Thread by @DrTedJ

I wrote this piece about black voters’ politics of pragmatism. The basic argument is that black voters approach presidential elections practically - not ideologically - voting primarily to protect civil rights gains. Biden is the present beneficiary. Why?
washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-do…

The perception is Biden is best-positioned to beat Trump, which is the priority 2020 goal for most black voters.

BUT black political pragmatism isn’t just about electability. It is far more nuanced & contextual – e.g. these two very different candidates benefited. Here’s why…

This is a working theory based on the last 4 decades of Dem pres primaries w/o party incumbent, which includes election years 84, 88, 92, 00, 04, 08, & 16.

At different times, black political pragmatism (BPP) prefers electability, inevitability, likeability, or descriptability

In 84 & 88, Jackson won the black primary vote by wide margins. BPP was more concerned w/ empowering Jackson to force black issues into Dem platform than his securing the nomination. That’s pragmatic as hell, esp since most then didn’t think a black POTUS was possible. See Tate

This strategy bore some fruit – same day voter reg, fed contracts, etc. The point of BPP was to enable descriptive representation to influence the party platform. Descriptability is about getting a black candidate proximate to power for true representation of black interests

In 92, black voters supported Bill Clinton, helping his unlikely nomination bid by delivering the South. Given the Dem field & incumbent Bush, BPP preferred Clinton’s likeability & what political scientist Andra Gillespie has called his cultural fluency.
npr.org/2016/03/01/468…

It signaled that he understood black people better than the competition. Clinton certainly wasn’t the inevitable or top electable choice, but BPP didn’t care. It was an issue of helping the candidate who “knew” black folk best, esp after 12 years of Reaganism.

In 2000 and 2016, Gore and Hillary Clinton were the inevitable candidates, and BPP understood it was best to secure black political capital by rallying behind the definite nominee. There was no practical advantage to any other approach.

And finally, we have Kerry in 04 and Biden (thus far) in 16 as the candidates best positioned to win the electability argument. BPP was/is most concerned w/ beating an unpopular sitting GOP president, so black candidates, likable candidates lose/lost out.
nytimes.com/2004/02/22/wee…

So what explains Obama in ’08? Clinton was the inevitable nominee & BPP was all about that, esp w/ Bush term-limited. Then, the black candidate became viable after IA & NH, making descriptability a practical choice. BPP shifted from inevitability to Obama.
nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/…

Lessons from 84/88 Jackson helped black voters recognize that victory was possible when Obama won white voters. Why limit to platform influence when you can secure the nomination? Obama became the pragmatic (& historic a la Jackson) choice.

This thread is way too long & more to develop here, but one quick note. BPP can differ by region. For example, in ’92, black New Yorkers were split between Clinton and Jerry Brown of CA. Clinton’s southern appeal didn’t play the same in NY. nytimes.com/1992/04/08/us/…

Also, in 2004, John Edwards nearly split the black vote with John Kerry in South Carolina. Edwards’ Carolina roots meant BPP in SC wanted likability over electability.

Again, for the millionth time, black people are not a political monolith. cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/…

Bottom line is black political pragmatism is not just a question of electability. It reads the room & determines the most practical way to have black interests advanced.

BPP is savvy, strategic, shaped by our shared history, & socialized in black counterpublics./