Are Runoffs Racist? The Media Coverage Ignores the Democratic Purpose of Runoffs

Below is my column in the Hill on the Georgia runoff and how media stories have focused on the runoff as a racist invention. As a long-standing advocate of runoffs, I view the majority requirement for election as not just an enhancement but an embodiment of democratic values. Indeed, with the mantra this election that “democracy is on the ballot,” one would think that both parties would support such runoffs not just in Georgia but throughout the country.

Here is the column:

If one headline summed up the unrelenting narrative leading to Georgia’s midterm elections, it was supplied by the New Republic: “The Georgia Senate Contest Is All About Race, Actually.” President Joe Biden amplified that view earlier by wrongly and repeatedly claiming Georgia’s election laws are “Jim Crow on steroids.” Even as record numbers of minority voters cast ballots, the narrative continued into the race between U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and his challenger, Herschel Walker (R).

Within 24 hours of the Georgia election officially heading to a December runoff, media outlets ranging from National Public Radio to Time magazine released stories suggesting that the runoff itself is a racist invention. After all, Warnock may not have gotten a majority of votes, but he still received 1 percent more than Walker.

On NPR, host Leila Fadel sounded truly shocked as Georgia PBS reporter Stephen Fowler explained that runoffs were devised by white supremacists to counter black voters. Fadel responded: “Wow. So a law originally aimed at disenfranchising Black voters is the reason this runoff rule even exists.” Fowler also observed that Walker is “a weaker candidate … dogged by controversies” while Warnock is a “well-known figure” who seeks to be “a problem-solver who works in a bipartisan manner.”

Putting aside the obvious bias, the NPR segment reflects the continuing effort to portray the race as about, well, race. Voter suppression claims are difficult to maintain in the aftermath of record voting. Now, the runoff is the embodiment of racism.

One can wonder if these journalists would have been as aggrieved with the thought of a runoff if it was Walker who was 1 percent ahead. What is clear is the fact that both candidates being Black does not appear to change the relevancy of this talking point.

Indeed, direct racist attacks against Walker have received little comparative attention from the media, and commentators have used racial terms against Walker — as when he was subjected to an inflammatory attack on MSNBC by regular guest Elie Mystal — with little to no media outcry or network apologies.

The history behind the runoffs does show racist motivations in states like Georgia. In the 1960s, Georgia state Rep. Denmark Groover (D) introduced runoff legislation “as a means of circumventing what is called the Negro bloc vote.” However, that is not the only motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value in their continued use.

In Arkansas, the majority rule for primaries was challenged on the same grounds of being racially motivated and maintained by the state. A federal court found a non-racial purpose in the law to require a majority-supported election as a “bedrock ingredient of democratic political philosophy.” That part of the opinion was upheld by the appellate court, though the court was reversed on other grounds.

Ten states apply this rule to primaries: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. In my view, the value of requiring majority support in a primary is only magnified in the general election and should be required in all states.

In reality, runoffs can enhance minority voters by forcing candidates to reach out to every major voting bloc. Roughly one-third of registered Georgia voters are Black. In 2021, even critics of runoffs acknowledged that minority voters carried the day. Indeed, now-Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) was in the same position as Walker this time; he received fewer votes than the incumbent, Republican David Perdue (who came within 0.3 percent of a majority in the first-round general election), but Ossoff ultimately prevailed in the runoff.

The political motivation for requiring runoffs decades ago does not mean it remains a racist practice or has a racially discriminatory purpose today. To the contrary, some of us have advocated for the expanded use of runoff rules as an enhancement to our democratic process.

Many countries require their leaders to secure a majority of votes in either a general or a runoff election. The United States, however, allows for the selection of a leader with less than half of the nation’s support, including leaders who actually receive fewer votes than their opponents — a reality which both parties have decried following various elections of the past, depending on which side won.

Of course, the presidential electoral system is locked into the Constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to change. However, congressional races are subject to state laws like Georgia’s. By requiring a runoff, candidates are forced to appeal to a broader swath of voters beyond simply their core party constituencies.

It is an important element of any democratic system for elected leaders to speak with the authority and legitimacy which comes from being chosen by a majority of their constituents. It is particularly important in the Senate, which was designed to moderate and tamp down the impulses of the House. Senators were given longer terms and larger constituencies than House members in part to create rivaling interests, even in states that are controlled by one party.

It may also favor rapidly vanishing moderates. Due to our deep political divisions and the effect of our primary systems, moderates are as scarce today as agnostics in the College of Cardinals. Incumbents tend to be favored in primaries, and congressional districts are now heavily gerrymandered by both parties to ensure reliable results. Some states have moved to break the hold of incumbents by wisely requiring the top two vote-getters from a primary to run against each other, even if they are from the same party.

However, requiring majority support to serve in Congress is another way to push candidates to the center in deeply divided districts.

After Dec. 6, Georgians will have a senator for the next six years that a majority actually wants. Thus, Georgia’s runoff should be an example of why such majority requirements are critical to advancing democracy. If you really worry about when “democracy dies,” it is when the majority’s views do not ultimately matter. In Georgia, democracy is not just “on the ballot” — it is the ballot.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

72 thoughts on “Are Runoffs Racist? The Media Coverage Ignores the Democratic Purpose of Runoffs”

  1. It’s all hilarious to me. Most places (and the entire USA as a whole) barely make it over 50% to 60% (voting) plus a couple in POTUS elections, and if it’s a primary the percentage of the electorate drops far below 50%, to 20% or below.
    So very few persons are elected with a majority of the electorate, probably just some small townships local heroes, and NEVER a national or a statewide candidate.
    It’s all so ridiculous. It’s a weird virtue signal and a big fat lie to give a perception of validation.

  2. RE: “Are runoffs racist!!” Of course!?!!!! In the current braindead society, it is alleged that the need to exercise one’s privilege to vote places an undo burden on certain members of society whom are always designated as ‘disadvantaged’ and, in the narrow minds of those who cite this burden, said individuals are always persons of color. There are no disadvantaged individuals who are not persons of color. This is known as the Whoopie Goldberg Principal. She being an individual who is a self-proclaimed expert on what constitutes a race. Of course, what did know about the Nuremberg Laws, Jewish last name notwithstanding.

  3. No one should be surprised that the race baiters are saying that racism can be found under every upturned leaf. The cookie jar full of money would disappear if the didn’t make every effort to fill it up again. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are multimillionaires through the use of the same game. BLM played the same game and kept the money for themselves. These good folks are just trying to get their peace of the pie. We know that when animals go to the trough they get their noses dirty. It’s the price they have to pay to get fed the most for doing the least.

  4. Carl Sagan once said “There is no such thing as a dumb question.” Well, Carl Sagan was wrong about many things, and this quotation is just another example.

    Intelligent people should not even engage with anyone who poses such a stupid question as “Are runoff elections racist?” Now, intelligent people might argue “Do the benefits of runoff elections outweigh the additional costs?”

    But a stupid question loaded with a bogus and devisive premise of nonexistent racism is best ignored. We might as well debate the question, “Does 5+7=13?” That’s actually a far less stupid question.

  5. What is racism? A collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas. Ibram X. Kendi

    Now do:
    – communism. A collection of communist policies that lead to communist inequity that are substantiated by communist ideas.
    – socialism. A collection of socialist policies that lead to socialist inequity that are substantiated by socialist ideas.
    – Marxism. A collection of Marxist policies that lead to Marxist inequity that are substantiated by Marxist ideas.
    – capitalism. A collection of capitalist policies that lead to capitalist inequity that are substantiated by capitalist ideas.
    – ageism. A collection of ageist policies that lead to ageist inequity that are substantiated by ageist ideas.
    – ableism. A collection of ableist policies that lead to ableist inequity that are substantiated by ableist ideas.

    Brilliant! Saul Alinsky would applaud the simplicity. Find center mass of any group of people and then divide them along a fault line. The census is fertile ground for politicians to sow the seeds of division. The anit-MLK approach.

  6. Jonathan: I agree. “Democracy dies in the darkness”. While the phrase came about by Nixon’s attempt to coverup the Watergate scandal the phrase equally applies today. But what you don’t mention anywhere in your column is how Trump tried to operate in the “darkness” after he lost the 2020 election. He plotted in secret to change the election results. Through the Jan. 6 Committee open hearings we have learned a lot about how Trump operated in the “darkness” to try to stay in power. There is another phrase applicable here: “The best disinfectant against tyranny is the light of day”. The Jan.6 Committee is providing that disinfectant. But you have attacked the Committee. Seems counter-intuitive if you really believe “democracy dies in the darkness”.

    Although Trump will not be on the ballot in the run-off election on Dec. 6 in Georgia, no voter will ignore his presence since he is backing Herschel Walker. The stakes for Trump are high. Since most of Trump backed candidates lost in the mid-terms he needs a big win to reestablish his control over the GOP–that now appears to be in question. The run-off is already taking on racist overtones. Nikki Haley, a big presence in the GOP who some think will be a presidential candidate in 2024, has called for Warnock to be “deported”. Some in the Rafael Warnock camp actually hope Trump will actively campaign for Walker. Some in the GOP in Georgia hope Trump stays out because he is toxic. Time will tell. But one thing is sure. It’s going to be a knock-down, drag out battle for the soul of the GOP and whether Trump has lost his cache. And another thing is certain. If Warnock loses he won’t cry “election fraud”. On the other hand if Walker loses Trump will take to Truth Social and scream, as he did after his candidate lost in Arizona, “They stole the election from Walker. Do the election over again!”

  7. “. . . the Georgia runoff . . .”

    During that upcoming ballot counting, the only mystery is: What will the “catastrophe” be, this time?

    It won’t be another “toilet leak.” Too obvious. I’m guessing a fire alarm malfunction. Or printers out of ink. Whatever the “catastrophe” that “stalls” the count, it will occur in Fulton County.

  8. Democrats came within a hair’s length of winning in many races, and the president’s ratings are sinking like quicksand. This should have been a wake-up call to liberals that the toxic culture they are trying to create is not sitting well with half the country, including many Democrats and Independents. Yet, the race hysteria continues. These people really are deranged.

  9. Dear Prof Turley,

    According to the NYT, the ‘only’ reason there is a run-off [in Ga.] is because 3rd party candidate Chase Oliver (iirc, a ‘Libertarian’) won 2% of the vote forcing a run-off in the ‘closely contested’ race. Boo Hiss, thus denying the Democrat candidate the out-right victory @

    Obviously, I’m not a Georgia Peach, but a cursory review of Mr. Oliver’s positions stand-out-shines above the other candidates (whose election as a U.S. Senator will have a bearing on the citizens of greater Appalachia). Unfortunately, money talks.

    >”If you really worry about when “democracy dies,” it is when the majority’s views do not ultimately matter.”

    On December 17, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican, and 41% as Independent.

    *it doesn’t matter how you count the votes, if only Democrats and Republicans can win.

      1. Well, there is always Bernie ‘working more for less’ Sanders. Bernie is registered ‘Independent’, but these days it’s hard to tell (see TRUMP.).

        In fact, when Bernie lost the 2016 primary to Hillary, I encourage (by all means at my disposal) Bernie to run for POTUS as an Independent (which is what he is).

        Watched a town-hall in W. Va. around this time with Bernie talking to retired coal miners about Mitch McConnell (w/ strong bi-partisan support) selling their pensions and livelihoods like so much chicken feed. Thought then, and still think, Bernie would have won a landslide over Hillary And Trump.

        *Snowden for President 2024 ‘The Crown Jewels of National Security’

  10. France and Brazil come to mind for their presidential elections where the top 2 runoff unless one has captured 50%. Brazil just had their election which was quite close. France just a few years ago and other nations also. 1st round is held and is a mad scramble but one can win with slightly over 50% or there is a runoff 2nd round.. It makes more sense than ranked voting in our republic like in Alaska. Australia uses ranked voting in their House of Representatives which then determines who the prime minister is. Always the goal is 50% or better in each representative district. Great Britain is “1st past the post” where each parliamentary district goes to the highest vote total irrespective of the how low their percentage is. Israel and Germany are where you vote for only the party list and your number of representatives in the Bundestag and Knesset is based on your total percentage of the vote with a minimum % of 3.5-5 % required. Hence you have multiple changing parties and the rise and fall of parties can be meteoric both up or down and (as in Israel) you have a multitude of coalition governments with persisting paralysis. Pick your poison. All have pluses and minuses. Remember we are a federal republic and we get to experiment even if you don’t like it.
    Everything is racist, in certain eyes, or maybe it’s just plain blindness and stupidity. It’s when they start to say that voting should be eliminated because it’s racist, then I grow concerned. Thats only a step or 2 away. But that’s why we have a 2nd amendment. Right?
    Remember the communist and Marxist credo of “one man, one vote, one time”. It’s right up there with “every ship can be a minesweeper at least once”.

  11. Unlike many things in politics, this issue is simple. There is a separate standard for conservatives. The media amplifies this double standard, thereby allowing the inconsistency to avoid scrutiny. If the conservative candidate is ahead on election night, a runoff is a good thing. If the conservatives hold a legislative majority, the filibuster is a bad thing. If the Supreme Court has a conservative majority, it must be packed. This is how it works, all the time.

  12. “ The history behind the runoffs does show racist motivations in states like Georgia. In the 1960s, Georgia state Rep. Denmark Groover (D) introduced runoff legislation “as a means of circumventing what is called the Ne@ro bloc vote.” However, that is not the only motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value in their continued use.”

    So, the journalists Turley is critical of we’re still right in their assertion. It was the primary motivation when they were first proposed and Turley acknowledged these journalists were not wrong.”

    I had to post this again. apparently the word “Ne9ro” triggers a moderation review but “coonish” doesn’t? That’s hilarious.

    1. Svelaz: You missed this part: “that is not the only motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value in their continued use.”

      1. I didn’t miss that “point”. Turley was being dismissive of the nature of why runoff’s were created in Georgia. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that it’s the primary reason why Georgia introduced runoffs.

  13. Only Joe Biden would call an election between two black men Jim Crow on steroids. Mental illness in this country is nearly an epidemic for how can the populous listen to comments like that while voting for a black man on both sides of the ballot?

    1. aynrandish: (appreciating your login name): Thanks to MEDIA, academic, and institutional depiction and distortion, we must periodically remind ourselves of the REAL demographic representation in America, based on the 2020 U.S. Census:
      Population (up 7.4% to 331.4 million).
      Race and ethnicity (White alone 61.6%; Black alone 12.4%; Hispanic 18.7%; Asian alone 6%; American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.1%; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.2%; Some Other Race alone 8.4%; Two or More Races 10.2%).
      In the state of Georgia, there are 2.2+ MILLION more Whites than Blacks in the population.

      1. Thank you Lin for posting that.

        I often tell family, friends and colleagues to observe how blacks are used as props and talking points by Democrats in their PSA and marketing pieces, even if blacks are the second largest minority group in America. Hispanics are by far the largest and growing. To wit, we have rejected the offensive “Latinx” label by the Left.

  14. Unlike many things involved in American politics, this issue is simple. There are two different standards, one for conservatives and another for everyone else. This double standard is strenuously amplified by the media, allowing this inconsistency to escape the scrutiny it deserves. If the left’s candidate is behind on election night, a runoff is a good thing. If conservatives have a legislative majority, the filibuster is a bad thing. If the Supreme Court is conservative, it must be packed. Very simple, really. And it happens every time.

    1. True. Also….as Michael Tracey points out:

      “Election denier” is a partisan propaganda term that the media adopted to exclusively tarnish Republicans, even though the phenomenon of casting doubt on election outcomes is as thoroughly bipartisan as it gets.”

      “It’s true that Democrats did not storm the Capitol after the 2016 election, they only spent the next several years frantically insisting the election had been subverted in a foreign espionage conspiracy plot, and enlisted the US security state to help cast doubt on the outcome.”

  15. The left’s narrarive must prevail at all costs.

    In a shocking and disturbing development, the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is currently on lock down and classes cancelled because of an armed and dangerous student. A black male student shot and killed 3 other students yesterday evening, injured 2 others, and fled. Both university and local police are searching for him. This from a city that the liberal news media portrays as a haven for white supremacists. Not shocking is that the local news media, an NBC TV affiliate, has omitted identifying the shooter as a black male. Had he been white, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon and Joyless Reid would be hovering over the city in helicopters, ready to rappel down a rope with a live cam strapped to their helmets, to spot Nazis behind every tree.

    The left’s narrative is dogma

    CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) – The University of Virginia has canceled classes Monday after an on-campus shooting Sunday night that left three people dead and two more injured. Police are searching for Christopher Darnell Jones Jr., a UVA student who school President Jim Ryan identified as a suspect in the shooting…..The shooting happened on Culbreth Road about 10:30 p.m. Sunday. UVA Deputy Police Chief Bryant Hall said Jones was last seen wearing a red jacket, blue jeans and red shoes.

  16. “ The history behind the runoffs does show racist motivations in states like Georgia. In the 1960s, Georgia state Rep. Denmark Groover (D) introduced runoff legislation “as a means of circumventing what is called the Negro bloc vote.” However, that is not the only motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value in their continued use.”

    So, the journalists Turley is critical of we’re still right in their assertion. It was the primary motivation when they were first proposed and Turley acknowledged these journalists were not wrong.

  17. It is funny, you find runoffs in many elections – mostly in progressively dominated cities. In Boston, we have runoff designed to exclude any non city union backed candidate for mayor. First the elections are held in off-off year election (2023 is the next). The first round election is held right after Labor day, with the top two candidates advancing to the final round in November. Do you know what the turn out for Labor day round is? Do you know who shows up? Do you think progressives want more people to vote?

    The best way to ensure that, make voting simple, have elections when more people will show up.

    Progressives do not want that. All you have to do is look at the history of the runoff in GA, why it was implemented, the changes that were made throughout the years, and which party was behind all of it.

    Progressives are in favor of elections rules that let them win, if the rules, that they were for, become a problem – well those were racist.

  18. Ha, ha, ha! The is no democratic purpose of a run off. You know it. I know it. And the Republican Party knows it. It’s all about making an election so expensive that only the rich have a good chance to survive.

      1. Voting for an idiot is one thing, giving him your money is another. Outside of PACs and corporations (people) with a vested interest, we’ll see how much money Walker gets these four weeks.

    1. Holmes, congratulations for embarrassing yourself at 7:35 on Monday morning and starting your week off to a typically moronic start. Name one state where Republicans spent more money than Democrats. Name the last time the Republican presidential candidate spent more than the Democrat.

    2. Justice Holmes wrote, “The is no democratic purpose of a run off. You know it. I know it. And the Republican Party knows it.”

      Verifiably false lie.

      The purpose of the run-off is for one candidate to reach a clear majority of the votes cast as stated in Georgia election law.

      The election results were as follows…

      Raphael Warnock, Democratic Party
      Received 1,941,797 votes which is 49.4% of the total votes cast.

      Herschel Walker, Republican Party
      Received 1,906,594 votes which is 48.5% of the total votes cast.

      Chase Oliver, Libertarian Party
      Received 81,189 votes which is 2.1% of the total votes cast.

      By Georgia state law, no one received over 50% of the votes cast, therefore the two candidates that received the highest number of votes cast have a run-off election.

      If the citizens of Georgia don’t like the law, then it’s up to them to change it.

  19. In Georgia, the run-off law and ‘black bloc’ statement were made by Democrats. But these inconvenient truths will not be mentioned by Democrats.

    1. Democrats deserve credit for everything they implement during their most racist era (not saying their racism has been eliminated). Republicans started looking the other way in 1877, choosing power over morality and have been on a slide down ever since, taking the racist lead in the 1960s. Yes Democrats did it first, Republicans do it best.

        1. Two things can be true at the same time. The Democrats were racist pieces of shit. Republicans have taken over the mantle.

          I watched the video, agree with most of it actually though Johnson was forced against his will to support the Voting Rights Act and there is no proof that MLK was a Republican (or a Democrat) though many prominent Black leaders were. I watched your video, please read what Jackie Robinson had to say after attending the 1964 RNC as a delegate.

          1. enigmainblackcom wrote, “The Democrats were racist pieces of shit. Republicans have taken over the mantle.”

            Blanket demonization of all Democrats or all Republicans as being racist pieces of shit is IMMORAL. Yes enigmainblackcom, I just called you immoral!

            enigmainblackcom wrote, “Democrats were…”

            …as in past tense. When exactly do you think the “Democrats” stopped being racist pieces of shit? Be specific.

            enigmainblackcom wrote, “”Republicans have taken over the mantle”

            When exactly do you think the “Republicans” took over the mantle of being the racist pieces of shit? Be specific.

            Is racism by Democrats as immoral as racism by Republicans?

            Using just the last six years and only politicians as reference, please provide some concrete examples of actual racism by either Democrat or Republican politicians.

            1. I don’t think Democrats ever completely stopped being racist. They are much better than they were but that’s a low bar. As to when Republicans took over the mantle, I’d say the mid-1960s but they began their slide in 1877 with the Compromise of 1877 followed up the next year with Posse Comitatus. Drmocratic racism is just as immoral as Republicans, just less at the present time.

              You can find your own references, I would include the appointees of politicians like Stephen Miller or Jeff Sessions but that’s me. Anything I might point out you would say isn’t racist so I’ll just skip that exercise in futility. You are welcome to assume I can’t do it (I could), I will protect my time and assume you wouldn’t care.

              1. enigmainblackcom wrote, “”I don’t think Democrats ever completely stopped being racist. They are much better than they were but that’s a low bar. As to when Republicans took over the mantle, I’d say the mid-1960s but they began their slide in 1877 with the Compromise of 1877 followed up the next year with Posse Comitatus. Drmocratic racism is just as immoral as Republicans, just less at the present time. You can find your own references, I would include the appointees of politicians like Stephen Miller or Jeff Sessions but that’s me.”

                You’re welcome to run away like a rhetorical coward from showing integrity and supporting your claims of racism if you want but it’s signature significant* that you’re doing it.

                enigmainblackcom wrote, “Anything I might point out you would say isn’t racist so I’ll just skip that exercise in futility. You are welcome to assume I can’t do it (I could), I will protect my time and assume you wouldn’t care.”

                I gave you an opportunity to support your claims which you have chosen not to do. I’m not making assumptions about you but your multiple assumptions about me are wrong, this too is signature significant and immoral.

                You’ve made your choice of how to represent yourself in this blog and it appears to me that you don’t care that your representation makes you look immoral. Sobeit.

                Signature Significance: posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.

                1. You gave me a homework assignmet that you are guaranteed to give a fail. You might notice that several people besides yourself are engaging me and I have the duty to protect my time. You could see for yourself actions in Florida, and Mississippi for exaply to reduce Black Congressional seats, you must have noticed the brown children in cages, maybe DeSantis’s election police posting videos of Black voters they arrested that their local County’s said could vote. You choose to believe nothing is racist, I choose not to waste my time debating it with you.

                  1. enigmainblackcom wrote, “You gave me a homework assignmet that you are guaranteed to give a fail.”, “You choose to believe nothing is racist…”

                    Now you’re making up lies to smear me, how very civil of you.


                    enigmainblackcom wrote, “You could see for yourself actions in Florida, and Mississippi for exaply to reduce Black Congressional seats…”

                    Are you just slinging random sh!t against the wall to see what sticks?

                    What racist actions are you talking about?

                    enigmainblackcom wrote, “you must have noticed the brown children in cages”

                    Are you talking about the illegal immigrant children that crossed the borders being detained? If so, please explain how it’s racist. No, I’m not implying that it’s moral.

                    enigmainblackcom wrote, “maybe DeSantis’s election police posting videos of Black voters they arrested that their local County’s said could vote.”

                    I actually have no idea what you’re talking about here, please expand.

                    enigmainblackcom wrote, “I choose not to waste my time debating it with you.”

                    No, you’re choosing to actively smear someone that simply asked you to support your claims instead of debate, that shows a lack of integrity. You are the one exhibiting unethical and immoral behaviors, not me.

                    Making claims of racism without actual racism being present is IMMORAL!

                    1. “Making claims of racism without actual racism being present is IMMORAL!”
                      Refusing to acknowledge it so you can continue to benefit is what? I’m only allowed two links.



                      ” His plan wiped away half of the state’s Black-dominated congressional districts, dramatically curtailing Black voting power in America’s largest swing state.”

                    2. enigmainblackcom wrote, “Refusing to acknowledge it so you can continue to benefit is what?”

                      Stop beating around the bush enigmainblackcom, out with it, what exactly are you trying to imply?

                      As for the redistricting opinion links you shared; gerrymandering can be a problem and both political parties do engage in it to some extent from time to time but they are doing it for political reasons (which is usually a verifiable fact) not for racist reasons. The opinions in the links you shared don’t prove racism.

                      Let’s be honest here, Democrats are brazen hypocrites when it comes to political gerrymandering; Democrats gerrymandering is pure as the driven snow but Republicans gerrymandering is evil racism. It seems to me that the only rhetorical card in the Democrat’s deck when it comes to gerrymandering is the racism card and they wield it as if it 100% proven fact when it’s unsupportable BS in the 21st century.

                      Face it enigmainblackcom, Democrats being factually deficient when it comes to supporting their routine claims of racism has never stopped them from lying to everyone about it to gin up as much hate as they can. What do they usually do when they’re confronted with having to support their racism claims, they do exactly what you did, try to imply that the ones asking for supporting evidence are racists; this behavior is immoral!

                      You have to be very careful when you accuse others of being racists, you need verifiable evidence to support the claims not just emotional hysteria as I hear so much of the time.

                    3. enigmainblackcom wrote, “I was right that you’d deny it, you say it was political not racist.”

                      Do you hear yourself?

                      Let me get this right, you expect others to toe the racist line and blindly agree with you even when the evidence you provided doesn’t support your claim? Provide something that actually supports your claim that it’s racism, not just something that accuses or implies racism. I try very, very hard to base my opinions on actual facts, not hysterical accusations or biased innuendo. Provide actual proof, I’ll read it.

                      enigmainblackcom wrote, “Why can’t it be both?”

                      It can be both but you didn’t support the racist part.

                    4. enigmainblackcom wrote, “You did exactly what I expected.”

                      You’re welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.

                      It’s up to you to support your claims. Since it’s impossible for me to prove a negative but you can prove a positive, so it’s back on you to prove me wrong. Quoting the section(s) in the articles you linked to that is the evidence to support your claim that the gerrymandering discussed were racist actions.

                      If you cannot do this, then you’re nothing but a race baiting propagandist.

                      enigmainblackcom wrote, “No matter what proof I provided, even if the persons doing it admitted it, you wouldn’t find it racist.”

                      This is a brazen intentional fabrication, a lie, intentional defamation. You have absolutely nothing to support your false claim. Retract your lie.

            2. eb has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no grasp of reality.

              He can not get either the past or the present right.

              Man will never be prefect, but where there is freedom, we will slowly spiral towards perfection.

              Our grand parents were better than their fathers, our parents better than their fathers, we are better than our fathers,
              and our children will be better than us – so long as we are free.

              Today there is more racism at harvard than within the GOP.

          2. I always find it interesting that so many people read something or watch videos and then pontificate on a past that I actually experienced.

            Racism in the 60’s was much less than the 50’s which were less than the 40’s and so on. That progression has continued through today.

            My kids are both Asian which is disproportionately targeted for racism today. And the largest single anti-Asian group is blacks.

            At the same time – unless they wish to get into Harvard, the racism my kids experience is rare and inconvenient. My daughter catches more flack because she is short.

            AGAIN we live in the least racist nation in the world, at the least racist time in history. Racism – like myriads of other problems will NEVER go away. No one has been lynched in 40 years, and very few people have been lynched in the bast 80 years.

            Many “statistics” that the left uses to claim systemic racism – in criminal justice or elsewhere when properly regressed show little or no actually racist signal. Poor blacks are arrested no more frequently than poor whites, or poor hispanics. Crime statistics accurately track the reporting of crime.

            We have lots of problems in our criminal justice system – but the problem of racism in that system is small to non-existant today.

            Some of us were actually alive in the 60’s and not only know the difference intellectually – but from direct experience.

            But as with everything the left does today – they take inconsequential problems blow them up 10,000 times and then make them into an impending crisis.

            The left has been whigged out for 40 years over end of the planet global warming. – this despite the fact that recent warming is indistinguishable from that of the past 250 years. This despite the fact that no warmist prediction ever has come true.

            And recently we find that the ocean off South america has cooled. That the cooling appears to be permanent. And that cooler waters off south america trap the PDO in La Nina – we have been in La Nina for 3 years and indications are 2023 will be the 4th.
            La Nina means more rainfall in the western pacific – Austrailia has been inundated by floods with no end in sight.
            More drought in the american west. it even increases the odds of cold winters in europe, and drought in Africa – though the PDO is less influential in Europe and Africa.

            A cold winter in Europe is a huge concern right now. The abysmal energy policies of the biden administration have had destrictive effects throughout the world. They are a major factor permitting Putin to beleive he could invade Ukraine.

            Europe was effectively cut off from Russian oil and gas by the war, the destruction of the nordstream pipelines mean even a peace deal will not solve Europes energy problems this winter. There are predictions that 10,000 europeans will freeze to death this winter – thre times as many as do GLOBALLY in a year.

          3. “Republicans have taken over the mantle.”

            I don’t deny that there are racists everywhere, but most Republicans are not racist, yet Democrat dogma is. Just think of how the Democrats reversed MLK’s character over color and believe in color over character. That is racist and that is the dogma you follow.

            1. This is a stupid argument by the left.

              Racism is not binary.
              It is inherent in human nature to prefer those most like them.

              I remember a marketing and sales book I read long ago – full of aphorisms.

              “all things being equal it is who you know that matters”
              “all things being not so equal – it is who you know that matters”.
              It does not matter how shallow the connection, people prefer those they share things in common with.

              Family, clan, tribe, nation, race.
              Church, denomination,
              social group. class. interests, sex.

              The more unimportant attributes two people share the more they will favor each other.

              That is just how humans are wired. It is not ever going to change.

              If there are extra terestrials – we will prefer humans.

              If there are many kinds of extra terestrials – we will prefer the most human ones.

              Racism is not binary – nor is all preference inherently bad.
              And it is not avoidable anyway.

              1. John, there is a reason “Birds of a Feather Flock Together”.

                That’s the reason we still have HBCU’s.

                1. I have no problem with HBCU’s, or women’s colleges.

                  I have problems with Harvard discriminating against asians and jews, but it is worse for government to step in.

                  I would note that there are very few countries in the world were a tiny fraction of the diversity in the US even exists.

                  The left wants to rant about the evil racism in the US. Outside of the anglo sphere how many countries do not have 80-90% majorities from a single tribe ?

                  As Europeans choose to accept immigrants – mostly from the mideast, Racism is rearing its ugly head.

            2. Republicans are if anything less racist than democrats.

              My kids are asian – ,y family was part of a church that was “open and affirming” that had gays, and trans and …,
              That had blacks and whites and hispanics.
              That was constantly falling all over themselves to prove they were not racist and to self educate on racism.
              My daughter was the media director for the church. She was on the counsel and recorded all the services, managed the web page, ….

              The church scheduled a meeting to discuss racism inviting all POC’s in the church.
              Except my daughter.
              When she asked – she was told Asians do not count, and that they have not experienced racism they way blacks and hispanics have.

              Later an assistant minister circulated a joke – about chinese people eating dogs.
              Mind you this is a pretty extremely far left church.
              No one understood that the joke was racist.

              Right now Harvard is trying to explain how descriminating against asians is not racist.
              They are also having a hard time explaining why the method they are using to do so,
              which is the same methonf they used to discriminate against jews in since the 20’s – something they admit was reprehnesible.
              That doing the same thing in the same way against a different group is actually a good thing today, but a bad thing in the past.

              We have far less racism today than ever before.

              Regardless, the worst racism today is on the left, not the right.

              There still exist a few incredibily racist republicans.
              But the problem is nothing compared to the many on the left – that do not even understand they are racist.

              1. If Enigma were white I believe many would be calling him out as a racist. I don’t know if he really is or not, nor do I care. I think he suffers from an overactive imagination combined with victimhood. My family has faced more racism and death than he has ever seen close to him. I chose another path than victimhood. I chose to live and disregard those folk who chose to be that way.

        1. Are we now ranking individuals by their racism? I could offer you my opinion but I assure you that Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and others would rank much higher than Biden in my book.

          1. No doubt that is what you think. It doesn’t make it true. It’s only your opinion. The facts do not support your opinion.

          2. No doubt you know the racist history of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, etc. No doubt you are aware of how many PP clinics are in black and latino areas. No doubt you are aware of how many black babies are still being aborted. Who is fighting to stop this? It’s not Democrats, it’s Republicans. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep the business of abortion going full speed ahead. Just saying.

          3. No doubt you are aware of the push to mandate experimental covid vaccines on the population. No doubt you are aware of the history of medical experimentation on blacks by the government? No doubt you are aware of the studies showing a higher correlation among black boys of autism after an MMR vaccine? Which party is trying to mandate experimental vaccines on us? It’s the Democrats, not Republicans. Which politicians are trying to force children to take the experimental covid shots in order to attend school? It’s Democrats, not Republicans. Again, just sayin.

          4. Enigma: The problem with activist Blacks is that everything is racist, racist, racist, racist, racist. They don’t look at the world through rose-colored glasses, –no, theirs are pre-programmed black-colored glasses. (Similar to Gigi/Natacha and her Trump, Trump, Trump hangup.)
            Your comments (I generally pass over them after a few sentences…) generally belie some underlying bias that dictates the outcome of your conclusions. You selectively choose facts and circumstances that support your perception, and discard everything else that someone says. Even when someone points out the flaws in your conclusions, your lack of clear-colored glasses prevents your comprehension of what is being pointed out to you.
            —Here, you have dispositively concluded that DT, SM, SB are all racist, but you dismiss Biden as innocuous.
            How does little presumptuous YOU have any idea what is in the minds, makeups, or experiences of these persons???? I would suggest that you never have even been around any of these individuals, -certainly not to know what is in their minds or hearts. Your knowledge of each is dependent upon selective external information, at best–(and THEN passed through a sieve of your own bias). At worst, it is all in your head-from preconditioned programming.

            Get. over. it. Give us a chance to prove you wrong. It will be a better world. I happen to have two very close Black friends. All three of us are color-blind (except when it comes to favorite food, ha ha) Thanks for listening, Enigma.

          5. Ewnigma, e have gone down this road about Donald Trump many times and you have never been able to substantiate what you say. Donald Trump is not a racist nor an anti-Semite. He isn’t a racist because you believe his father attended a KKK rally before Trump was born.

            Document his racism based on his actions and stop with the NYC housing BS where you were also proven wrong.

            Do you have an advanced degree in victimhood?

Leave a Reply