The Patriot Post® · For the 100th Time, It Wasn't Racism

By Paul Albaugh ·

It’s been three months since Donald Trump was inaugurated, and many Democrats and Leftmedia political analysts are still looking for reasons for why he actually won. How could America’s electorate choose Donald Trump, a man with no political experience, over Hillary Clinton, a woman — a woman! — who’d been around the levers of power her entire adult life?

According to a Washington Post “Monkey Cage” blog, written by Ohio State Professor Thomas Wood, the biggest motivator for Trump voters was, you guessed it, racism. Seriously, this was Wood’s conclusion after conducting “research” on the Annual National Election Study (ANES).

Wood’s analysis took three popular narratives or motivators to determine people’s reasons to vote for Trump and compared them with previous elections. The three motivators were being low income, desiring authoritarianism, and racism. To test these motivators against the ANES data, Wood’s used white voters as his sample population and on the issue of racism he used a “symbolic racism scale.”

Without belaboring the details, the result of Wood’s study supposedly reveals that racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism or being low income.

National Review’s Ian Tuttle highlights three flaws with Wood’s analysis: (1) a symbolic racism scale that is not “airtight,” (2) the failure to mention that there was a greater shift in Democrat voters than Republican ones, and (3) an extremely narrow conclusion.

Put another way, this “analysis” from the Washington Post is a steaming pile of garbage.

Consider that in 2008 the American electorate put the first (half) black president in office and then re-elected him again in 2012. For eight years, we had a black president and now all of a sudden because Trump defeated Clinton it was because of racism? Wood’s analysis and the eye-catching headline are not only flawed, but downright ridiculous.

What Wood’s and many other Leftmedia talking heads have completely dismissed is that Americans overall did not want more of the same policies that we experienced under eight years of Barack Obama. Americans were not happy with ObamaCare or with Obama’s immigration policies, and they were very much concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court and an activist judiciary in general.

Further, Americans weren’t happy with the U.S. military being weakened for the previous eight years, we were sick of the excessive regulations from the EPA and other bureaucracies, and we had experienced a socialist agenda that ran up the nation’s debt. These reasons barely scratch the surface for why Trump won the election.

Americans knew who Hillary Clinton was and that we would be getting more of the same — or worse.

Let’s look at Wood’s analysis another way. If Hillary Clinton had won, would it have been because of racism?

After all, it was Clinton who used the race card repeatedly during her campaign in order to make sure blacks didn’t leave the Democrat plantation. According to Democrats, blacks can only think a certain way without being traitors to their race. That’s racist.

Clinton’s effort to smear Trump as a racist clearly didn’t work. And neither did the policies she wanted to enact or continue. Here are some examples: Hillary’s policies would have pushed more blacks into welfare programs and increased the amount of people in urban poverty plantations. Clinton was also a huge advocate of Planned Parenthood, which sells a vastly disproportionate number of abortions to black women and which was founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who wanted to use Planned Parenthood to eradicate black babies.

Recall that Democrat Lyndon Johnson boasted following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “I’ll have those n—ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” Yet we hardly ever hear any leftists condemning his remarks, or the attitude about blacks reflected by Democrats from Johnson to Clinton.

The Washington Post and Professor Woods should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such mendacious drivel. But being the shameless “progressives” they are, they’ll pat themselves on the back for their incredible depth of insight while smugly continuing to think they’re better than the rest of us.