If one were designing a video game about Congressional elections, the career of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) would represent a good template for a campaign mode. Representing a majority-Black, heavily Democratic area of Memphis, Cohen got elected to Congress in 2006 by emerging from a badly split Democratic primary field. In 2008, Cohen didn't have the luxury of a split field, but soundly trounced corporate attorney Nikki Tinker who tried to race- and religion-bait her way to victory. Now, his 2010 match-up is another step-up in competition, facing long-time Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton.
This NYT profile makes it sound like Herenton is basically trying to make the campaign about race. It didn't work for Tinker at all, but Herenton is far higher profile than Tinker ever was. Still, Cohen has had time to entrench himself and appears to have engendered some loyalty amongst his constituents -- Black and White. I'm optimistic about his chances. Though an intervention by Barack Obama in favor of one of the most progressive members of the Democratic caucus would be, I think, both politically wise and greatly appreciated by Rep. Cohen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I would love to play a video game about Congressional elections.
Have you played the redistricting game?
No! *goes to play*
What is the point of having a district specifically drawn to elect blacks and then have the district represented by a white man. Cohen could compete in any district in Tennessee but blacks only have this one district to run in.
If the district is going to have a white representative, then Tennessee should redraw the district to make more sense instead of just drawing it to maximize the number of blacks and to put suburban whites into two other districts.
What is the point of having a district specifically drawn to elect blacks and then have the district represented by a white man. Cohen could compete in any district in Tennessee but blacks only have this one district to run in.
Reaffirming my belief that conservatives don't bother to understand legislation they don't believe in anyway.
The Voting Rights Act is not about electing people of a particular race; it is about ensuring that minority groups' voting power isn't dissipated by being spread across so many districts that they cannot cohere to support a candidate who will represent their interests. In terms of supporting the interests of Indian-Americans, for example, Bobby Jindal is not inherently the best candidate simply by virtue of being Indian-American himself. For example, if Jindal does not support separation of church and state, he won't support the interests of the overwhelming majority of Indian Americans who are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Jains -- minority religions that are disrespected and disregarded by conservative Christians.
PG,
The only way the government has to tell if blacks were not hurt is by ensuring that a certain number of them are elected. That is why North Carolina had a Congressional district that, at one point, was the width of an interstate highway.
What Rep. Cohen does is lower the highest office that a liberal black Democrat can hope to have is state Senator since one of the odd effects of the Voting Rights act is that is limits opportunities for black politicians. Instead of running in a district where a black politican would have to at least pretend to care about white voters, blacks are crowded into districts that are overwhelmingly black. This causes black politicians to be too liberal to win state wide office in almost any state.
Rep. Cohen has almost to chance at higher office so his 20 plus years
Pwned and Double pwned.
Instead of running in a district where a black politican would have to at least pretend to care about white voters, blacks are crowded into districts that are overwhelmingly black.
Tell me more about how being liberal and caring about white voters (or at least pretending to) are mutually exclusive political positions.
Anyway, I came down here to comments to tell David to read TNC, but I see he already has. Really interesting discussion in the comments from Memphis people.
David,
You know that the real reason the progressive white boys are so excited about Rep. Cohen is that he becomes the exception that will be used to convinced themselves that whites can be elected in majority non-white districts. As the U.S. becomes less whites and more black and Hispanic, there will be fewer easy wins for Ivy League educated white progressives. Thus, white progressives are having to look for a model that can be used to figure out ways for whites to win more non-white votes. Of course, Rep. Cohen took advantage of Tennessee election laws and will not work in other states.
In the long run, there will be very few whites representing majority non-white districts and those few whites will have to face the prospect of facing real opponents in most elections instead of having very easy reelection such as most CBC members have.
What else is an up and coming black politician in Memphis (or elsewhere) suppose to do if the majority black districts are represented by a white politicain. State wide office is cut off to them.
Thanks for the game link, by the way. SO MUCH FUN.
Superdestroyer,
The only way the government has to tell if blacks were not hurt is by ensuring that a certain number of them are elected.
Nope. Try again.
The government just has to look at whether the candidates for whom black voters vote are actually getting elected.
The recent Manhattan DA Democratic primary (which is essentially the election, because Republicans didn't bother running anyone) featured two white guys and one white woman. If I assumed that someone who shares my gender must be the candidate who represents my interests, I'd have to vote for the woman. However, because I disagreed with her views on the death penalty as well as her style of campaigning (attacking a defense lawyer for having defended criminals), and thought one of the male candidates had better ideas for keeping the city safe while also being fair to defendants, I didn't vote for her. My preferred candidate won. Does that mean that because the woman didn't win, women voters "lost," even if it turns out a majority of women voters voted for the male candidate who won?
What you seem to believe in is a racially balkanized nation in which people only vote for someone who is the same color as themselves, because they believe only someone of the same color can represent them, and also that if someone has that matching color, he will be representing their interests regardless of what his actual beliefs and political preferences are.
Black voters have rejected this idea repeatedly, particularly by refusing to vote for black Republicans who clearly have no interest in representing black voters' interests. Michael Steele lost the most heavily black counties in the 2006 MD Senate race, with black voters instead opting to support white Democrat Ben Cardin. (Meanwhile, some white Republicans got a useful card to flash during the 2008 campaign: I voted for the black candidate, ergo I cannot be racist.)
Post a Comment