ATR 96 – Race, Gender and the Election

Does the new AP/Yahoo poll on race actually tell us anything we didn’t already know? Does Sarah Palin really represent “a brand new style of muscular American feminism?” What’s the difference between a black conservative crossing party lines to vote for Obama and a white female liberal crossing party lines to vote for Palin?

Got feedback for us? Call 917-720-6348 or email

Guest co-host Jenn Fang blogs at Reappropriate: a blog focusing on issues of race, gender, and grassroots activism as they affect the formation of the Asian American sociopolitical identity.

Duration – 51:49
File Size – 35.7 MB

Right-click here to download an MP3 of Addicted to Race Episode 96
Click here to never miss an episode by subscribing to us in iTunes

click the button below to play it immediately

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Current
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

7 thoughts on “ATR 96 – Race, Gender and the Election”

  1. I don’t if I agree with the analysis of the Bradley Effect in the Nevada caucuses. If you look at, the results were very similar to what polling predicted – the last two polls had Clinton up 6% and 9%, and her average lead in polls as 4% – and she won by 5.5%. While I absolutely agree that he was hurt by racism, it does appear that the polls reflected that.

    The biggest thing that happened regarding race in the primary season, though, was a sort of reverse Bradley effect in southern states with large black populations. In states like the Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, Obama significantly outperformed what the polls predicted.

    For example, in South Carolina, the Realclearpolitics poll average had Obama up 11.6% – he won by 28.9%. In Virginia, polls had him up 17.2%, and he won by 28.2%.

    Why did this happen? Mainly because Obama inspired black turnout at levels that the pollsters didn’t account for. I think this is a really good cause for optimism – the polls currently show Obama and McCain very close in both Virginia and North Carolina. If we see a similar effect in the general election, even on a much smaller scale, he’ll carry both states – and if Obama wins Virginia and North Carolina, there’s really no way for McCain to win.

  2. Conservatives have definitely learned to exploit identity politics for their own purposes and Sarah Palin is actually late to the game compared to fans of hers like Camille Paglia. I didn’t catch whether you guys have read her before from your tone on the show but if not, you’ve been lucky. A prelude to Ann Coulter in many ways, Paglia was very popular in the 90s for participating in a backlash against anti-rape movements and anti-porn feminists like Andrea Dworkin. She liked to claim that she was the only dissenter to the anti-porn camp, even while dozens of other feminists argued for sex-positive feminism in far more interesting ways, but Paglia got the attention of conservative media and built a career out of it.

    Old white men loved having her on TV because she blamed women for sexual assault in ways men couldn’t get away with. She also put forth colonial, distorted ideas of black and latino sexualities supposedly being more ‘animalistic’ and rough, so beware, there’s a LOT to barf about if you hear more from her. It is not a surprise that she’s trying to use Palin to revive her career. Let’s all use our ‘muscular feminist’ muscles to shove her back into the hole she came from.

    Oh, and thank you Carmen and Jenn for showing respect for ‘diversity in armpit hair grooming’, ie. not insulting women with hairy armpits while deconstructing the stereotype. I wish your attitudes were more common but they’re not, so when you stop to point out that there’s nothing wrong with being hairy it actually means a lot more to me than perhaps it should.

  3. “Does Sarah Palin really represent ‘a brand new style of muscular American feminism?’”

    If she does, then American feminism is finished as a progressive political force.

    Sarah Palin represents an attempt by Conversativism to hijack feminism as a politics and rebrand it to serve the interests of White patriarchy.

    This would be equivalent to the KKK attempting to coopt the Civil Rights movement and repackage it in the interests of White hegemony.

    This is Orwellian Americanism.

  4. You know what…I really don’t care much about the difference on your poll or Yahoo’s, all I know is that if I had a hundred or a thousand votes available for the election, 99% of those will go to Obama.

    The reason is not just because I like the man but because I want him to serve.

  5. Another great discussion from ATR. I am fairly new to Carmen and her various blogs/websites, and I am overwhelmed by the depth and insight that I encounter, here. As someone who has been sensitive to these issues for a long time, I am being challenged even further to investigate my personal biases and learn more about the complexities of discrimination in our society.

    In this discussion of “Race, Gender and the Election,” I am disappointed about the lack of mention of then only all woman, all POC ticket: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente of the Green Party! Surely there is something relevant about 2 people whose candidacy is also a historical first, and, more importantly, are the 2 candidates who are the most vocal on issues of social equality. For example, in the discussion of feminism and the republican vice-presidential candidate, why not include a few words on the VP candidate who is the most vocal on Feminist issues, Rosa Clemente? She lectures on Feminism, founded the Latina Women’s Political network and was a representative at the 2002 UN Conference on World Conference against Xenophobia, Racism and Related Intolerance?

    Please note that I am not actually a supporter of the Green Party ticket. I am, however, a supporter of increasing the political conversation beyond 2 points of view i.e. democrat and republican. As someone who respects the diversity of human experience, I respect the diversity of opinion regarding the best ways to run our society. Do we really think that the entire spectrum of rational political thought can be narrowed down into 2 parties/points of view? I think that the exclusion of 3rd party candidates from the political discussion is another form of discrimination in our society. As people who are interested in a more tolerant, diverse society (as I am assuming people that visit these sites are), what do you think?

  6. Great podcast – just thought I’d mention that the feminist/women’s liberation movement in the 60s/70s/80s is generally referred to as the second wave – the first wave being the suffragettes. At least in the US & UK.

  7. Good afternoon. Another interesting discussion with a lot of room for interpretation. While I dislike her politics, I love the irony of a non-feminist (by most standards) woman being in a position of power like a state governor or potential US Bice President. I just read an interesting article that coincides perfectly with this podcast:

    When I read it I was wondering if he had listened to your podcast before writing the article.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>