Let’s Talk About the Extremely Racist Subtext of Claiming the Democratic Primary Was Rigged

I’ve had about all of this absurd “the primary was rigged” nonsense I can take from the far left. Though this isn’t really all that unexpected considering often the “go-to move” for people on the losing side of an intense and emotional debate/election is to claim fraud, that it was rigged or some other form of conspiracy.

But the truth is, Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary because he couldn’t win over minority voters — end of story. That’s not a debatable topic, nor is it a matter of opinion, it’s an absolute fact based on indisputable math.

A few weeks ago I did a complete breakdown of the primary, which candidate won and the average racial demographics of each state. Here are the final tallies:

Hillary Clinton won 28 states that had an average racial make up of:

  • White: 64%
  • African American 16%
  • Latino: 14%

Bernie Sanders won 22 states that had an average racial make up of:

  • White: 78%
  • African American: 5%
  • Latino: 8%

Right there, that information — by itself — tells us that the states Clinton won were far more diverse, compared to the places Sanders won which were far more “white.”

Furthermore, as I also stated based on the results of the primary:

There are 21 states in this country with an African American population of 10 percent or greater — Sanders won exactly 2 (9.5%). Of the 22 states that have Latino populations of 10 percent or greater, he won 11 (50%). However, in the 23 states with white populations of 70 percent or greater, Sanders won 16 (70%).

Bernie Sanders lost 90.5 percent of the states with an African American population above 10 percent, yet won 70 percent of the states with a white population over 70 percent. Meanwhile, he and Clinton split the states with a Latino population over 10 percent.

Those who continue to insist that the primary was “rigged” apparently believe that most white voters are better informed – therefore less likely to be manipulated by whatever shenanigans they believe the DNC was pulling – than most minority voters. You would have to believe that, otherwise it’s illogical to say that the primary was rigged when most white people, overwhelmingly, supported Bernie Sanders, while Hillary Clinton did much better with most minority voters — especially African Americans.

If the primary was truly rigged, then why did Sanders do so well with white voters? The indisputable math shows that if a state had a white population above 70 percent, Sanders won that state 70 percent of the time. So, to repeat my question, if the primary was “rigged” — why did he win states that were much more “white” than the national average (the average white population in America is 62 percent)? Conceivably, based on this information, if every state in the country had a white population over 70 percent, then Sanders would have won 35 states and would have been the Democratic nominee for president.

At least that’s what math tell us.

So, can someone explain to me how — if the primary was, in fact, “rigged” — why white voters seemed immune to being “corrupted by the DNC”?

If you ask me, there’s a blatantly racist subtext to a lot of this which seems to imply that, somehow, white people were simply “more informed” and “knowledgable of the truth about Hillary Clinton” than minorities (especially African Americans) — the voters who ultimately decided the winner of this year’s primary

Otherwise, there’s no rational way to explain how the primary was “rigged” considering that, as I’ve said numerous times in this article (and others), the reason why Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders came down to who won minority voters — which she did. However, those same numbers show us that Bernie Sanders did much better with white voters, winning 70 percent of states with white populations over 70 percent — yet losing 90.5 percent of states with African American populations over 10 percent.

And I’m not even getting into how Hillary Clinton won 76 percent of all primaries (closed and open, combined), while Sanders won 86 percent of caucuses. Not only that, but the margin of victory for Sanders in the primaries that he did win were often much smaller than his margin of victory in caucuses, indicating that he often did better when voter turnout was lower. (Caucuses traditionally produce much lower voter turnouts than primaries, and 4 of his 5 biggest victories came in caucuses).

The truth is, if the election were truly rigged, there wouldn’t be a fairly predictable pattern of victory based on any sort of reliable metric. But going even further, unless you’re claiming that somehow minorities were the ones overwhelmingly impacted by the “DNC’s pro-Clinton rigging of the primary election” (which is racist to suggest that minority voters were much more susceptible to being manipulated by the DNC than white voters), then there’s no rational or logical way to claim that the primary was rigged.

Based on the statistical data, the numbers overwhelmingly prove that the winner of the 2016 Democratic primary was ultimately decided by who performed better with minority voters — which was Hillary Clinton.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments