The numbers are always interesting. Blacks still don't go to the polls anywhere near as much as other groups. And as long as they keep voting Democrat, i consider it to be a good thing that they aren't all going to the polls
i'm not sure you can definitively say that more blacks (proportionately) went to the polls for Gore than Obama without further analysis. I did a quick google search and got varying population statistics for blacks that seemed to conflict, so not sure which ones are really correct. But in any case, what matters is the population that is *eligible* to vote. Obviously anyone under 18 cannot vote. And since the biggest increase in black US population is coming from recent births instead of adult immigrants, its fair to say that the majority of the recent increase in black population is not eligible to vote.
Therefore the actual number of eligible black voters in 2000 vs 2008 is probably roughly the same, maybe only slightly increased. (Just guessing, but i am sure it can be figured out). That would mean that an increase of about 3 million black voters nominally was in fact a huge increase in voter turnout relatively speaking as well. And that would make sense, since anecdotally it seems to be what we all remember happening in 2008.
The more important point that is difficult to prove is why they voted for Obama. Even though it looks like that 90% number would have voted for any Democratic candidate, i believe there was a significant racial component in play. That is to say, in addition to his Democrat views and policies, i think that for many blacks it just became a very easy choice, easier than it would have normally been. The combination of him being liberal AND black really sealed the deal.
I would not, however, say that skin color alone means anything. Ben Carson (Republicn) is black, but has virtually no black Democrat appeal. Thats solely because of his views and policies. But i think a lot of blacks would be eager to vote for him, if only he simply shared their political views, compared to an equal candidate the only difference being they are white
The numbers I am using in both total population and total voters by race are all the official government numbers according to the US census and should be accurate within a reasonable margin of error. I didn't say that a population increase outpasing voter increase automatically equals a drop in participation, I only said one could use the numbers to make the argument if they wanted to. But is a very incomplete way of doing so because in addition to new ineligible births, it doesn't take in to deaths of previously eligible voters, or how many minors came of age during that time period.
When everything is factored, in terms of elegible voters, there has been an increase in participation, which I already said in my first responce. But as I also said that increase was already happening at a consistent rate that didn't spike in 2008. This is the participation rates for eligible African American voters since '96...
So that rise is pretty consistent across the board with or without Obama. Also, when you say that African Americans never participate at the rates white do, in '12, only 64.1% of eligible white votes went to the polls vs 66.2% of eligible African Americans.
While that still means that because of total population levels significantly more for whites that a lot more whites voted. But on terms of participation relative to population size African Americans participated at a higher rate. While African American participation has been steadily climbing, white participation has dropped off in each of the last two election cycles.
If you would like to view the Census numbers, you can find them here...
Blacks don't seem to like him.
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The numbers are always interesting. Blacks still don't go to the polls anywhere near as much as other groups. And as long as they keep voting Democrat, i consider it to be a good thing that they aren't all going to the polls
i'm not sure you can definitively say that more blacks (proportionately) went to the polls for Gore than Obama without further analysis. I did a quick google search and got varying population statistics for blacks that seemed to conflict, so not sure which ones are really correct. But in any case, what matters is the population that is *eligible* to vote. Obviously anyone under 18 cannot vote. And since the biggest increase in black US population is coming from recent births instead of adult immigrants, its fair to say that the majority of the recent increase in black population is not eligible to vote.
Therefore the actual number of eligible black voters in 2000 vs 2008 is probably roughly the same, maybe only slightly increased. (Just guessing, but i am sure it can be figured out). That would mean that an increase of about 3 million black voters nominally was in fact a huge increase in voter turnout relatively speaking as well. And that would make sense, since anecdotally it seems to be what we all remember happening in 2008.
The more important point that is difficult to prove is why they voted for Obama. Even though it looks like that 90% number would have voted for any Democratic candidate, i believe there was a significant racial component in play. That is to say, in addition to his Democrat views and policies, i think that for many blacks it just became a very easy choice, easier than it would have normally been. The combination of him being liberal AND black really sealed the deal.
I would not, however, say that skin color alone means anything. Ben Carson (Republicn) is black, but has virtually no black Democrat appeal. Thats solely because of his views and policies. But i think a lot of blacks would be eager to vote for him, if only he simply shared their political views, compared to an equal candidate the only difference being they are white
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The numbers I am using in both total population and total voters by race are all the official government numbers according to the US census and should be accurate within a reasonable margin of error. I didn't say that a population increase outpasing voter increase automatically equals a drop in participation, I only said one could use the numbers to make the argument if they wanted to. But is a very incomplete way of doing so because in addition to new ineligible births, it doesn't take in to deaths of previously eligible voters, or how many minors came of age during that time period.
When everything is factored, in terms of elegible voters, there has been an increase in participation, which I already said in my first responce. But as I also said that increase was already happening at a consistent rate that didn't spike in 2008. This is the participation rates for eligible African American voters since '96...
'96 - 53.0%
'00 - 56.8%
'04 - 60.0%
'08 - 64.7%
'12 - 66.2%
So that rise is pretty consistent across the board with or without Obama. Also, when you say that African Americans never participate at the rates white do, in '12, only 64.1% of eligible white votes went to the polls vs 66.2% of eligible African Americans.
While that still means that because of total population levels significantly more for whites that a lot more whites voted. But on terms of participation relative to population size African Americans participated at a higher rate. While African American participation has been steadily climbing, white participation has dropped off in each of the last two election cycles.
If you would like to view the Census numbers, you can find them here...
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf