Seth Masket did something important and admirable at Politico this week: He examined the historical premise for some advice being offered to President Biden by many voices and found it to be ill-founded:
“Joe Biden needs a ‘Sister Souljah Moment.’ At least, that’s according to the quickly congealing conventional wisdom in Washington. That is, Biden and Democrats are in dire danger of losing control of Congress next year, and the one thing that could save them would be by bashing someone to Biden’s left on matters of race.”
The allusion is to a speech famously made by Bill Clinton in the summer of 1992 (when he had already nailed down the Democratic presidential nomination) to a conference of the Jesse Jackson–chaired Rainbow Coalition criticizing the organization for holding a panel the previous day that included Sister Souljah. The rapper had recently made remarks related to the L.A. riots that some interpreted as promoting the killing of white people (a claim she denied).
Jackson (who had expressed pride in Souljah’s appearance at his conference) was sitting on the stage near Clinton as he spoke and understandably felt blindsided and exploited by what Clinton said. So it has gone down in legend as a “moment” when a Democratic politician pandered to swing voters (and perhaps to white racists) by conspicuously separating himself from Black political activists. And that, as Masket notes, is what some commentators want Biden to do to stem the political bleeding over controversies surrounding racial justice, including Black Lives Matter protests, the “defund the police” movement, and the alleged influence of critical race theory in public-school classrooms.
The principal trouble with the claim Biden can do wonders via a little measured race-baiting, Masket explains, is that it didn’t do Clinton much good in 1992. A lot of factors lifted him to victory that fall, but clearly it was the economy (stupid!) and the temporary withdrawal of Ross Perot from the race that were most important. There is little-to-no evidence that the Sister Souljah “moment” had any particular effect on the contest. Yet the legend persists:
“Is it possible that Clinton got some help on Election Day from his bashing of Souljah five months earlier? It’s possible, but unlikely. Campaign effects just generally don’t last that long. It was a very old story by then, and it’s hard to even discern much of an effect when the story was fresh. Polling that year shows that voters were more likely to trust Clinton on issues related to racial politics, but that was true prior to the Souljah moment, as well.
“So why is it important to interrogate this piece of political lore three decades later? Because clearly many opinion leaders take it as an article of faith that a Democratic president can make himself more popular by bashing advocates for racial justice. The evidence doesn’t really support this, but they make the argument anyway.”
I would go a step further than Masket in debunking the “Sister Souljah Moment” theory. I say this not because I have any insider information on what was going on in the Clinton campaign (or in the candidate’s mind) before he made that Rainbow Coalition speech. But I was an early Clinton supporter and later worked for the decidedly Clintonite Democratic Leadership Council, and I sure didn’t think the incident was mostly about race. Obviously, racists in the electorate probably perceived it that way, though few of them at that point in history were likely to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. The broader perception at the time was captured by Tom Edsall’s on-site report on the speech for the Washington Post:
“Clinton’s frank remarks seemed designed to demonstrate his willingness to challenge core Democratic constituent groups and to begin to break his image in the public as a “political” person who would bend to pressure from major forces within his party …
“The power of the Perot campaign, and growing public animosity to both the Republican and the Democratic parties, has been interpreted in the Clinton campaign as a powerful message requiring the Arkansas governor to attempt to regain the status of an ‘outsider’ candidacy — a status first lost to former Massachusetts senator Paul E. Tsongas, then to former California governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. and most recently to Perot.”
Indeed, the idea that Clinton was triangulating against Black folks generally on race was not borne out by the reaction from, well, Black folks, other than those very close to the justifiably insulted Jackson, as Steve Kornacki later observed:
“Clinton did not suffer any discernible fallout among black voters; in fact, many black political leaders — some nursing their own grudges against Jackson — used the occasion to throw their support behind Clinton.”
That could be in part because even if you think Clinton was pushing off the left, he wasn’t exactly moving right. In the same speech in which he chastised Sister Souljah for allegedly smiling upon the hypothetical killing of white people for the sins of their race, Clinton sounded some familiar populist themes that were entirely congenial to his audience:
“The speech included repeated attacks on the Bush administration, with a well received line about Vice President Quayle — ‘I’m tired of people on trust funds telling people on food stamps how to live’ — and praise for ‘the real story of Los Angeles — that most people who live in that city did not burn, loot or riot.’”
So what would a more nuanced understanding of the “Sister Souljah Moment” tell Joe Biden?
First of all, Biden is in a vastly different position than was Clinton in 1992. There is no Ross Perot on the horizon, appealing to a huge block of swing voters temporarily estranged from both parties. When Clinton rejected Jesse Jackson’s advice to run a base-mobilization campaign, there were plenty of reasons to fear that identification of Clinton with Democratic orthodoxy would be disastrous: At the time of the Sister Souljah speech, Clinton was running third in many polls behind Perot and George H.W. Bush. And when Perot did (temporarily) withdraw from the race right after the Democratic convention (I was involved in speech preparations for that convention and remember when the word came down: No more criticisms of Perot!), he basically confirmed that Clinton had succeeded in redeeming his pledge to become “a different kind of Democrat,” as the Los Angeles Times explained:
“’When we started … there was a climate there where we could win outright,’ Perot asserted. But now, he said, ‘the Democratic Party has revitalized itself. They’ve done a brilliant job, in my opinion, in coming back.’
:Perot did not elaborate on that point. But Morton H. Meyerson, a longtime Perot confidant and campaign adviser, later cited the Democratic Party’s platform as something that ‘Ross feels good about.’
“Meyerson added: ‘The Democrats seem to be listening to the people.'”
Biden, by contrast is operating in a highly polarized climate with few swing voters and no Perot-like centrist to challenge him. He has zero reason to gamble on separating himself rhetorically from his party.
Second of all, while Clinton was dealing with decades of perceived Democratic subservience to the party’s interest and constituency groups, Biden is dealing with a conservative media environment in which nothing he says will effectively contradict assertions that he wants to defund the police, open the prison doors, impose “woke” speech codes and racial quotas on colleges and workplaces, and usher in a socialist revolution. It’s all preposterous, but Biden has already tried and failed to challenge the smears with rhetorical signals. Some hypothetical equivalent to the supposed message Clinton sent in the “Sister Souljah Moment” would mostly be heard by those who feared, not hoped, he was separating himself from his party under pressure.
And third, even if Joe Biden thought he needed to “push off” the left (as though defeating Bernie Sanders in the 2020 presidential primaries wasn’t enough “pushing off”), he should stay far away from racially inflammatory subjects. Biden would have never won the presidential nomination without the kind of staunch Black support that destroyed the potentially strong nomination campaigns of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, even though Biden’s history on racial issues was far more problematic than Clinton’s in 1992. Besides, now and in 1992, the idea that “the left” and “Black voters” are somehow synonymous is simply wrong.
If Biden feels the need to make it clear he’s still the moderately progressive Democrat who hates racism but is by no means a socialist or especially “woke,” he should just say so, as often as possible. No “pushing off” is necessary.
Per Missouri…I haven’t seen tv ads for either candidate in a few days. While the ads were running, they were evenly matched. I have begun to see more Kerry/Edwards signs & bumper stickers. For a time, I thought it was just Bush/Cheney, but the Kerry signs are begining to crop up here & there. I live between rural & suburbs.
Good point Gabby Hayes. I love hanging out in bookstores. After the DNC, the Newsweek Poll comes out – my son and I are high-fiving eachother (JK 8 points ahead one), I go to the bookstore- there’s the latest Newsweek with a big, beautiful cover photo of K&E – New Direction for Cmountry. I just got back from the bookstore tonight – there’s the latest Newsweek with a big, (ugly) cover photo of Bush – trumpeting his march to the WH.
What we are seeing is a concerted effort on the part of several media organs to push Bush.
The post convention contortions to promote only the portions of those polls which show Bush getting a good lead in “likely voters” is a clear attempt to ignore all the polls that show otherwise. Further, the refusal to see the obviously poor methodology cannot be an oversight.
You’d think The Washington Post, NBC News, MSNBC, and Newsweek were all owned by the same people.
Oh, wait. They are. General Electric, top ten defense contractor, multibillion dollars per year.
Bizarroworld – the disparity between polls – between national vote vs battlefields – Zogby, who is usually simpatico described a fairly gloomy outlook on his site along with his latest poll data, reports – some anecdotal – of hordes of new voters registering, probably Dems, but obviously no indication of hopefully positive impact on the election. (sorry for the ungrammatical stream of consciousness)
gail,
I’m about to look more closely at that. It’s a 6% Bush lead in the RV’s. The median of CBS, ABC, Gallup, Fox, and ICR is +4 for Bush, which is what Marshall reported was the Republican and Democrat’s separate estimates post-convention. The 4% is imprecise, but my guess is not a bad estimate. Definitely within reach.
uGH- Just got a Washington Post update in my Email – blaring headline about Bush solidifying lead – yeah it’s a Post/ABC News poll, but still…
What is so bizarre is the huge gap between Bush’s negatives and the positive Bush poll results. So the electorate believes he is leading the country down the wrong track, but hell, they’ll vote for him anyway? Thanks to Tony for a summation of the latest polls. So which do I trust – would love to go with the ones that suit me!
Per Joshua Marshall’s site, the ABC/Washington Post lead will be in the ballpark of the CBS poll, or worse. Dang it.
vote on-
thanks for the correction
i am felling much encouraged.
Here’s confirmation of the Kerry campaign’s perception of the battlegrounds:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/strategy.ap/index.html
“Kerry strategist Tad Devine said the campaign had several million dollars in advertising time reserved for Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas, which he called a sign of commitment to those battlegrounds. But the ads aren’t scheduled to air until October, if then. No money has been given to TV stations for the October buys.”
In addition to the Bush 2000 states of Ohio, Florida, NH, WV, and Nevada, Kerry is spending on the Gore 2000 states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Maine, Washington, and Oregon. So…he’s defending 9 and attacking 5. And Ohio and Florida seem to be the key possible pickups.
Devine argues that Kerry is in a better state in Ohio and Florida than Gore was in September 2000. Do we have any info to compare on those two?
If he *does* pick up, say, Ohio and New Hampshire, then Kerry could lose 14 EV’s of Gore states. For instance, Iowa and New Mexico, or any Maine and either Minnesota or Wisconsin. He has to hold Pennsylvania and Michigan….
Gail,
Here’s a quick rundown of what I’ve seen of polls since the twin 11% polls:
Gallup…7% lead for Bush among LV’s, but only 1% among RV’s, Sept. 3-5.
ICR…Kerry up 1% among RV’s, Sept. 1-5
Fox…Bush up 4% among LV’s, with no RV report, Sept. 7-8
CBS…Bush up 7% among RV’s, Sept. 6-8.
Plus a report from Josh Marshall that the two campaigns show Bush up by 4%.
Rasmussen’s tracking shows Bush up by 0.7%.
Zogby showing Kerry with an ECV lead in his last battleground poll.
If you just go with Gallup RV, ICR RV, Fox LV (since they have no RV), and CBS RV, you get an average Bush lead of a smidge under 3%.
And that’s after the Republican convention, the Elephants slinging mud furiously for a long while when the Democrats haven’t responded well. This is going to be close. Kerry should be able to rally in the Gore states. Will he be able to turn Ohio or Florida, or the combination of New Hampshire, Nevada, and West Virginia?
CBS Poll is out – Bush solidly ahead – how to ratioanalize this – need to think something – getting migraine
As a Missourian, I can say that after the Repub convention, I saw a lot of Bush signs go up in yards. However, I’m seeing a lot of Kerry signs as well.
Missouri is deeply divided among its rural and urban regions. I live on the cusp of the rural areas and the suburbs so I get a taste of both. When I got into the suburbs I see a lot of Kerry support (more than I saw for Gore in 2000), but in the rural areas I’m seeing a lot of Bush support.
I don’t think Bush has an 11-point lead here, especially right after Zogby showed them tied just the other day.
I really believe Missouri will boil down to GOTV. Don’t give up on us yet!
Missouri will go Bush. I hate to say it, but Kerry’s message does not resonate there – most citizens are deeply socially conservative and relate to Bush personally and with his social values. There are economic troubles in MIssoui, but unfortunately this election is not about the economy, stupid.
I saw a report (not sure where. The Washington Post?) that Kerry was not targeting Missouri with ads right now. Can anyone confirm? If so, I’d take that as a sign that there might be some more truth to the idea that Bush is surging there.
From the article, the five Bush 2000 states Kerry was targeting were Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Nevada. NH and either WV or Nevada flipping would create a tie, going presumably to Bush in the House. If this is so, the strategy would seem to be (a) holding the Gore states; and (b) picking up one of Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire/WV/Nevada.
If that’s the strategy, I’m wondering if it might not have been helpful to have Graham on as VP.
Oops. The polls started 1-2 days AFTER the conventions.
Still in the afterglow, IMO.
Rremember that ALL of these new state polls were conducted DURING the convention and 1-2 days afterward.
Regarding Missouri, my initial thought was that the combination of the Repub convention and the Anti-Gay measure (passed with about 70% in favor) on the recent ballot there may have fired up the base. But I haven’t looked for any polling data to support that thought.
tim kaastad –you are confused. Ruy has been staunchly against using LVs until much closer to election day. And the links provided give you both LV and RV.
i am a little lost..is this site a pep rally.?
you didn’t report LV’s which according to you months ago was the true measure of the contest.
Missouri is more culturally conservative and rural than the nation as a whole. It’s often referred to as a “bellwether” for the nation, but I think it’s a step or two to the right of the country overall. That said, I’m not sure things have gone THAT far south there; other current surveys have it closer, though with Bush a few points ahead (Zogby has a tie.)
And the Ohio results are, along with Gallup’s national horse race results, a pretty egregious example of the fallacy of the “likely voter screen.”
I’m guessing the Missouri poll is an outlier. The other recent polls aren’t that strong. But there is a high level of southerner influence in the state and the Republican base was envigorated by the convention, so I’m sure that Bush’s support there is stronger than it was. But 11 points? I’m not buying that.
Anyone have any ideas on why things seem to be going south in Missouri?
When we look at events that will affect the tone of the campaign, I think it is hard to overestimate “Rock for Change.” Having Bruce Springsteen out there proselytizing for Kerry will be an Event. It will persuade and mobilize.
From this point forward, the mojo is definitely with us.