Yes, the same phenomenon at work.
Personally, if I were Black it would have made me oppose Obama MORE, much more! Would I want my race shamed by having it’s first President be that creature? Of course not. I am from Chicago and his association with my city is shameful, I have preferred it if he stayed in Hawaii.
If I were a woman I’d hate Hillary more. I think my mother loathes her more than I ever could. What decent woman would want her to be the first female President? Her misrule would have doomed female candidates for the foreseeable future.
If I were Catholic in 1960 I’d have opposed Kennedy MORE than I would have otherwise, I would not have wanted the scion of that scum family to be the first Catholic.
If I were Mormon I would have an even lower opinion of Mitt Romney for bringing shame to my faith with his milktoast RINOism.
Maybe it’s just me.
Dewey was certainly the "more conservative" candidate in 1948, but its hard to tell since Dewey ran on some bland nonpartisan "corruption is bad and job growth is good" issueless platform in the 40s, trying to convince voters across the spectrum he was on "their side".
To be fair, I've seen a number of RATs play the same game in reverse, and argue that the Republicans have "changed", and the party has been "taken over" by a bunch of "alt-right" racists, and that "today's Democrats" would be "Eisenhower Republicans" back in the 1950s. They say with a straight face that Bernie Sanders policies are no different than Ike's, and all the people who supported Ike need to wake up and become Democrats.
Of course that's total BS, Ike was a squish and a centrist (both by 1950s standards and today's standards), but he would have been utterly appalled and disgusted by "today's Dmeocrats" screaming about transgender rights and putting men in the woman's bathroom, Israel being "illegally occupied territory", in-state tuition for illegal aliens and so on. And just like Kennedy vs. Nixon, there is little doubt that Adali Stevenson ran to Ike's LEFT in 1952 & 1965, and any modern day leftist Democrat with an IQ over 30 who got in a time machine and went back to that era would agree with Stevenson's policies more, despite pretending now that Eisenhower shared their worldview (like the Kennedy revisionists, they avoid talking about 95% of Ike's policies and focus on his "military-industrial complex" speech to "prove" he was "progressive")
The people on "our side" pushing the media narrative about how "the two parties switched sides back in the 60s and 70s" should have to sit thru a screening of Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" where he pretty much proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RAT party has consistently been treasonous scumbags since the mid 19th century, and HAVEN'T changed their vile behavior or love for socialism as the issues have changed over the decades.
One thing's for certain, cold hard facts don't gel well with cult worship. Not one of JFK's fans on this board wants to discuss Kennedy's actual policies in depth, and would rather pretend Kennedy was a Jesse Helms clone because he cut taxes once and gave lip service about how communists are bad. Talking about the other 95% of his policies will cause them to IMMEDIATELY change the subject.
To the overwhelming majority of Blacks, Zero’s nomination was seen as something that for the longest time could never happen — the nomination of a Black person to the highest office (of course, had he chosen to, Colin Powell could’ve had it in 1996 for the asking from the GOP - but his excuse was that he thought he’d have been assassinated). Even if they didn’t agree with him and his policies, it was seen as a seminal event in the history of the country. Sadly, all the sturm und drang was for someone who was utterly unqualified for the office (natural born citizen or not). It was the flip side to MLK’s argument about the content of their character - this was someone who rose up on skin color and superficiality. No one could even point to any substantive accomplishments during his time in the state legislature or U.S. Senate (curiously, of course, to show how much the Dems were late to the party with Black folks, he was the first Black male Dem Senator in 2004 — only 134 years after the Republicans sent Hiram Revels to the body from MS).
In a country where character, integrity and accomplishment matters, he’d have never been remotely seen for any office higher than perhaps Alderman from Chicago (and not due to race - he simply was that unaccomplished, ineffective and incompetent). Even in 2004, Ambassador Alan Keyes was far more qualified for the Senate seat, but because he was a Conservative Republican, he was considered a non-entity by the media and other leftist pundits, despite already having run for President. If the GOP side had received such fawning coverage as Democrats do, Keyes would’ve been elevated to the Presidency.