Maggie's Farm

And yet? About half or Ifill's statements are suggestions that blacks have irrational reasons for their votes - not that she would say it that way, but there it is - and somehow that's Romney's fault? African-Americans interpret criticism of Obama as an attack on him because he's black, feel it deeply, and I am expected to treat that as rational?

My liberal younger brother has suggested something similar over the years - that the preponderance of black votes for Democrats is somehow an indication that they must be right, that this proves somehow that Republicans are bad and getting worse.

In what is supposed to be a national argument about ideas, explain to me why one side voting lockstep for the guy who looks like them is not a dire indication of extreme tribalism, impervious to reason? Why would a set of economic, social, and foreign policy ideas, however much one might disagree with them, be so obviously worse for one race that they can find no takers among them?

Be careful not to slip into something much more deeply racist in your reply.

Those were poor answers, and I suspect you know it. If I say "half," picking from the other half to disprove me is vacant. (And actually, even those aren't so solid as you would like. Joe Wilson rudely calls the president a liar, and AA's have a visceral racial take on it, and that is somehow rational? Really?)

Yes, yes, I know how it feels bad to hear things like tribalism and impervious to reason. I use the term frequently about many groups, but heard a racist dog whistle in "tribal." Funny who these racist dog whistles turn out to be audible to. I was a liberal for many years. People feel that in the face of such, the argument has already been made, and needs no refuting - as you do here. Because it feels socially unacceptable. But just go ahead and try to make that logical argument. Try to put it down on paper and then imagine how a sharp critic might poke holes in it.

Frankly, I am pointing out the obvious, yet you say nay, nay, there must be some other explanation for the data. Okay. What is it? Man up.

I didn't say that, and it is the next thing to dishonest to claim it. You leaped to a conclusion - for whatever reason - and you got it wrong. Rereading my own comments, you can get to your interpretation only by assuming my bad faith. Even then, it's a stretch. To duck and cover, you accuse me of racism.

Please note that Ifill came close to explaining black votes globally, as if all of them were thinking along similar lines. True? Yes, go back and read it if you doubt it. That apparently did not distress you. When I stated that such reasons would be irrational, somehow that distressed you. She made the generalisations.

You continue to decline to make the positive case, contenting yourself with trying to pick at my statements. So have a go at it: 99% of the black vote is for the black candidate. We know how to interpret things when 99% of the Sunni vote, or 99% of the Pashtun vote, or 99% of the Hungarian vote, goes to the Sunni, Pashtun, or Hungarian candidate. What alternative explanation do offer in this instance.

I caught the intent of "and yet" quite clearly. I called you on it. You have been sneering but not answering since.