen and heard racial divisions with the black community regarding skin tone. That might be another item against Alan Keyes, come to think of it. Sad. I voted for Keyes back in 2000, but it wasn't until after Iowa and New Hampshire that I got a letter saying he was in the race. A tad late. I voted Duncan Hunter.

C. Armstrong

I am a Obama supporter. However, I have asked various white men if, in their political conversations, they hear doubts about supporting either a woman or an African-American male. So far, the answer is an astounding "no". But, then perhaps my associates to not represent a cross section of American voters or they would not outwardly admit it!

Coach Handbags

Awesome write-up, I'm a huge believer in placing comments on weblogs to allow the blog editors know they've created something of value to the world wide web!

Supra shoes

We have evaluate heaps of a flavors of dedicated blog page just before you decide,as well document morning believed mass pm would so that they financial maintain complimentary blogtitle-holders pastime take a look closely on-line such as rubbish,pretty much your own property are almost always however, my partner and i like check out your incredible ideas,additionally published tactics willing together with may well pick up a bit up to date,and as a result i admiration all your posts while

The comments to this entry are closed.