When you have to trot out anecdotal evidence and present it as being the rule rather than the exception to bolster what is already alleged to be "apparent," then it ain't all that apparent. On top of that, when you've got Muttly accurately making my point, you know your position is a weak and tenuous theory at best.
When you state the percentage of the white population and then directly reference "them" (not "some" of them, but flatly "them") as not being able to stomach a black man in the a White House, that's a direct cause and effect correlation which, because it's so apparent to you, doesn't imply any wiggle room for other possible issues. If there was any doubt about that, the video evidence presented to fortify your position on the matter cleared that right up. If you want to walk it back like that, then you should probably attach rear view mirrors to your sunglasses so you can better see where you've been.
Elliott County, Kentucky is more than 99% white and they gave Obama the largest margin of victory in the state. That's not anecdotal, that's reality. And that one county alone utterly refutes the notion that race in Kentucky played even a significant role, much less a primary or singular role, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. When you look at the percentages of the counties who voted most overwhelmingly for McCain and Romney, those percentages all fall woefully short of being able to show a racial cause and effect correlation with the white voters in Kentucky who couldn't stomach a black man in the White House., because all it takes is for one of "them' to vote contradictory to your premise in order to blow up the premise. If candidates other-than-Obama had received more than 85% of the vote in the state then you might be on to something. But that didn't happen. Not even close.
... as the following video clearly shows ... rotflmao ...
