Did Harold Ford's Race Hurt Him?
I know this will be a provactive argument and it is meant to be, but I don't think Harold Ford lost because of his race. In fact, I don't think being black hurt Harold Ford. I argue that being black actually helped Harold Ford in Tennessee.
Why? You need look no further than 2004 where white Democrats with far more experience than Harold Ford got crushed across the South. In Oklahoma, despite Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Carson's appeal and youth, he got beaten by 13% against Tom Coburn. Republican David Vitter won 51% to 29% against John Breaux's handpick successor, youthful and appealing Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris John. In North Carolina, Erskine Bowles lead and had a higher name recognition against Republican US Rep. Richard Burr but still lost 52-47%. In South Carolina, despite the fact that Inez Tenenbaum had run and been re-elected twice with the highest margins on the ballot and ran a pretty good campaign for Senate, she still lost by 10% to Republican Jim DeMint.
In 2002, Rep. Saxby Chambliss beat incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland by 7%. Elizabeth Dole won an open seat against Erskine Bowles by 9% and Lindsay Graham beat the colorful Alex Sanders by 9%. In the last open Senate seat in Tennessee, Lamar! Alexander beat former Rep. Bob Clement by 10%.
Harold Ford was a lot like both Democrats Brad Carson of Oklahoma and Chris John of Louisiana and yet both men went to down to defeat by near double digits. Harold Ford, despite being young, single, from a corrupt family, and from the "wrong" part of the state, still came within 3% or 50,000 votes of being a United States Senator in a part of the country that is particularly hostile to Democrats.
Ford came closer to winning despite having more handicaps than any of the Democrats running "competitive" races in the past 6 years for the Senate in the South. Why is this? I hate to say it, but I think his skin color played a large factor. While many whites probably opted to vote against him because of his skin color (or the fact that he just wasn't a family man), many more very likely voted for him because of his skin color. I'd call it the "Obama effect." They see a talented, articulate (i hate this word btw), smart African-American and that's all they need to check yes.
And what about the ad? Perception is reality and the perception is the people of Tennessee fell for a racist ad. I'm not so sure. I think the ad hurt him in that it showed him to be a galvanting, single, bachelor in a state that respects small-town values, family men, and church. The ad with the Playboy bunny wasn't necessarily about Ford's race but about his values. This makes sense given that Ford made his values and youth (having one of his ads in a church) the backbone of his campaign.
Its similiar to how John Kerry made his veteran status the backbone of his campaign and once Republicans broke that backbone, they broke the candidate. Same thing may have happened here where Ford tried to run on conservative values and once those values were exposed to be fake, the people responded in kind.
It could have been his race that doomed him, but if not for his race, Ford would never have even been in this race. The media would've never hyped him (I don't remember Brad Carson or Chris John on the cover of Newsweek). Crazy and counter to what you'd expect me to argue I know, but perhaps race isn't playing the role we think it is in American elections.
Why? You need look no further than 2004 where white Democrats with far more experience than Harold Ford got crushed across the South. In Oklahoma, despite Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Carson's appeal and youth, he got beaten by 13% against Tom Coburn. Republican David Vitter won 51% to 29% against John Breaux's handpick successor, youthful and appealing Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris John. In North Carolina, Erskine Bowles lead and had a higher name recognition against Republican US Rep. Richard Burr but still lost 52-47%. In South Carolina, despite the fact that Inez Tenenbaum had run and been re-elected twice with the highest margins on the ballot and ran a pretty good campaign for Senate, she still lost by 10% to Republican Jim DeMint.
In 2002, Rep. Saxby Chambliss beat incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland by 7%. Elizabeth Dole won an open seat against Erskine Bowles by 9% and Lindsay Graham beat the colorful Alex Sanders by 9%. In the last open Senate seat in Tennessee, Lamar! Alexander beat former Rep. Bob Clement by 10%.
Harold Ford was a lot like both Democrats Brad Carson of Oklahoma and Chris John of Louisiana and yet both men went to down to defeat by near double digits. Harold Ford, despite being young, single, from a corrupt family, and from the "wrong" part of the state, still came within 3% or 50,000 votes of being a United States Senator in a part of the country that is particularly hostile to Democrats.
Ford came closer to winning despite having more handicaps than any of the Democrats running "competitive" races in the past 6 years for the Senate in the South. Why is this? I hate to say it, but I think his skin color played a large factor. While many whites probably opted to vote against him because of his skin color (or the fact that he just wasn't a family man), many more very likely voted for him because of his skin color. I'd call it the "Obama effect." They see a talented, articulate (i hate this word btw), smart African-American and that's all they need to check yes.
And what about the ad? Perception is reality and the perception is the people of Tennessee fell for a racist ad. I'm not so sure. I think the ad hurt him in that it showed him to be a galvanting, single, bachelor in a state that respects small-town values, family men, and church. The ad with the Playboy bunny wasn't necessarily about Ford's race but about his values. This makes sense given that Ford made his values and youth (having one of his ads in a church) the backbone of his campaign.
Its similiar to how John Kerry made his veteran status the backbone of his campaign and once Republicans broke that backbone, they broke the candidate. Same thing may have happened here where Ford tried to run on conservative values and once those values were exposed to be fake, the people responded in kind.
It could have been his race that doomed him, but if not for his race, Ford would never have even been in this race. The media would've never hyped him (I don't remember Brad Carson or Chris John on the cover of Newsweek). Crazy and counter to what you'd expect me to argue I know, but perhaps race isn't playing the role we think it is in American elections.
posted by Chris at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home