Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attached is an article from WAPO based on the research of a political science professor at IU that I thought was interesting.
Nationally: White turnout +2.4%; Hispanic +3.8%; Asian +3.0% ; Blacks -4.7%
The white turnout increased (percentage of eligible white voters actually voting) while the percentage of votes cast by N/H whites continued to fall as it has unabated since 1992.
The combined white increase/black decrease was enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Michigan and Wisconsin, the white vote dropped a couple of points, but the black vote plummeted by double digits. Had the electorate mirrored that of 2012, Clinton would have won by narrowly taking those three states, but the largest of the three would have been Michigan (1.5%) and the other two would have been as close or closer for Clinton as they actually were for Trump.
Even if the 2012 electorate had been replicated, Trump would have prevailed in Florida, North Carolina and in Iowa and Ohio. The study indicated that Iowa and Ohio would have been about as big wins for Trump using the 2012 breakdown as it was in 2016.
Data on the +/- of turnout by racial grouping are available for the most heavily contested states.
Attached is an article from WAPO based on the research of a political science professor at IU that I thought was interesting.
Nationally: White turnout +2.4%; Hispanic +3.8%; Asian +3.0% ; Blacks -4.7%
The white turnout increased (percentage of eligible white voters actually voting) while the percentage of votes cast by N/H whites continued to fall as it has unabated since 1992.
The combined white increase/black decrease was enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Michigan and Wisconsin, the white vote dropped a couple of points, but the black vote plummeted by double digits. Had the electorate mirrored that of 2012, Clinton would have won by narrowly taking those three states, but the largest of the three would have been Michigan (1.5%) and the other two would have been as close or closer for Clinton as they actually were for Trump.
Even if the 2012 electorate had been replicated, Trump would have prevailed in Florida, North Carolina and in Iowa and Ohio. The study indicated that Iowa and Ohio would have been about as big wins for Trump using the 2012 breakdown as it was in 2016.
Data on the +/- of turnout by racial grouping are available for the most heavily contested states.
I don't think we can compare this election to any other. HRC and Trump were both brutally unpopular. The difference ended up being Trump was able to spike numbers among middle class and lower middle class white voters while Hillary literally bled support in comparison to previous Dem candidates. Obama did better among white women than Hillary did. And those wins in Colorado and New Mexico were as much about demographics as Clinton. I tend to believe the Nevada win was based on Harry Reid organizing the heck out of that state. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were probably due to Team Clinton's political malpractice. You can't blame misogyny since those three have all elected women state wide- Wisconsin even elected a openly lesbian candidate to the US Senate. And all three vote for a black guy with an Arab sounding name twice.
For all the talk of identity politics, Clinton's biggest failures where in the AA community and among younger voters.
In the end Rs have to hope that Trump can maneuver the river at the end of a poker game again in 2020 and Dems have to hope Clinton doesn't run again in 2020- and 2024- and 2028...
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
I m referring to Black voter turnout solely. BO took that to an unnatural level twice.
But again, thats not really true.
in 2008 black people are 13 of the people voting
We are talking about a 1% drop and that could be a statistical error.
So he didnt really take it to another level. And in reality, a 1% drop, but a 2% rise in participation pretty much evens out.
13% of 131 million is 17.03 million(16.17 Obama black voters)
13% of 129 million is 16.77 million (15.59 Obama black voters)
12% of 136 million is 17.8 million (15.66 Clinton Black voters)
We are talking about 500,000 voters here spread across 50 states when comparing to 2008, and a rise of about 70,000 when comparing to 2012.
Hillary Did far worse with white people than Barack Obama did, especially in comparison with Black voters.
So he didnt really take it to another level. And in reality, a 1% drop, but a 2% rise in participation pretty much evens out.
I remember a couple of weeks out from the election, the 538 website had an article about Clinton being one statistical anomaly/error from winning. And she was.
If you bring the extra 1.36 million AA voters to the poles, you will see a spike in Wayne County (Michigan), Dane County (Wisconsin), and Philly that could very well have tilted the election. Add that young people were also sitting the election out and that is where the Clinton loss/Trump win occurs.
The days of anyone winning a US election with yawning margins in the swing states is gone. Ohio/Iowa were the only true swing state where someone opened a lead this year. The others where very low single digit Trump wins. Four years ago they were mid to low single digit Obama wins. So 1 or 2% of any constituency wins the race.
Sounds like Blacks aren't so politically irrelevant after all.
those who don't vote are rarely politically relevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
