In fact, given that there are 3 white male candidates that among the 5 “centrist” candidates, being female is a fund-raising advantage if more than 20% of the people who would donate preferentially would donate to a female rather than a male.

should be

…given that there are 3 white male candidates that among the 5 “centrist” candidates, being female is a fund-raising advantage if: a) more than 20% of the people who would donate preferentially based on sex would donate to a female rather than a male, AND if b) the woman-preferred and male-preferred donors give the same amount.

B is really important, though for some odd reason I was overlooking it entirely until I read your recent post.

If 90% of sex-preferential donors prefer women, and 10% prefer men, does that mean Hilary will get more money? Not necessarily. If those 10% are the rich Bill-Gates-types of the world, and the 90% are the poor artists of the world, then the 10% can easily win.

Same for race-preferential donors.

Which leads to the very interesting followup questions:
-In a race that includes one woman and many men, are sex-preference donors who prefer women likely to give more or less money to their favored candidate than the sex-preference donors who prefer men?
-In a race that includes one black and many whites, are race-preference donors who prefer blacks likely to give more or less money to their favored candidate than the sex-preference donors who prefer whites?

I agree.

However I also believe that of the people who would donate to the Democratic Party, people who would donate preferentially to a female or black candidate outnumber the people who would preferentially donate to a white male candidate. Does that seem implausible to you?

In fact, given that there are 3 white male candidates that among the 5 “centrist” candidates, being female is a fund-raising advantage if more than 20% of the people who would donate preferentially would donate to a female rather than a male.

Do you really think that of the people who would donate to democrats, more than 75% or them would prefer to donate to a male?

(Note: of the two republicans and one libertarian that I regularly trade barbs with, none of them will say that they would preferentially donate to a male.)

given that two people on this list have said that they would donate preferentially to women or blacks, and no one has said that they would donate preferentially to men, I don’t find it inconceivable that in the case of ties, the non-white-male candidate gets the donation.

And given that the population made up of people who post on Alas are pretty atypical of the American public in general, you can’t draw a single wider conclusion based on the comments of two (count ‘em, TWO) commenters here.

In fact, not everyone who posts here even is American or living in America.

So how could the comments here shed any light on campaign-donation behaviour related to US elections in general?

“In the derby for ‘free media’ exposure, Barack Obama overtook fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, who led in the first three months of the year…”

“Among Republicans, the race for media attention was a tight contest among John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. And one unannounced candidate, actor and sometime politician Fred Thompson, emerged as a leading recipient of coverage even without formally entering the race”

Note:
When I use http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php to try to pick a candidate,
the three major democratic candidates come up with nearly identical scores,
and Clinton and Edwards have nearly identical positions as shown on
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=868063604&size=o

So I doubt that a significant difference in donations (or TV time) is due to the candidate’s actual positions on the issues.

Part of the difference may be due to charisma (Obama) or having a pre-built infrastructure (Clinton), but given that two people on this list have said that they would donate preferentially to women or blacks, and no one has said that they would donate preferentially to men, I don’t find it inconceivable that in the case of ties, the non-white-male candidate gets the donation. (If I were going to make a donation, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden all got the same score)

As far as Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senatorial race; no, I don’t think Obama got elected by default, but the Illinois Reflublican implosion (richly deserved, don’t get me wrong) sure made a difference. Ostensibly a blue state, Illinois has elected a number of Republican senators since I’ve lived here and Jack Ryan stood an excellent chance of winning until the fecal material hit the mechanical ventilator.

It was interesting to note that while Illinois is 15% black, it has elected two of the three black Senators since Reconstruction and this last Senatorial election was (unless I am misinformed) the first such to pit two black candidates against each other since that time.

However, I don’t want any non-Illinois readers to get the impression that Obama was elected to the Senate by default—which is what your post seems to imply. Granted, he couldn’t have had a less-worthy opponent than Keyes, and it would have been a different fight had Ryan remained in the race, but by no means was Ryan going to win by default, either. It would have been a real race. Regardless, Obama still worked it as if it were a real race, visiting BFE, Illinois, and stumping his heart out. He is a charismatic speaker, and the perception of him amongst downstate voters —not just Dems, but also those who are willing to consider a vote for a Democrat— is that he is “a uniter, not a divider”. That’s the phrase I’ve been hearing ever since he took that seat. Hell, before he got elected!

My union officially backed Hynes in the primary. I voted for Obama. I thought either one of them would be excellent in the office; I thought Obama was more likely to be my candidate—-meaning, he wasn’t part of the “old boy’s network”. I perceived him to be somewhat of an “outsider”, and someone who was canny enough to know which risks to take and when. He’d pissed off some of the old-school Chicago Dems and survived….I figured he’d know how to handle himself. Hynes? He’ll probably be our next Governor….and bravo, y’know? I like him. But when the choice had to be made, I went with who I identified with.

And that’s why I think Elizabeth Edwards commentary is bullshit—it’s reductive. Look, just because he’s white and male doesn’t mean he’s any more electable, which is what I think her comment implies—look at all the money going to that woman and that black dude, when you know they aren’t real candidates, because U.S. voters aren’t going to elect a woman or a black man!! (and the best indication of that is……all that money and all those crowds, right?) Bah. The only “white, male” disadvantage Edwards has is the one he’s creating for himself by not running a different race than say, Gore or Kerry.

Actually, I don’t see where she is saying that at all. She said “those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollar.” That is not at all saying that their politics have little to do with their fundraising success. She is essentially saying that being black or female gets you some incremental press coverage, which is then worth some fundraising money. But she did not say that their politics have little to do with their success.

There are a lot of reasons that Obama and Clinton are front runners right now - many of which have nothing to do with race or gender. Clinton’s probably doing well because of name recognition and riding the coattails of her husband - I suspect that’s a fairer assessment than because she’s a woman. Obama’s doing well because he’s “fresh” and as of yet seems “untouched” by the foils of politics/corruption (at least, that’s largely the perception among his supporters from what I’ve seen), and it doesn’t hurt that he’s a compelling public speaker and dynamic personality. I suspect all of those factors explain quite a bit more of their relative fundraising success than their race or gender.

Well, forget the pony, then:) But my apologies for misstating your position.

Things have changed since then. That’s the entire point.

While not disagreeing with your basic statement that things are different now than in 1984, I nonetheless strongly disagree with the implicit statement* that therefore all the disadvantages that a black or female candidate for high office faced then are now gone. In fact, if either Clinton or Obama gets the nomination and we get through the campaign without anyone from a major news organization or the opposition campaign making a seriously racist or sexist remark (i.e. one that I remember from Ferrarro’s candidacy “do the American people REALLY want a woman one heartbeat from being the leader of the free world”) I’ll vote for the Republican, run butt nekid down the street shouting “Robert was right!” and buy you a pony. You can see how likely I consider the possibility.

*If you didn’t intend this implicit statement, I’ll be happy to retract the attribution.

This would only hold necessarily true if attitudes towards race and gender had undergone no changes in our society over the last 20-30 years. Six presidential elections ago was 1984.

Unlike many of the people taking part in this discussion, I can remember 1984 quite clearly. And social attitudes in general towards both race and gender were if anything more progressive then than now. The idea that society is always moving forward regarding such attitudes is naive and wrong.

This would only hold necessarily true if attitudes towards race and gender had undergone no changes in our society over the last 20-30 years. Six presidential elections ago was 1984.

Things have changed since then. That’s the entire point.

[edited for clarity]

Details aside, you and Rachel are in the position of arguing that in a primary where 72% of the money is going to one woman and one black candidate, while six white men split the remaining 28%, it is preposterous, ridiculous and ignorant to think that maybe being a woman or black isn’t a disadvantage right here and now.

I presume you meant to write “advantage,” not “disadvantage.”

I think it’s mistaken to think this situation proves that being a woman, or Black, or both, is a net fundraising advantage.

If I showed you an economic scenario where two white guys were earning 72% of the money while six black women scrabbled for 28%, and I said that it would be ignorant to view this as evidence suggesting that black women were getting the shaft, you’d eat my lunch. And you know you’d eat my lunch.

I’ve never heard the “eat my lunch” expression before. That’s an odd one.

If all the data we had to work with was the eight people in the sample you suggest, I don’t think it would be possible to draw any conclusions. In the real world, however, there is ample evidence that being black, female or both is a disadvantage for earning power compared to being white and male — and over the course of many studies, that’s a conclusion that is based on tens of thousands, and arguably hundreds of thousands, of data points.

It’s possible that there is a net fundraising advantage to being black, or to being female, as a major party presidential candidate. But you can’t prove that with only two data points. If we look at how black and female candidates have done in past races, it’s obvious that any fundraising advantage that comes with being female and black, if it exists, is less important to total fundraising success than other factors.

Given that, it’s reasonable to assume that Clinton’s and Obama’s success in fundraising, regardless of whether or not race and sex are contributing factors, has been caused primarily by factors other than race and sex. And that Edwards’ lack of fundraising success, likewise, is not caused by his race and sex.

I think you ought to eat your own lunch here, and see what’s in front of your eyes.

I am seeing what’s in front of my eyes. The evidence from the last half-dozen or so presidential campaigns clearly shows that being black, or being female, is not sufficient to bring about fundraising success; and it also shows that being white and male is not a barrier to fundraising success. Therefore, Obama and Clinton’s fundraising success must be based on other factors, and Edward’s fundraising failures are not because he’s white and male.

It doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t happen or that the color-blind advocates win…

I understand this. I also do think it’s possible (although not proven) that, in the current situation, for a candidate who has already overcome the racism and/or sexism barriers to becoming a credible major-party candidate, being black or female might be a net fundraising advantage.

There’s a big difference, however, between saying that there may be a marginal fundraising advantage that comes with being a black or female front-runner, and implying that the reason Edwards’ fundraising hasn’t been stellar is because he’s white and male. The former is a reasonable question to bring up, although it’s also pure speculation. The latter is just silly.

(Edited to add: I think it’s a reasonable question for a social scientist to bring up. I think it’s a nasty and divisive question for a professional political campaigner to bring up as a talking point against black and female candidates. The example of Elizabeth Edwards clearly is more like the latter than like the former, alas.)

For heaven’s sake, you ought to be celebrating this. Among the Democratic party, direct and personal racism and sexism have ebbed to the point where a woman and a black man can not only be the front-runners in the race, but have won access to the big money.

This isn’t relevant to what Elizabeth Edwards said. It’s reasonable for me to believe that it’s great that a white woman and a black man can now be frontrunners (and I do think that’s great), and at the same time to believe that being a white man is not a significant barrier to fundraising success. The two beliefs do not contradict each other.

Contrary to what I wrote earlier, John Kerry was not the leader in fundraising among Democrats for the second quarter in 2003; he had the most total money left to spend, but that’s including a lot of stuff other than second quarter receipts. In terms of funds raised in the second quarter, Howard Dean was the leader at this time in 2003.

In 2003, the fundraising race in the second quarter was much “flatter” than it is in 2007. Edwards was the fourth placer for 2nd quarter fundraising, behind Lieberman, Kerry and Dean. Edwards had brought in 18% of all 2nd quarter money raised by Democrats, and the second-placer for fundraising in the 2nd quarter — Kerry — had brought in about 76% of what the front-runner - Dean - had brought in.

So, again, the magnitude of Obama’s fundraising lead at this time isn’t anything special; and, again, Edwards is clearly not doing as well this time around as he did four years ago, even though he’s raised more money in absolute terms.

And the people who are doing better than him (he is #3) are white men, right?

Details aside, you and Rachel are in the position of arguing that in a primary where 72% of the money is going to one woman and one black candidate, while six white men split the remaining 28%, it is preposterous, ridiculous and ignorant to think that maybe being a woman or black isn’t a disadvantage right here and now.

If I showed you an economic scenario where two white guys were earning 72% of the money while six black women scrabbled for 28%, and I said that it would be ignorant to view this as evidence suggesting that black women were getting the shaft, you’d eat my lunch. And you know you’d eat my lunch.

I think you ought to eat your own lunch here, and see what’s in front of your eyes. It doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t happen or that the color-blind advocates win; it means that the world as we find it is a little more complicated than a theory can encompass.

For heaven’s sake, you ought to be celebrating this. Among the Democratic party, direct and personal racism and sexism have ebbed to the point where a woman and a black man can not only be the front-runners in the race, but have won access to the big money.

So one of your privileged white guys is whining about this a little bit (or his wife is); that’s to be expected. She’s whining, but she isn’t wrong; why not tick her for being a whiner, instead of trying to pretend that she’s wrong? It doesn’t gain you any credibility with people not firmly in your ideological camp to see you guys trying to deny numbers, instead of just admitting the numbers and saying that the numbers are what they should be. The Democrats have been saying that women and blacks should be getting their turn at the table, and now they are. What’s the problem?

Normalizing the fundraising data is reasonable, but the way you’ve done it is ridiculous. Edwards was a frontrunner for fundraising in 2003, and he’s not this year. To measure whether or not Obama’s fundraising lead is unprecedented, the fair question isn’t “how wide is his lead compared to John Edwards?”; it’s “how large is his lead over the second placer?”.

In 2003, in the second quarter, the second-place democrat (measured by fundraising), Edwards, raised about 75% of what the first-place candidate (Kerry) had raised.

In 2007, in the second quarter, the second-place candidate (Clinton) has raised about 81% of what the first-place candidate (Obama) has raised.

So compared to 2003, the magnitude of Obama’s fundraising lead is not at all unprecedented.

Edited to add:

Ah - but perhaps John Edwards has gone downhill in the meantime. Even the prettiest hair gets split ends. So let’s compare him from 2003 to 2007. In 2003 he raised $5.7 million. In 2007 he raised…$9 million. Hmm, he’s raised his totals by almost 60%.

I guess among Republicans jokes about Edwards’ hair passes for wit, in much the same way creationism passes for science.

A paragraph after you concede that it’s necessary to normalize data in order to compare 4 years ago to today, you’re comparing Edwards’ absolute totals from 4 years ago to today as if that’s a meaningful comparison.

4 years ago, in the second quarter, about 28% of all money raised by Democratic candidates had been raised by the Edwards campaign. This year, in contrast, about 11% of all second-quarter money raised by Democratic candidates has been raised by the Edwards campaign. If we normalize for the amount of money in play, Edwards is clearly doing much worse this time around than he did in 2003.

[edited to desnark a little]

True. I’m not trying to prove it; I’m trying to argue that Mrs. Edwards is not “ignorant” for having made the suggestion, and that her theory is at least facially plausible. I happen to believe that the (racial) part of her theory is correct, but I acknowledge I can’t prove it.

I’m not arguing that race is the only possible explanation. I’m arguing that I think it could easily be the explanation, or a big chunk thereof, in this case.

I think Obama has raised so much money primarily because he won the competition to be the person anti-war Democrats, by far the most energized portion of the base, consolidated around…it seems to me a more plausible explanation is that Obama isn’t saddled with having voted for invading Iraq, but Edwards is.

Hooray, an alternative hypothesis that doesn’t boil down to “racist!”

The glaring problem with this hypothesis seems to be Hillary Clinton. She also voted for the war, like Edwards, and in fact seems to be the Democrat’s most pro-war candidate. And she’s nearly tied with Obama, and has raised three times as much as Edwards has.

However, what your data shows is that there’s simply much more money in the game this year than there has been in the past at this point.

This is potentially a fair point. It can be easily compensated for in our analysis, however, by normalizing the fundraising totals and comparing relative performance across the time periods.

For example, in 2003, the Democratic front-runner (Kerry) raised a normalized 1.0. John Edwards raised 70% of that sum, so 0.7. In 2007, the Democratic front-runner (Obama) raised a normalized 1.0. John Edwards raised 27% of that sum, so a normalized 0.27. Hmm; in comparison the front-runner, John Edwards has declined in performance from 70% of the winner’s total, to 27% of the winner’s total.

Ah - but perhaps John Edwards has gone downhill in the meantime. Even the prettiest hair gets split ends. So let’s compare him from 2003 to 2007. In 2003 he raised $5.7 million. In 2007 he raised…$9 million. Hmm, he’s raised his totals by almost 60%.

So John Edwards has done much better this year - and yet he finds himself between two and three times farther behind the front-runner than he did last time around. The “it’s just that everyone’s richer this time around” explanation doesn’t appear to hold much water.