Washington Post: If Obama Loses, It’s Surely Due To Racism
The WP is running two articles today, on a “story” and the other an op-ed, which make it quite clear that you damned white racists who don’t support Obama are racist. First, the “story”
The 2012 election is shaping up to be more polarized along racial lines than any presidential contest since 1988, with President Obama experiencing a steep drop in support among white voters from four years ago.
At this stage in 2008, Obama trailed Republican John McCain by seven percentage points among white voters. Even in victory, Obama ended up losing white voters by 12 percentage points, according to that year’s exit poll.
But now, Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll. That presents a significant hurdle for the president – and suggests that he will need to achieve even larger margins of victory among women and minorities, two important parts of the Democratic base, to win reelection.
What else could this be but raaaaacism? At least to the Progressive mind (and I use the term “mind” very loosely when linking it to Progressives), which doesn’t seem to mind that blacks, of which the Democrat party attempted to keep down with Jim Crow laws and filibustering the Civil Rights Act), vote 95% against the white guy, and 80% of non-whites. Eh, doesn’t matter to them
Dismal support for Republicans among minorities is a long-term problem for the GOP in a rapidly diversifying nation. Fully 91 percent of Romney’s support comes from white voters.
See? Raaaaacism. It doesn’t matter that, historically, whites tend to break for the GOP more than the Dems. Gotta be hatred for that half-black guy in the White House. And here’s excitable Eugene Robinson
This election is only tangentially a fight over policy. It is also a fight about meaning and identity – and that’s one reason voters are so polarized. It’s about who we are and who we aspire to be.
President Obama enters the final days of the campaign with a substantial lead among women – about 11 points, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll – and enormous leads among Latinos and African Americans, the nation’s two largest minority groups. Mitt Romney leads among white voters, with an incredible 2-to-1 advantage among white men.
Eugene then goes on to say that he’s not proclaiming racism
The intensity of the opposition to Obama has less to do with who he is than with the changes in U.S. society he not only represents but incarnates. Citing his race as a factor in the way some of his opponents have bitterly resisted his policies immediately draws an outraged cry: “You’re saying that just because I oppose Obama, I’m a racist.” No, I’m not saying that at all.
What I’m saying is that Obama’s racial identity is a constant reminder of how much the nation has changed in a relatively short time.
He is saying it’s racism. It’s very subtle as he positions the notion of “do you want the America of the past, one which was dominated by Whitey, or do you want the America of the future, where Whitey is a minority?” if you read the whole thing. It’s also an America which is reduced on the world stage and domestically….oh, Eugene intentionally leaves those out.
Some of Obama’s opponents have tried to delegitimize his presidency because he doesn’t embody the America they once knew. He embodies the America of now.
If the America of now is one in which unemployment is high, people give up on the jobs market in despair, food stamp usage is at a record high, the government has control of our health care, earning power is down, GDP is low, and the government can do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of the Constitution, I’ll take the America I knew, even if you call that racist.