I concur on this point. Let's be honest: the Republicans have spent the last 50 years tracing everything wrong in the world to "the 60s." Of course, the Democrats have countered by telling us all that everything wrong in the world is due to "the 80s and Ronald Reagan," too.
Respectfully towards you, I think this narrative (that I've seen for years out there) is complete nonsense. It's just another back door way of saying "Republicans have always been racist and looky here!" This narrative began on Election Night 2016 when Van Jones referred to Trump's win as a whitelash.
Except here's the problem: those same "racist" voters DO support conservative blacks like Tim Scott. Sure, he was appointed - he's also been reelected a few times by the voters of the state where the Civil War began. The Republicans nominated a black (kook) candidate for Senate in Georgia and voted for him as well. This whole "Obama broke them" nonsense - in my view - is the same kind of propaganda that (and I agree with you up to a point on this) you're talking about.
WHITE VOTE
Carter 1980 - 36%
Mondale - 34%
Dukakis - 40%
Clinton 92 - 39%
Clinton 96 - 44%
Gore - 42%
Kerry - 41%
Obama 08 - 43%
Obama 12 - 39%
Hillary - 37%
Biden - 41%
Harris - 42%
So.....wait a minute.......Obama got MORE OF THE WHITE VOTE than Gore or Kerry did? And anyone who wishes to say "but it dropped in four years because racists" needs to note Obama's share of the black vote also declined by 2% in 2012 (
presumably racist blacks who hate blacks). He got more of the white vote than Hillary or Biden, too.
The two highest shares of the white vote for Democratic President in the last 20 years have been attained by the two black candidates.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sound overly racist to me. Furthermore, Trump got the highest percentage of the black vote in 2024 (13%) than any Republican since Reagan in 1980.
It's a narrative, like the "Southern strategy". It may have elements of truth to it, but it's still another in the long list of Democratic "we lost because the voters are racist", which feels better than "we got rejected at the polls." And lest anyone think I'm picking on them, the Republican version is "but if Perot had not run, Bush would have won."
That's not to say you cannot point me to individual cases where there ARE people like you're saying above. THERE ARE. But the idea that they constitute enough of the voters to swing an election - much less that enough of them live in swing states - is absurd.
Let me be blunt because I haven't seen this particular aspect covered in detail: Hillary's loss in the key swing states was due LARGELY to what happened in October 2016, and I don't mean the Access Hollywood tape.
detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/10/18/affordable-care-act-rate-increase/92382578/
Michigan consumers will pay an average of 16.7 percent more for individual insurance plans starting in January, according to new premium rates announced this week by the Michigan Department of Financial and Insurance Services.
Regulators: Pennsylvania health insurance premiums to rise – Daily Local
(This was updated but the original date is October 18, 2016)
State regulators say the cost of health insurance premiums will be going up sharply next year for residents who buy individual plans.
The state Department of Insurance said Monday that insurance company rates, based on requests for 2017, include an average increase of 32.5 percent for individual plans and 7.1 percent for small group plans.
Nobody wants to say it, but people got angry over rising health care premiums that only happened because of Obamacare. I made a comment to my Oregon bud at the time that if Trump was even a minimally respectable candidate, this sudden "October surprise" would be enough to get him elected. As it turned out, it was enough to get him elected anyway.
But "Republicans are racist" is a whole lot easier than admitting "we lied about healthcare."
www.healthsystemtracker.org
www.ctvnews.ca
