There was an election in Dallas last week that pitted a new contender (Wilson) against a 24-year incumbent (Austin). It was an extremely close race and the incumbent lost by 26 votes. I think it's understandable that the loser would call for a recount, but he's claiming that his opponent tricked voters into voting for him by "pretending to be black." The general response that I've seen from liberals? "Well, of course he did! He's probably a Republican!" Ow. My brainmeats.

In order for this claim to be valid, we have to assume that voters in the district would have voted against Wilson if they knew he is white, which seems to be a declaration that the black people in the district are racist against whites, which to me sounds racist against blacks. That said, the white candidate did omit all photos of himself from official campaign materials, on the grounds that "race should not be an issue," which is effectively arguing that race is an issue and that he hid his race because the black people in the district would have voted against him if they knew he is white, which seems racist against blacks....

Which is apparently why Austin went out of his way to track down photos of whitey Wilson and use that in his campaign materials, which means that he'd already brought this issue up to the voters before the election. Thus if the voters were paying attention, they would have known that Wilson is white and Austin would have been elected and why are we assuming that racist black voters are unfamiliar with the campaign materials of any candidate other than the white one, which they apparently saw?

Keep in mind that no one has come forward to state that they would have voted against the white guy if they'd known he was white, nor has the accuser made an allegation that someone told him that had they known that Austin is white, they wouldn't have voted for him. So far, we have zero people claiming that this would have changed their vote. This is all theoretical racism.

Then, as it turns out, Austin is black, which means that he's arguing that being black should have guaranteed him a win because the voters are black and that means he's entitled to their votes because he's black and this is approximately where I want to set both candidates on fire.

Advertisement

And then in come the well-meaning liberals pointing out that Republican and other conservative candidates frequently make claims that blacks vote race above all other issues, that Obama wouldn't have won if he were white, blah blah blah, as a way to avoid personal responsibility for losing elections on the issues and to claim "white persecution." Yes, conservatives do that and as such, it would really not surprise me if a white conservative hid his race for a better chance at black votes. But to claim that this was a winning strategy is to imply that blacks really do vote against people simply because they are white, that the conservative claim that blacks are racist actually holds water.

And then I want to set my liberal Facebook friends on fire.

Help a beleaguered white lady out. Is there any party to this conversation who should not be set on fire? (Please vote for me!)