[UPDATED] Did the muslim smear hurt Obama in Ohio?

Obama carried the major cities in Ohio yesterday but lost statewide. I can't help but wonder how much the "cryptomuslim" whispering smear campaign hurt him. There are some clues in the exit polls. Using the data from CNN, we see the following:

The vote among Democrats was racially divided, with white Dems going for Clinton and black Dems going for Obama. Democratic party members followed the same breakdown, but white Independent voters were somewhat closer, preferring Clinton by 8 points.

Vote by Race
             
White (76%) - Clinton 64%, Obama 34%    
African-American (18%) - Clinton 13%, Obama 87%

Vote by Party and Race
             
White Democrats (49%) - Clinton 70%, Obama 27%  
White Independents (18%) - Clinton 53%, Obama 45%  
Black Democrats (15%) - Clinton 12%, Obama 88%

Protestants and Catholics alike preferred Clinton by a very large margin. This held true regardless of race.

Vote by Religion

Protestant (32%) - Clinton 61%, Obama 36%
Catholic (23%) - Clinton 63%, Obama 36%
Other Christian (23%) - Clinton 46%, Obama 54%
 
Vote by Religion and Race
             
White Protestant (40%) - Clinton 67%, Obama 30%          
White Catholic (20%) - Clinton 65%, Obama 34%

Interestingly, when you look at the age breakdown overall, there's a transition with Obama taking progressively less and Clinton taking progressively more as you go up in age bracket. The breakeven point was the 40-49 age group who went for Clinton by only 4 points. However when you factor race and age together, the numbers decline for Obama quite drastically, with Obama winning the youngest age bracket (17-29) by only one point, and then losing more and more to Clinton as you go up.

Vote by Age
             
17-24 (7%) - Clinton 29%, Obama 70%
25-29 (8%) - Clinton 41%, Obama 54%
30-39 (17%) - Clinton 49%, Obama 51%
40-49 (21%) - Clinton 52%, Obama 48%
50-64 (32%) - Clinton 60%, Obama 37%      
65 and Older (14%) - Clinton 72%, Obama 26%

Vote by Age and Race
             
White 17-29 (10%) - Clinton 47%, Obama 48%
White 30-44 (19%) - Clinton 60%, Obama 40%
White 45-59 (26%) - Clinton 66%, Obama 32%
White 60 and Older (20%) - Clinton 72%, Obama 24%

So overall, the vote broke heavily across racial lines, regardless of party affiliation. The Christian vote broke heavily for Clinton, regardless of race. And the youth vote broke for Obama, except for the white youth.

It is of course very difficult to tease out anything concrete from this. What seems relevant though is that race, while a strong factor, had no effect on the religion breakdown, whereas it did tip the age breakdown. This suggests to me that religion was a strong barrier to Obama and operated independently of race. If religion was more flexible, then it would also have followed the racial pattern seen in the age grouping. Can we infer then that the muslim smear had some effect? It certainly wasn't negligible, but it probably was just one of a number of factors that combined to tip the state towards Hillary.

Hillary certainly had the opportunity to distance herself, and utterly repudiate, the muslim smear in a very public fashion before the people of Ohio and chose not to do so. So while her campaign probably wasn't actively fanning the muslim smear, it certainly was content to let it operate unhindered.

Earlier I argued that we as muslims should wait until after the primary ends to hold Obama accountable for distancing himself from muslim Americans. It's true that he has called the smear an insult to muslims, but he still has not said that whether he is muslim or not is irrelevant. I thought prior to Ohio that some distance between Obama and muslim Americans would help him, but now it seems to me that there's not much point. So why not press the issue now?

I think that prior to Pennsylvania Obama should confront the muslim smear and attempt to take it off the table by challenging the underlying islamophobia. I don't think his delegate lead is in any danger but I very much doubt he will win PA, a state with demographics highly similar to Ohio. Even the most committed Obama partisans must concede that losing OH and PA is going to be a significant liability in the general election - electability is a real concern, and the Democrat can't beat McCain without those two states. Therefore Obama has to look strategically at the electability issue and attempt to neutralize whatever forces he can that are undermining him in these blue-collar, predominantly white and Christian communities. The two things hurting him the most are the NAFTA problem and the muslim smear.

The real target is John McCain, and John McCain is no Alan Keyes. If Obama wants to counter Hillary's argument that only she can beat McCain by competing in battleground states (whose importance in the general election even a 50-state strategy can't diminish), he is going to have to make a serious play for PA. And that means it's time for him to channel his inner Jerry Seinfeld.

"I'm not muslim and never have been. Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Senator Obama, you can't hide from the cryptomuslim smear forever. The time to confront it is now. If Hope, Change, and Unity aren't enough to defeat the Islamophobia within, then how much power do these key concepts of your campaign really hold?

UPDATE: MSNBC exit poll data link here. I assume the same trends hold but will have to look carefully to verify.

UPDATE 2: See Jef MacNeil's diary about the Big Lie.

•  cross posted at City of Brass

  City of Brass focuses on issues related to muslims in the West.

  by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM PDT

  •  defining a muslim Left

    incidentally, I'd also like to plug my ongoing series about defining a muslim Left:

    defining a Muslim Left: part I
    defining a muslim Left II: The Gash of Civilizations
    Western feminism and Islamic values

    If you are interested in what you see, please do consider subscribing to my feed!

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:51:14 AM PDT

•  I think it did. Clinton phonebankers were calling

  Obama "Osama bin laden."

  by slinkerwink on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:48:15 AM PDT

  •  This is why

    if HRC is the nominee, I might vote only downticket.

    by TLS66 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM PDT

    •  The rumors help HRC, and she's in it to win it

      by Pazuzu on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:54:11 AM PDT

    •  I'll probably vote

      McCain, and Dem downticket.  I live here in PA.

      by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:01:12 AM PDT

      •  i am voting dem no matter what

        because the republicans are worse. much, much, much worse.

        by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM PDT

        •  Your opinion

          and I don't share it.  And I don't consider Clinton anything other than a self-serving person who lacks any character.  I certainly don't consider her a Democrat, just like I don't consider Joe W Lieberbush or Zell Miller Democrats.

          by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:08:44 AM PDT

•  "you can't hide from the cryptomuslim smear

  forever."

  He's been hoping for year that it would just go away, now it may be too late.

  by Pazuzu on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:53:11 AM PDT

  •  thanks for the rec

    As we saw, the campaigns are paying attention to Dailykos diaries right now (Hillary responded pretty orcefull to the accusation of blackening Obama in the ad, for example). I hope that if enough muslims speak out and put pressure on Obama he will also be compelled to respond.

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:56:59 AM PDT

•  NO!!!

  Jesus nothing hurt Obama in Ohio.  He was down 20 points 14 days ago.  He lost by 10.  So he gained 10 points in two weeks.  Done.

  by michlawa2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:56:11 AM PDT

  •  yes but

    he lost all that momentum in the last two or three days. two weeks was long enough for him to bloom, and then fade.

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

  •  Had the election been last Thursday

    I think Obama would have lost by less than 3 or won outright.

    The Muslim smear and the totally false Canadian NAFTA story killed him in Ohio.

    by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM PDT

•  accroding to exist polls

  the majority of people who stated race was an important factor in deciding their vote the majority of them voted Hillary.

  While being muslim has nothing to do with race, I think his name suggests ethnicity strongly associated with Muslims, so I think this data from the exist poll might be a good indicator of to what degree the muslim/middle name slander is operative.

  Even if it doesn't, the data is still disconcerting.

  by marcusdean on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:58:27 AM PDT

•  It killed him

  And Obama could have easily parried it by talking about his Christian faith more, and repeatedly stating in each ad that he was a Christian.  

  His two minute ad at the end did nothing to address his faith, which was a huge mistake, and probably cost him a close showing in Ohio and a win in Texas.

  His ads should have had him holding a Bible as well.

  by IhateBush on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:58:57 AM PDT

  •  no, the answer wasnt more christianity

    thats just "obama is denying it". Obama needs to confront the smear by denying it matters if he was muslim or not.

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

•  New anti Obama emails coming thru in PA

  Oh yeah that wiley Muslim in Christian Clothing could just Muslimize the whole darned nation.

  Decisions decisions...just delete or scold first...just delete or scold first...

  by Philly Quaker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:10:08 AM PDT

•  How much of HRCs vote came from Republicans?

  The wing nuts told their listeners to vote for Hillary in Texas and Ohio and I think that they are convinced that it will hurt the Democrats in November, but I doubt it.

  by Dirk McQuigley on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:12:15 AM PDT

  •  i agree

    it probably wasnt much. from the exit polls, only 9% of voters in the dem primary were Republicans, and they split 49-49 between obama and clinton.

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:14:55 AM PDT

    •  Some republicans really don't want McCain.

      The crossover may have been more authentic than Rush thinks.(Assuming, ofcourse, that he thinks at all)

      by gdwtch52 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM PDT

•  yes

  by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

•  Two things:

  One is that I think that a whispering campaign like this based on a single claim, that Obama is a Muslim, can only work once. Hilary "used it up". Because now, if enough people have heard it, then they will hear it debunked, and if they hear it again, it won't make any difference. Of course this works better for Obama if the lie can be "aired out" and addressed head-on. This will be a lot easier to do now because there's a story to tell ("did Obama lose Ohio because of this lie?") other than "he's not a Muslim, really." So now would be a good time to deal with it.

  The other is that Islamophobia is the Republicas'  and the neoconservatives' "big lie". Another diarist wrote about this recently, quoting this passage from Mein Kampf. The "big lie" was the cornerstone of Hitler's propaganda against Jews. This should be required reading for anybody interested in American politics in the past 10 years:

  In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.

  The other reason big lies work is that people are already sympathetic to them. They play on existing prejudices. The situation here is similar to the whispering campaign.

  If the lie can be confronted head-on and debunked, all the better. Islamophobia is an essential component of Republican scaremongering. Muslims are the scapegoat they need. If the very basis of that scapegoating can be undermined by airing out the facts, by educating people about what Islam really is and who Muslims really are, then the scaremongering is severely undermined.

  by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:19:31 AM PDT

  •  excellent

    Mind if I quote you verbatim at my blog?

    by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:30:17 AM PDT

    •  Go ahead! I might throw some of my comments

      together into a diary, maybe later today, too. Also, hat-tip to jeffmcneill for bringing up the topic of the big lie in his diary.

      by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:02 AM PDT

      •  adding a link to jeffmcneil's diary -nt

        by azizhp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:48:17 AM PDT

•  It was Race - pure and simple

  My take is different and simpler.  It was pure and simple a race issue.  Looking at the numbers, even the younger white voters either went less for Obama than other states or actually voted for Hillary.  Frankly this does not surprise me.  Ohio continues to be one of the most racially divided states in the country.  And this racial divide is exacerbated when the economy is an issue.  It's the same thing that has allowed Bush to divide the country.  Blame all the ills on a race of people.  And when the economy is bad, it's easier to do.  Even in Cuyahoga county,  (Cleveland and surrounding suburbs and the largest county in the country) Obama only won by 23,000 votes.  

  The muslim issue is a smoke screen.  It allowed white democrats one way to raise their concerns about Obama other than just saying he's black.  If you note the Democrat on 60 minutes that raised the muslim issue, and the swearing in-on-the-Koran issue, and the "he won't say the pledge of allegiance" issue, said he was thinking about voting for Obama.  This is one reason the polls were closer.  Some white people in Ohio don't want to say they won't vote for a black person.

  Finally one other issue that hasn't been teased out is the degree that Republicans crossed over and voted for Hillary.  There were blogs on this issue during the voting yesterday, but I've seen nothing today. I grew up in Ohio, and when I grew up, I thought that blacks had more opportunity in that state than others, ie Carl Stokes the first black mayor.  Larry Doby, the first black player in the American League.  Frank Robinson, the first black manager in baseball.   I no longer believe that.  One reason that it's worse now, is the economy and the fact that many college educated young people and progressives don't stick around in Ohio.  They leave for opportunity elsewhere in the country.  When deep issues of race dominate, logic, rationale and reason have a hard time breaking through.

  Unfortunately Obama faces a similar situation in most of Pennsylvania, although he has a month to address it.

  Having said all that, Clinton has really given Obama an opening.  She used the fear tactics just as the movement conservatives have.  How many of you saw the post on the Dailykos yesterday illustrating how a photograph of Obama had been modified to make him look darker in one of her ads.  The other opening is that she has identified herself with McCain.  She says that McCain and her have the experience to run the country.  By identifying with McCain, she can't distant herself from the Bush administration.   If Obama really wanted to go negative, he could also call her on her association with Bob Johnson, ex CEO of BET.  How can someone that stands for women's causes, rationalize association with a person that exploits and denigrates black women?

  by paulwoodring on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

  •  I don't think they can be separated, actually.

    It's much easier to talk about religion and somebody being a Muslim than it is to talk about race. You can get away with saying practically anything about Muslims in the corporate media. The things people say about Muslims on a regular basis, if they said them even once about black people, they would be in serious hot water.

    So what I think is actually going on is that the "Muslim" and "black" issues are related, part of the same issue. If you look at the stereotypes about black people and Muslims, there is actually a lot of overlap. Being seen as an "angry black man" is a very dangerous thing in the MSM, and Muslims are portrayed as "angry".

    Or to put it another way, consider this: if Obama were white, would the "Muslim smear" have gained any traction whatsoever? Lots of white people with Arab ancestry and even Arabic last names are in politics and that is not used against them as a smear. It works on Obama because "angry", "black man", "Muslim" and "foreign" are images that go together in people's minds. They see a black face and it's much easier to see that as threatening, than, say, Nader's face (Nader is an Arabic name, btw, he has Lebanese ancestry).

    by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM PDT