the C-J on race, Obama and Kentucky voters

I've posted on this-- both my inferences and the available data-- quite a bit. Here are the C-J editorialists with more on race and the election...

Two things are clear about race and the presidential election results in Kentucky. One is that race was a factor; the other is that it is impossible to say how much of one.

Difficult to argue with that!

There is, however, one canard that should be put to rest -- that African-American voters who supported Barack Obama because he is black are just as blameworthy as white voters who opposed him because of his color.

No canard there. Those are essentially the same thing-- voting for or against someone (primarily or completely) because of their race. But as I pointed out earlier, it is different to the extent that African-Americans almost always vote for Democrats, so most presumably chose Obama because he was a Democrat.

There is a world of difference between citizens who voted for Mr. Obama because of their pride in a black presidential nominee after a history of 300 years of oppression -- or, for that matter, women who voted for Hillary Clinton because of their pride in a serious woman candidate -- and voters who oppose someone simply because the candidate is black or female.

Sure, it's different to vote in favor of someone because of race-- vs. against someone because of race-- but neither is consistent with Dr. King's dream!

The most important statistic about the racial vote may lie in national polling that showed that white voters who rejected Mr. Obama on grounds of race tended to fall in older, poorer and less educated segments of the electorate.

Yep...