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.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • jrichview

    “I’ve had about all of this absurd “the primary was rigged” nonsense I can take from the far left.” Well, actually it is condescending @-holes like you with your bad attitudes that are the reason we are seeing protests at the Dem convention. It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that underhanded tactics were used to create as much disadvantage as possible to Senator Sanders. Law suits are already under way. Next you claim that it is indisputable that Senator Sanders “couldn’t win over minority voters”. As a supposedly educated man, you should realize the logic flaw in your own statement. You can claim that he DIDN’T win them. But to say that he COULDN’T is to claim you can see an alternate future that never happened. It’s like saying, “yeah sure that guy we tied up and tied a rock to drowned, but he was a bad swimmer so even if we hadn’t done all that he would have drowned”. If you had half the brains you think you do, you would be figuring out ways to bring in the Sanders voters and win them to Hillary’s side. Instead, you are just one more left wing version of Glen Beck. You can take your faux indignant outrage and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine – assuming you can get your head out of the way first.

    • jrichview

      I’m not stupid enough to NOT vote for Hillary. I actually started out liking her before I witnessed the ugliness of this primary. I know they have me over a barrel and I will do what’s necessary. But as a formerly loyal Dem voter for many years, I will not forget this corrupt behavior and I will look for better opportunities with my votes.

    • MaryLF

      So your argument is it wasn’t that Sanders couldn’t win minority voters, he just didn’t bother? How is that better? Did he think he could win without them, with just white males and some college people?

      • Leahchardy1

        <<o. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!be755p:….,……

      • jrichview

        Clearly that is not my argument. Let me sum it up like this. Suppose I agree to a boxing match with you, but secretly I have my friends slip a drug in your water that makes you a little drowsy. I win the boxing match, but my underhanded cheat is later revealed. Is it fair for me to say, “well, it doesn’t matter she could never have beaten me!”???

        We are talking about a (supposedly) democratic election for leader of the free world here. Cheating and manipulation that seeks to undermine the will of voters must NEVER be tolerated. It’s not okay just because you like the candidate it was done in favor of.

        What the hell is wrong with Americans who do not understand this? I guess they were blow-offs in civics class.

      • MaryLF

        There was no manipulation. She soon by three million views. If you want to talk anti-democratic, let’s talk about caucuses. They are far and away less democratic than primaries and Sanders was more successful there. I have yet to hear a Sanders supporter complain about this. In the two states that had both primaries and caucuses, Sanders won the caucuses and Clinton won the primaries, which had a much higher turn out. Please go read FiveThirtyEight for the statistics breaking down the demographics. Sanders never won the black vote. In fact, after South Carolina and other southern primaries where black voters gave Clinton the win, Sanders and/or his campaign staff said those states didn’t matter since they wouldn’t matter since they wouldn’t go Democratic in the general. There were also many comments that boiled down to those voters just didn’t understand what they were doing. You said “just because he didn’t, it didn’t imply he couldn’t”. So why didn’t he win them? Sanders just wasn’t clear to his supporters about how the Democratic primary process worked, or maybe he didn’t understand it himself-which would be pretty amazing after being in Congress all those years, but then he wasn’t a Democrat so maybe he pays no attention. Instead of looking at his own campaign and seeing what he could have done better, he chose to blame the party who had allowed him to borrow their name and encouraged his supporters to think the process was rigged against him, the same process that had been in place for thirty years. The emailed revealed nothing more than summer people were aggravated with him, maybe because he doesn’t more time attacking then than the Republicans, and talked about some dirty tricks that never happened. They never even used the quote large amount of material available about his early career and I’m glad they didn’t. So if you just can’t bring yourself to vote for Clinton then vote for every down ticket Democrat you can, because without turning at least one house blue, were not going to get very far anyway.

  • 912pinkturtle

    You *cannot*, reasonably, base your interpretation of the results off of the AVERAGE makeup. That’s totally absurd. This whole sharticle is horse apples.