The science is settled: Clinton, Sanders supporters more racist than the Republican candidates, including Trump

That’s the finding of the same expert who, at the request of USA Today, analyzed the same polling data used by the NYT to prove that Trump supporters are racist. – this time, she looked at Democrats’ responses. The Times, of course, didn’t mention in its article that they’d asked her to restrict her original analysis to Republicans. So what’d she find?

According to the poll, backers of Clinton and Sanders, white Democrats, are more likely to disapprove of the Civil-War executive order than supporters of Hispanic Republican Marco Rubio. One in 10 Sanders supporters disapproves of Lincoln’s executive order. Rubio supporters are less likely to disapprove of or have doubts about the landmark civil rights decision than African-Americans themselves.

The same poll finds that Clinton supporters are about 40% more likely than Sanders backers to be fans of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to round up Japanese-Americans and throw them into “internment camps.” Supporters of the two Democrats are both more likely to support the racist policy than Rubio’s backers by a margin of 2 to 1. The poll of 2,000 Americans found that 39% of Clinton backers either support the action, for which the U.S. Congress and President Ronald Reagan apologized in 1988, or are unsure of their position. The United States paid reparations to the interred Japanese-Americans.

The YouGov poll results began to gain national attention on Tuesday when Vavreck reported in the Times that more than 1 in 5 Trump supporters disapproved of Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation. YouGov had provided the raw data so Vavreck could perform her analysis. The Times cited the poll’s results as evidence of racist undercurrents and intolerance on the part of Trump and his supporters in the Republican presidential primary, backing them with exit poll results and data from another pollster the Times described as “aligned with the Democratic Party.”

Originally, Vavreck, the Times and YouGov only reported on the racially insensitive views of Republicans, failing to publish or even analyze the responses of potential Democratic voters. Vavreck only performed the Democratic analysis and released it to me on Friday after YouGov refused to release the data on Thursday and I contacted YouGov’s European executives, its in-house polling expert and Vavreck herself.

What USA Today will tell its readers, the NYT will not:

While The New York TimesTime magazineNate Silver’s 538 and Ezra Klein’s Voxtreated the poll as credible, the results are transparently ludicrous. The poll found that almost one-third of African-Americans polled on Lincoln’s executive order to end slavery in the treasonous Confederate States of America either opposed freedom for their ancestors or were not sure what they thought.

So the point is not that this poll shows any particular candidate’s supporters to be racist – it’s useless for that, but that the New York Times presented it as a credible poll and manipulated the results, by focusing solely on Republican voters, to “prove” what all good progressives already know: Republicans are racist. Thus the Paper of Record.

Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 6.18.28 AM

25 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

25 responses to “The science is settled: Clinton, Sanders supporters more racist than the Republican candidates, including Trump

  1. uminn65

    James taranto would label this “bottom story of the day” because the bias of the new york times is so well known.

  2. Anonymous

    Chris, I am not certain what this was trying to prove. Is it a diversion??? I think we would agree that any “hate” groups would probably support Trump. Case in point, GOP whack job David Duke. And those goofy robo calls made by fringe groups.
    When LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act in the 60’s, he lamented that the South would drop the Dems and go for the GOP. Boy, was he right. Did you know that 88% of whites in Mississippi voted for Romney in 2012, a decidedly weak candidate? Those white racists in the South went Republican, and many of those racial views have not changed. (I know, you are going to bring up Robert Byrd again.)
    NYT this morning is saying that Mitch McConnell is already drawing up plans to oppose Hillary; he is helping candidates prepare to disassociate from Trump to try to save the Senate.
    Maybe Rush Limbaugh is up to something. He always goes all in for candidates he cannot stand, like McCain or Romney. He only knows how to pull one lever. He is cautious around Trump, as he is preparing to go all in for him, just like the others. As I listen, Rush is always trying to make the Dems racist; it really becomes hilarious at times as he trys. But it is a good diversion for the low information voters.

    • I’m not sure who the Black Lives Matter hate group will endorse this election, but it’s probably not going to be Trump. We know that Al Sharpton is supporting Clinton. What the poll “proves” is the bias of people like you, who automatically accept a completely flawed poll as showing what they “know”.

      As for Limbaugh, he has always studiously avoided endorsing particular Republican (or Democrat) candidates during primaries – is this another thing you “know”?

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know where you get that I am “biased”. I did not confirm or deny the poll results; I said it was a diversion and then listed quite a few facts which are undeniable.

        You and I agree that Rush does not endorse in the primaries; he hedges his bets. But I do “know” this…he will never back a Democratic candidate if his life depends on it or no matter how much he detests the GOP individual. But as wrong as he is, he is entertaining.

        • Walt

          Your not biased? You called anyone who voted for Romney a racist. That seems pretty biased to me.

          They are white racists because they voted for Romney, and not the unqualified black guy? Really? And you know this how? And Romney got ZERO percent of the black vote in Mississippi. So following your logic, that makes 100% of the blacks racist. Right? Am I doing this properly?

          The ONLY reason Barry got elected was because he was black. THAT IS RACIST!! He doesn’t have the qualifications to be POTUS, as the last seven years has proven. And whites elected him, not blacks. So at least go use your white guilt to support something factual. Voting for Romney doesn’t make someone a racist, you ignorant fool.

          I want ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. Because she is a criminal and a liar. Does that make me sexist? You ignorant slut.

        • Walt

          And the real problem is “progressives” see everyone who doesn’t agree with them as a racist, when in fact they are the real racists. They just can’t see it, and use racism as a shield, because THEY HAVE NO FACTS!!

    • Anonymous

      “I think we would agree that any “hate” groups would probably support Trump.”
      I think we can agree that there is plenty of hate on both sides of the aisle with the added condition that the progressive left always goes to the lowest common denominator to express their ‘hate’:

  3. RaisedInRiverside

    I don’t know how anyone can throw their complete support behind any of these candidates (Rep or Dem). To me, they all seem shady, extremist, embarrassing or a combination of the three. The only one that seems like a decent person is Kasich, and he doesn’t seem to have a chance. Sad state of American politics.

    • Anonymous

      Did you know his father was a mailman? True story.

    • I agree with you RIR. He’s the only one, too, who has achieved things like a balanced budget and gotten rid of deficits. I think he still has a chance if something big happens. He’s too big government imo but still the best of the bunch on both sides

      • Walt

        The candidate field on both sides really is a sad state of affairs. I can’t get enthusiastic about any of them. But what really bothers me, is I would prefer a commie socialist, who can’t do basic math, over an identity politics, lying criminal vagina.

        And I really think she is going to win. When she talks about being a woman’s advocate, it MAKES ME PUKE!! It’s a FACT Bill used his power and influence to be a predator on women. IT’S A FACT she tried to destroy the women he abused. It’s a fact she lied about Benghazi. It’s a fact she compromised National security for her convenience.

        It’s not a fact that she is a carpet chomper, but it’s pretty obvious she is. NTTAWWT. And she was against gay marriage forever, until she wasn’t.

        She is a hypocritical, lying, divisive, race baiting, sexist CRIMINAL, who cares about NO ONE but herself. She will say and do ANYTHING to be the next POTUS. She feels she is entitled to it. And I think she actually will be the next POTUS.

        So we really are doomed. So I might as well just go surf some Jap school girl porn. MAMA SAN!! You can call me Ralt!!

        That is a much better use of my time than trying to figure out who is the best turd amongst this cesspool of turds.

        • Anonymous

          Walt you say: She will say and do ANYTHING to be the next POTUS.

          The clintons KILL for politics. So yup, that sure is ‘anything’

          I’d prefer Bernie too. At least he’s honest.

          • Honest, except for his entire campaign platform. No way can he get anything he promises through congress (yet), and if he were somehow to do so, there’d be no money to pay for it.
            So at heart, he’s just another snake oil salesman.

          • Anonymous

            I say honest because I think he’s so stupid when it comes to economics that he actually *believes* he can achieve what he wants to achieve (redistribution and free stuff for the 99% without any economic consequences – like people retiring or moving out of the US). I read somewhere that even if they took ALL of the wealth of the top 10% – – earnings and savings and homes – – they’d still run out of money for Bernie’s utopia, after about 1 year. I think he really believes in socialism. He just thinks “we are the US of A and we can do it better than it’s ever been done before!”

          • Anonymous

            PS my republican friends are starting to say Bernie is the best choice because with a republican congress it will be major gridlock, hence nothing will get done. But there is still the matter of the one to 3(?) supreme court judge nominations. We can’t have a dem in 2016. Walt, you there? Draft Walt.

    • hmmm

      I also think Kasich would be great, too bad in today’s U.S. everyone wants drama and no one really wants to address the problems they just want to talk about them to get into office.

  4. anon

    What shocks me is the deep seeded anti-Trump hatred by the Establishment Rs. The vile language, the threats, the trash talk, all by Rs who want their R money spending pals in office. The hashtag #neverTrump is scary to read. Men and women who complain about the Ds being hateful and spiteful are cannibalizing their own. In other words, Hillary will win by the largest percentage in American presidential contests.

  5. Carson has professional success in medicine, not politics. Trump has success in real estate deals and reality TV. Why do Republican voters conclude Carson’s success doesn’t translate to the Presidency but Trump’s does? Neither knows the first thing about politics.

    Nominating Trump is certain to elect Hillary. That said, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for him, because Democrats are awful.

    Let’s prepare ourselves for 8 frustrating years of Hillary, an entirely avoidable catastrophe.