The Clintons' Southern Strategy

by Cliopatria

From differing ideological perspectives, and with differing guesses as to the strategy's ultimate fate, John Judis in The New Republic and Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard critique the Clintons' Southern Strategy.

Dick Morris maintained at the time that the Clintons' long-term goal was less South Carolina than in creating a firewall of whites and especially Hispanics in later primaries. In a January interview with the New Yorker, Sergio Bendixen, described somewhat nebulously as a Clinton advisor, explained the campaign's approach thusly:"The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Hillary Clinton, given an opportunity to repudiate Bendixen's comment in her Meet the Press appearance, declined to do so.

Today's LA Timesreveals that Bendixen's campaign role is far greater than the New Yorker article suggested:"The Clinton campaign also is devoting millions of dollars to Spanish-language advertising, using messages crafted by Miami-based Latino strategist Sergio Bendixen."

The accuracy of Bendixen's analysis is debatable: while clearly correct in analyzing contemporary Los Angeles or Miami politics, it would seem to have less value in discussing the politics of cities like Denver or Chicago.

Beyond the merits, however, imagine the appropriate outrage that would greet a Republican candidate who spent millions of dollars on a message geared to white voters, crafted by a consultant who stated,"The white voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jeff Vanke - 2/4/2008

I'm not so sure, and here's why. First, maybe 25% Latino population means a 25% Latino electorate, but probably not nearly that high.

Second, are those LA districts representative of the US, or even Cali, as a whole? That is, would a white candidate stand an even, or better than even, chance of winning an open Congressional seat there? I don't know much about LA, but I do know about districts mapped out for African-Americans nationwide, and I'll bet these LA districts are competitive more intraracially than interracially. And if so, then Latinos in those districts aren't in much of a position to choose between white and black, only to choose among blacks.

Oh yeah, Latino voters choose Clinton over Obama three-to-one, which is more than whites do (I think). There's our most direct comparison of all, a broad race unencumbered by local alliances. It's just one data point, but what one data point could be clearer?

William Hopwood - 2/3/2008

According to other Hispanic views, the Bendixen quote doesn't hold much water. TIME on line, in a current article titled "The Black-Brown Divide" has, among other things, this to say about Bendixen's quote:

"After the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, in which Latino voters supported Senator Clinton by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1, some journalists literally borrowed Bendixen's analysis word for word before going on to speculate about Barack Obama's political fortunes in such delegate-rich states as California and Texas....more than a few pundits jumped on the idea that Latino voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was African American. The only problem with this new conventional wisdom is that it's wrong. 'It's one of those unqualified stereotypes about Latinos that people embrace even though there's not a bit of data to support it,' says political scientist Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University, an expert on Latino voting patterns. 'Here in Los Angeles, all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and couldn't survive without significant Latino support.'
"Nationwide, no fewer than eight black House members--including New York's Charles Rangel and Texas' Al Green--represent districts that are more than 25% Latino and must therefore depend heavily on Latino votes. And there are other examples....." And more which seems to fairly well debunk the Bendixen statement.

Jeff Vanke - 2/3/2008

From the black perspective, at least, this Hispanic-black tension exists everywhere (I extrapolate wildly) with significant populations of both, where Hispanics move into low-wage jobs and bring new cultures into old neighborhoods.

Maybe we can't see this yet much from the Hispanic perspective nationwide, but that could be because in places like N.C., there are many Hispanics, but not yet many citizen Hispanics. (Or maybe Hispanics don't feel much political competition from blacks, outside a few big cities.)

HAVH Mayer - 2/2/2008

This is true, of course. But the idea that white Southern voters wouldn't vote for even white candidates who favored extending the civil rights of African-Americans is actually a more extreme, isn't it?

Stuart McGeady - 2/2/2008

The question makes sense only in the cases of former congressman J. C. Watts of Oklahoma and maverick presidential candidate Alan Keyes.

HAVH Mayer - 2/2/2008

"[I]magine the appropriate outrage that would greet a Republican candidate who spent millions of dollars on a message geared to white voters, crafted by a consultant who stated, 'The white voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.'”

Uh, hasn't that been pretty much ALL the GOP candidates since 1968? And quite a few of the got elected, as I recall.