Primary Colors

Christopher Orlet, American Spectator, August 9, 2012

The real election in the city of St. Louis occurred last Tuesday when Missouri held its Democratic primary. Six primary races pit white Democrats versus black Democrats, including high-profile races for U.S. Congress, the state senate, three state house races and sheriff.

Like most major cities, the general election here is a foregone conclusion. Republicans haven’t been a force in city politics for more than a half-century. In fact, you’d have to time-travel back to the misty mid-1940s before you could find a Republican occupying the mayor’s office.


Like most primaries in this half-white, half-black city, this year’s races were first and foremost about race. Thanks to redistricting, the fight for Missouri’s new First Congressional District seat pit two incumbents against each other: the African-American William Lacy Clay (son of a former congressman) and the nebulously hued Russ Carnahan (son of a former U.S. senator). Needless to say, the First Congressional District is not “The People’s Seat.” Despite lots of talk about unity, diversity, and other feel-good buzzwords, Clay was expected to get virtually all of the African-American vote, while Carnahan had the white vote wrapped up. Since there are slightly more blacks than whites in the district, Clay was predicted to narrowly win. And did.

The same went for Missouri’s state house and state senate races. Our friend Ruth, who played piano at our wedding, ran against Penny Hubbard, a longtime cog in the North St. Louis African-American political machine. It was telling that the Hubbard campaign literature that graced my front door handle featured no images of white residents. Despite that “oversight,” Hubbard narrowly won. Meanwhile the state senate race pit a gay white women, Jeanette Mott Oxford, versus two African-American women, Robin Wright-Jones (the daughter of the former comptroller) and Jamilah Nasheed, who told the local paper, “I’m black before I’m a Democrat.” The Black Firster won handily.

Several democrat politicians employed scare tactics to turn out the vote. Lacy Clay warned that many black voters would not support Carnahan if he were the nominee in the general election. “The enthusiasm would not be there,” he told the local paper. “For the black community, they would probably go in and vote for Obama and walk out. It would be viewed as setting back the black community, for sure.” The local African-American newspaper warned that St. Louis could end up having no black representatives in Congress, the state senate or the state house. It was the same story throughout St. Louis. You could tell if the residents of a home were black or white based on whose political signs were posted in their front yard.

St. Louis’s Democrats alleged that this year’s black-white contests were part of a right-wing conspiracy, that Republicans in Jefferson City redrew the formerly mostly black or mostly white districts to create bi-racial races. This would lead to more racial tension among the Democratic Party in the city, a good move politically for the GOP, perhaps, but a disaster for race relations. Republicans, naturally, wouldn’t care about that since they do not live in the city.


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • A)  CD-1.  Missouri lost a Congressional seat thanks to the 2010 Census.  The heavily Republican state legislature decided to stick it to Russ Carnahan, who held Dick Gephardt’s old seat.  Carnahan was delusional when he entered the primary against Lazy Clay, because he was paying attention to the equally delusional “analysis” of the white liberals of CD-1 who know full well what a lazy slug Clay is.  Clay is just as lazy as his old man.

    It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of white liberals like the Carnahans, that the black politicos are now taking to almost calling Russ a “racist.”  The whole family is and has been a bunch of “black” lovers.

    I knew it would work out this way because I saw what happened in IL-2-D earlier this year.  Exact same story, only the players were Jesse Jackson Jr and Debbie Halvorson.

    B) Senate-5.  I kinda know Jeanette Mott Oxford.  I won’t say how.  I thought she could win because two blacks would divide the black vote.  Well, they did, and Oxford still finished in third place.  I used to live in that district, and I actually endorsed one of the blacks, the eventual winner Jamilah Nasheed, because she was mildly for CCW and SYG.

    C)  One race that had racial implications but most people didn’t know was Lieutentant Governor-Republican.  Peter Kindercare, unbeknownst to most people, is a big time black lover.  He played around with the most radical blacks of St. Louis on things like reparations for slavery.  I voted for the other guy for that reason alone.  However, I feared the truth would get lost with the Rush Limbaugh-narrated media buys (the Limbaughs and the Kinders are good family friends from way back when in Cape Girardeau).  Polling had Kindercare up big, but that it was a close election with Kindercare ekeing it out was not a surprise to me.  There was also Kindercare’s bimbo eruption and hotelgate from last year, and that’s why he isn’t running for Governor this  year.

    D)  Republican voters in the Senate race got it right.  They picked intelligence, experience and mastery of the issues over hood ornaments endorsed by other hood ornaments and daddy warbucks.  Todd Akin was one of the first Congressmen to join Tom Tancredo’s immigration restriction committee.

    •  I’m just curious, once the white “democrats” are completely marginalized will they come over to our side or will they continue to vote and stand with the party that cast them out for more “people of color?”

      • Ulick

        Those white Democrats are slow learners.  I live in Washington, DC and I don’t bother to vote because Obama literally got 92% of the vote in 2008.  That means that the overwhelming majority of white people here voted for Obama.  Then I saw this poll just a couple of weeks ago with the following breakdown…

        Poll: Marion Barry Is D.C.’s Highest-Rated Politician

        Eighty-one percent of blacks view him favorably. Meanwhile, a scant 7 percent of whites have a favorable opinion of him.

        White Democrats simply don’t get it.  They think that by appeasing blacks, that blacks will have a better view of whites and will reciprocate the kindness with a show of fair play.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Instead they take advantage of the weakness.  As this St. Louis story shows us, as Detroit shows us, and as Marion Barry’s divergent favorability rating shows us — blacks will vote for any black over a white regardless of how corrupt or criminal that black is, and regardless of how much they will sink the city into the gutter.  It doesn’t matter.  Black is always better than white to blacks.  How many more lessons do white Democrats need to pick up this fairly obvious lesson?

        • brew730

           No offense to you, but I hope you have to live in DC because of a job.  If it’s so bad that you don’t vote because your’s gets blacked-out, why don’t consider moving to the midwest where we need all the votes we can get!  We can use you in Ohio!!

  • Oil Can Harry

    Let’s see: in St. Louis the white Democrats vote exclusively for white candidates and the black Dems vote for only black ones.

    The reason? A vast “right-wing conspiracy”! Those naughty “Republicans in Jefferson City” tricked the poor, innocent liberals into voting along racial lines.

    Darn those sneaky conservatives!

    •  It is said that in national politics, there is really only one political party that seems like two parties to the outside world.  Well, the opposite is true in St. Louis the city proper and other similar cities — There are really two political parties that seem like one to the outside world:  The black Democrats and the white liberal Democrats.

      The interest of the Republicans in the state legislature in drawing the map they did had nothing to do with wanting to see racial conflicts among Democrats.  It had everything to do with drawing a map of the state divided into eight roughly equal population parts that would most likely mean a 6-2 Republican majority in the Congressional delegation this decade.

      To answer So CAL Snowman’s question here, doctrinaire white liberals will keep on “liberaling,” so they won’t come over to our side.  Their progeny, assuming they’re white, will probably migrate to our way of thinking just from pure Patterson’s First Axiom.

      • >>
        The interest of the Republicans in the state legislature in drawing the map they did had nothing to do with wanting to see racial conflicts among Democrats. 

        That is right.  Missouri is bucking a trend nationally and becoming more conservative/Republican, both at the statehouse level and the presidential level.  (although we still have a fair number of statewide Democrat officeholders, the state Senate, and House, are solidly Republican).  

        unfortunately, we’ve also lost electoral votes in each of the last two censuses.

        But the Republican legislature, responsible for 2010 census reapportionment, smelled blood in the water and figured that if they left  Kansas City with one solidly black district, and St. Louis with one solidly black district, that would limit the Democratic districts in the state to only two.  

        we will see shortly if that strategy worked or backfired.

        P.s. To QD:  I believe a black defeated a white in the city treasurer’s race as well.

        p.p.s.  if I heard it once, I heard it 100 times from the mainstream media during this primary, the alarm bell: “The black community fears that it will have no representative in the St. Louis area.  Well, first of all, there are only two representatives in the Missouri part of the St. Louis area anymore because of our dwindling population (due to you know who).  And the Missouri part of the St. Louis area is only about 30% black.  If you have for, or even three, area congressmen, and all three were white, then maybe you would be able to wave the bloody shirt.  But since there are only two, I don’t see mathematically why two out of two white representatives would be a reason to call out the National Guard.

        • I think that the six non-black districts are drawn well enough that it would take a very tall blue wave to turn even one of them Democrat temporarily.  Even the blue wave of 2006 nationally did not flip any Missouri congressional seats.

          On the other side, MO-5, the Kansas City district, runs the risk of being temporarily flipped in the other direction in the happenstance of a very tall red wave.  I noticed in the Republican primary for MO-5 that there was a state rep that was running, but he lost to the perennial candidate.  Under the old MO-5, no credible Republican would have even tried.  Yet, for some reason, the NAACP was happy with MO-5, and didn’t drag the map into court, like I feared.  I don’t get it.

          I endorsed Fred Wessels in City-Treasurer.  Unfortunately, all the blacks showing up to save Clay also helped Tishaura Jones win.  Jones was actually endorsed by some of the Ron Paul types in the city.

          I am actually glad MO going down from 9 to 8 happened in 2010 instead of 2000, and it just as easily could have happened in 2000. With it happening now, we had a Republican dominated General Assembly to gerrymander the map in white-Republican favor, in 2001, the Republicans only controlled the State Senate (which they won in 2000), not the State House (they wouldn’t flip that until 2002), and of course Bob Holden was Governor.

  • Forgiven

    “St. Louis’s Democrats alleged that this year’s black-white contests were part of a right-wing conspiracy, ”

    I wonder how many decades it’s been since anyone remotely “right wing” has had any level of power and influence over St. Louis politics.

    “that Republicans in Jefferson City redrew the formerly mostly black or mostly white districts to create bi-racial races.”

    I thought race mixing was good. What’s wrong, Democrats? Upset that your monolithic racial district was dissolved? I’ll be sorry (not really) when you apologize for destroying my country.

    “This would lead to more racial tension among the Democratic Party in the city, a good move politically for the GOP, perhaps, but a disaster for race relations.”

    Race relations in America are already a disaster and are only held together by Whites surrendering everything they have on demand. Once “right wingers” (read WHITE PEOPLE) are numerically insignificant, the Democrat “grand alliance” of races is going to come apart at the seams, as the White Whipping Boy will no longer be necessary, and there will be no more need to have any pretense of a “multi-ethnic” alliance.

    “Republicans, naturally, wouldn’t care about that since they do not live in the city.”

    Democrats, naturally, wouldn’t care that this statement is false since they are never held accountable for their mistakes. It must be nice to control the media and communications of an entire nation.

    • I wonder how many decades it’s been since anyone remotely “right wing”
      has had any level of power and influence over St. Louis politics.

      Believe it or not, from 1987 to 1993, the St. Louis City School Board had staunch anti-busing whites on it.  But for black voter fraud in the 1991 municipal elections, that faction would have been a majority.  Someone who was part of that faction is probably reading these words right now.

      On an average, members of that faction got 80% of the white vote in the city.  Mind you, these were the same voters who mostly vote Democrat otherwise.  And these “liberals” voted for school board candidates who the Post-Dispatch disparaged by drawing them in Klan robes in their editorial cartoons.

      This is why I’m not giving up on the white liberal just yet, and I’m trying to condition myself out of bashing them and saying “they deserve it,” though I’m not totally successful in that endeavor yet.  In reality, a lot of white “liberals” are just working class whites, and many white “feminists” approach their “feminism” out of fear of being a victim of black crime.

  • Anonymous

    This entire discussion is about multiracialism which has murdered multiculturalism which was nothing more nor less than the anti-white narrative in writing.  Multiracialism is a different fish altogether…it is simply that each diverse demographic affinity group provides a political party frame for its members.  It started in the mid-nineties and has now eclipsed multiculturalism which is discussed mostly on blogs where people don’t like it, but multiculturalism is dead, and multiracialism has killed universalism, conservatism, and the Republican Party.  If you can wrap your mind around this, good on you.  It’s a toughie.

    • The Verdict of History

      It seems like intellectual gymnastics, but I’m getting an inkling of what you’re trying to convey….

      I believe that multiracialism is only viable if each of the races involved possess EXTENSIVE cultural similarities: in language, customs, daily practices, philosophical world view… ect…

      But multiculturalism is largely unworkable except within the context of moderate white society… 

      • Sherman_McCoy

        I love the multicultural diversity at the German office where I work.  The Germans provide that stable bedrock of traditional work ethics coupled with stoicism to get though most any difficult project.  The Brits are more laid back, know how to enjoy a beer or two at lunch, and are creative.  The Czechs and Poles are (let’s face it, a-holes), but are really smart technicians.  Of course, the truth be told, we Americans are all of that rolled into one.  Including the a-hole part.  Nobody’s perfect, after all.

        Funny thing.  There is not a single black in the technology department.  I’ve met one single Turk there, who is a hard-working and intelligent fellow, but seems to usually have a gigantic chip on his shoulder.  No Indians nor Chinese, so far.  Perhaps I should mention that we all speak German on the job, so maybe that’s why.

        • The Verdict of History

          Your situation is an example of the workability of White European multi-ethnic association, when controlled and sensible. 

          European peoples posses common enough cultural traits to be compatible across ethnic lines…

          So long as there exists a COMMON CULTURAL MEDIUM of UNITY (like language, in your case), common values and work ethic, similar thought patterns with respect to the necessity of robust and industrious performance…

          … limited multiculturalism among whites of different ethnic and social backgrounds can produce a viable form of diversity…

          You can expect a black to be delivered shortly, but someone might be wise enough to know how that would ruin your office’s group chemistry and undermine a sense of mutual trust, familiarity and cohesion.

          • Sherman_McCoy

            Exactly, my friend.  The fraternal wars conducted in Europe are among the greatest tragedies in human history.  I personally get along best with Europeans who are of a conservative bend.  I loathe European antifas, and wish them all the pain and disaster that multiracial diversity can bring.

  • JackKrak

    In an on-record interview with a journalist, a candidate says “I’m white before I’m a Republican”.

    Within minutes of its publication, the story is picked up by national media and replaces whatever the previously scheduled topic was on that evening’s political talk shows. Every anchor introduces the story with words like “disturbing”, “controversial”, “shocking” or “outrageous”. The head & elder statesmen of the national Republican party and Congressional Republicans all scramble to get their faces in front of a camera to express just how much they condemn what was said and stress that this in no way represents what the party is about. The candidate who said it can no longer step outside his/her home because of the army of media & their broadcast vans. Local “activist” groups add to the chaos of the scene and twitter & facebook explode with indignation. The next day, the White House spokesman takes questions about it at a news conference and soon the President himself weighs in. The candidate who spoke the evil words very quickly withdraws from the race, citing “family concerns” or some such nonsense and any other Republican candidates in the race – if there were any – privately resign themselves to the fact that they now have no chance whatsoever. A federal investigation of the city’s entire “voting rights” history is considered and the national spotlight shines brightly for some time. Democrats win the election with 97% of the black vote, then point to the incident as proof positive that white racial solidarity threatened to sway the election and “disenfranchise” blacks. Images from the whole affair will be used in Democratic ads for years to come and Republicans will dutifully discuss what they can do to “reach out” more to minorities.

    Rinse, lather, repeat.

  • Related:!/content/26447/clay_turnout_080912

    Clay didn’t need to “do” anything other than be black, so this article over-analyzes that part.

    Also, it makes a good point that Clay marginally benefited by St. Louis City’s relatively few white conservatives taking a Republican ballot to vote in the Senate Primary rather than a Democrat ballot to vote Carnahan.  The last poll that showed Clay 56 Carnahan 35 Others/Undecided 9, but it showed “conservatives” favoring Carnahan almost monolithically, but I knew they would be taking Republican ballots instead b/c of Akin/Steelman/Brunner.  The final result was Clay 63, Carnahan 34.

    This wave of black voters almost cost the long time white city sheriff his job.