Translation: Hillary voters are racists

They've been kind of saying it for quite awhile.  When Hillary won New Hampshire, it was supposedly because of the "Bradley effect." 

In Tom Bradley's campaign for Governor of California back in the 80's, he polled about 10% higher than the percentage of the vote he actually received in the election.  This supposedly meant that about 10% of white voters told pollsters they supported Bradley because they didn't want to appear to be racists, but really, they were, and voted against Bradley because he was African-American.  (Maybe that's so, and maybe it isn't.) 

In the run-up to New Hampshire, Obama was leading in the polls, but Hillary actually won--hence, the Bradley effect, which was floated as a reason, then debunked when neutral observers actually took the time to examine the demographics of the primary vote.

Again the other day, Obama supporter, David Sirota, basically said that when the African-American population of a certain state reaches a certain level, it inspires a backlash from whites.  This is why, according to Sirota, Hillary tends to win the big states.  (In the same article, Sirota compares Rev. Wright's relationship with Obama to the relationship between "virulent anti-semite" Billy Graham and Hillary Clinton.)  Said Sirota:

The Race Chasm - states with more than 7 percent but less than 17 percent black populations - is where Clinton has won three quarters of her states - and that's no accident. These are states where black-white racial politics very much exist, but where the black vote is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. And that white vote is being motivated by the Clintons.

Obama supporter, Josh Marshall, chimed in yesterday and today in support of Sirota.  They both basically say that when Obama loses, it's because of deep-seated white racism.  Sirota believes the Clintons have stoked this white racism, though his evidence is decidedly thin.  When Bill Clinton observes that Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary, this statement of historical fact is supposedly a call for white voters to support Hillary. 

Sounds silly when you say it out loud, doesn't it?  For the record, Clinton said that Jackson had won the primaries in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988, and had done so by big margins.  He could have added that the other person to win South Carolina by a large margin was himself, but that would have appeared less than humble.  Secondly, he made this supposed "dog-whistle" to white voters on the afternoon of the very day of the South Carolina primary--in other words, when it was too late to make any possible difference in the vote. 

What's distressing is that Sirota and Marshall apparently believe that their fellow Democrats are a bunch of racists.  Their problem is that they can't conceive of a non-racist who doesn't support Obama.  What's more, they apparently believe that all these racist Democrats running around out there are also exceptionally broad-minded about voting for a woman.  Maybe they've uncovered an entirely new demographic--the racist feminist! 

Comments

[Jody]

John, you've made enough sweeping explanations about who votes for Obama and Clinton yourself on these pages to raise my blood pressure many a time. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the reasons put forward here about why people are voting for one candidate or another, because I'm not inclined myself to think that racism has tons to do with it. But I do think that you've written enough semi-screeds yourself when under pressure that you could afford to extend a little empathy to those who are getting hot and bothered about the folks not voting for their candidate, too.

[John Petty]

Thanks for dropping by. Sorry I raised your blood pressure. (Try a little transcendental meditation. Works for me.)

What can I say? Sirota ticks me off.

[John Petty]

(It occurred to me later): I didn't call anybody any names, did I?