Clearly, my explanation that we agree on “significant factor” but that I had the right to object to “if x then y,” before that was reframed without Ashley actually admitting her initial error, is not getting through. Oh well. I agree it’s probably not worth further discussion. We can agree to agree on the key point, and because I’m a big girl I’ll live without the acknowledgment I’d hoped for.

I’m really just terribly confused, because it seems to me that we’re in agreement on the issue of racism/sexism being a significant factor. And so I don’t understand where the argument is.

In any case, I don’t think there’s anything more I can add to this conversation and that I’ve said all I wanted to.

Some people voting for Clinton over Obama are racist.

Some people voting for Obama over Clinton are sexist.

The comment I objected to said that it can be assumed that someone who says race matters and then votes for Clinton, where it’s unclear whether they’re saying it matters in that they’d like to see a POC be president or that they’d like to see a white person be president, is racist. I will assume I do not have to quote the statement a third time.

My point is that one cannot make that judgment.

I don’t disagree with the statement you’ve now backed off to and proclaimed several times — that one can assume some of the people who are white and for whom race is important and vote for Clinton are indeed racist. I’ve never disagreed with that. I have no “stake” in disagreeing with that. What I’ve disagreed with is that it can be assumed that everyone in this category is.

I will repeat myself to state that for me, I would pick a POC over a white person, everything else being equal or even not quite equal. I always have. I did that quite recently in my company. Same for women. So I’d check the box saying race is a factor for me, just as gender is. And I voted for HRC. So at least one — and I don’t think I’m the only one — of the whites for whom race of candidate is a factor might still vote for a white candidate.

Shifting to a related topic: looking at the data, “Whites who said race was their top consideration or an important factor preferred Clinton over Obama by 63 percent …Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama.”

I think if we are concluding that racism operated for whites, which we appear to all be concluding, then based on this data it did for blacks as well.

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender’s race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times more likely to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

[. . .]

The exit polls also reveal a tilt toward Clinton, who would be the first female president, by those who strongly considered the candidate’s gender. While those saying sex was not a factor leaned slightly toward Obama, six in 10 of those saying gender was important have supported Clinton, including more men. Most said the candidate’s gender was not important.

Whites who said race was their top consideration or an important factor preferred Clinton over Obama by 63 percent to 32 percent. Those who said race was not consequential backed Clinton by a narrower 11 percentage points.

Nearly one in three blacks said race was significant in choosing their candidate. Eighty-eight percent of blacks who said race was an important factor voted for Obama, compared to 81 percent of those who said they did not consider race.

At the same time, 41 percent of whites who said race was important said they would only be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee, compared to 14 percent who said they would only be happy with Obama. Another 36 percent said either would be fine.

Whites who said race was not a factor were nearly evenly divided when asked which candidate would satisfy them.

So no, I can’t scientifically prove it. But I feel that I’m also using nothing but logic. And I feel that it’s entirely fair to say that this trend is the result of racism.

By: “For most people who are not in fact racist” I did not mean most people are not racists. I meant for people who are not, they still might prioritize policy positions. And we cannot prove they aren’t doing this.

Logic isn’t disingenous. I’ve been consistent throughout, so saying I was or am “still” disingenuous is, in fact, disingenous. I have yet to see any accurate interpretation of anything I’ve said demonstrated to be false.

I have nothing, in fact, at stake in trying to claim Hillary supporters or any other group aren’t racist. If anyone’s aware of my family background you may know I am not a stranger to how widespread racism is. Understanding this and tolerating offensive misstatements don’t, however, go side by side.

But the need to do so troubles me. Whether the statement means “is race an important issue generally” or “is race of the candidate an important issue,” I don’t think the answer demonstrates racism unless the question were: “is race the most important issue or the only important issue.”

For most people who are not in fact racists, policy positions and experience are the most important issues. So it’s entirely reasonable that even for people for whom, say, gender of the candidate is an important issue, 70% of them could prefer Obama WITHOUT being sexist. Similarly, that for people for whom race of the candidate is an important issue, 70% of those could prefer Clinton. I think there are enough policy/experience differentiating factors for those to be the case.

For example, I’d say 70% of feminist bloggers whose blogs I go to are for Obama. I could not authoritatively state that that means they are sexist.

So, telling me that because I feel that a reasonable person could look first at who they think would do a better job, and then weigh race and gender into the equation both as strong positives, and then make a decision that might reflect the first criteria more predominantly, that means I’m a hardcore racist taking some kind of pill… is unpersuasive to me.

Further, while you are certainly correct that one doesn’t have to hate POC to be an apologist for racism, I believe ignoring this kind of behavior toward a woman (a WOC in fact) also raises a presumption.

In any case, while I do appreciate the support and am grateful that my writings have given some reassurance as to where I’m coming from, I am disappointed that it was felt to be necessary based on my comments here.

No, no, no. The poll questions are not phrased in the context of “is race an important issue” they are phrased in the context of “is the CANDIDATE’S race important.” This distinction is critical, and it absolutely means that white people voting for Clinton based on that question are stone-cold racists.

America is fundamentally less racist than it was, say, 40 years ago, when Obama simply due to his skin color never would have gotten this far in the process. However, too many white folks are still in denial that racism is still a pervasive issue in America.

This election cycle shows that the deep south and appalachian region suffers from extremely high levels of racism relative to other areas of the country. Not because they voted for Clinton, but because of the reason WHY they voted for Clinton. Obama has been able to win most of the deep south simply because the african-american voters were enough to overcome the racist white voters.

Unfortunately I think America as a whole is still too racist to support a black candidate, and I think McCain takes the general despite the fact that more people disagree with his policies than Obama’s. So while i’m discouraged by that, I like to take a longer view of history and at least be enthusiastic that we are making progress, although it seems very sluggish.