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.
just as I would expect. That makes it safe to conclude BO created an artificial demographic lift in the turnout, which can't be replicated.
I already responded to this falsehood in another thread, might as well just copy and past
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
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.
That poster doesn't really read links, he just repeats DNC talking points. Good effort though.
What exactly is a DNC talking point ? can you even name someone at the DNC besides Tom Perez ?
Anyways, As I said in my post and as I backed up with math, the argument put forth in the article( which even the article says their numbers could be way off), can easily be dismissed.
If you want to debate the numbers, do so, but dont argue I didnt read the article and put forth nothing to back up your claim.
i read the link. Do you understand why the link is flawed ? That is what I was pointing out.
While the percentage of black turnout may have been down, the number of black people voting actually increased.
This matters to the point the article was making.
That does not make it flawed. Analogy: Northeast population flat, nations rising, NE loses census seats as its % of pop declines, thus it loses influence.
That does not make it flawed. Analogy: Northeast population flat, nations rising, NE loses census seats as its % of pop declines,thus it loses influence.
Yes, it does make it a flaw. here, I will help you out ... from the same site
add this post about voter registriation with the other about the actual number of people voting and you have your reason for why your argument is flawed.
In short, you are trying to argue that Barack Obama created this unprecedented number of voters that will never be duplicated
That just isnt true. They may not have voted for Clinton, but they did vote and at the same percentage of the population as they did the last 2 elections (1% could be a statistical flaw, your own like actually has the MoE as high as 5%), and that number is now 800,000 than when Barack Obama first won in 2008
Thats part one of why what you said is flawed.
Part 2 is voter registration,which is calculated as percentage of the eligible population, not registered voters.
the link says in 2008, there were only 146 million registered voters, which is only a 20 million increase from 1992.
in less than 8 years, we added 54 million people.
Thats not a population increase, its simply states allowing people to register to vote online or when they get their license. Most of those new voters simple never registered to vote before.
so for black people to keep up with 2008 levels, the number of black votes should have increased by 760,000.
If you go back and look at the original numbers i posted(and you can check my math because im not the best at it), Black people over performed the Obama 2008 to 2016 projections by about 40,000.
so yes, in short, looking at percentage of registered voters who turned out to vote makes no sense as the numbers are not equipped to adequately reflect the information you are trying to convey.
It if further flawed by the fact that black people actually did keep up as a percentage of the overall population when it came to voting.
again, im fine with you checking my math, it was my worst subject in school, but I dont think im so far off that it would make you right.
I'm not sure how great that poll really is since it is dependent on self-reporting. I will say the only noticeable move was a drop in AA voting that had already been noted. But if it dropped as precipitously as that poll suggest Clinton would have been blown out not lost a series of squeakers. In Florida and NC the loss of 10% of the AA vote should have given Trump victories more in line with Ohio, not a simple 1.2 point loss in Fl and a 3 point loss in NC.
And the big question for Dems is if another candidate would better motivate AA voters or if a better campaign would have gotten more AA voters to the polls in the Rust Belt. And what would push up Hispanic voting? With a 1% increase in white voters and 5-6% decrease in AA voters (Hispanics holding steady) the R candidate still lost the popular vote and won the 3 states needed for victory by 120k votes combined. The bad news for Rs and possibly the country is that that shows the Dems quickest path to a win would be courting their base for the remaining votes. Its what Bush did in 04 and Obama in 12.
While I'm still not entirely sold on this survey/news story, it does raise some interesting questions. Even with the spike among white voters their share of the electorate declined 1%. What does that do for a Republican party that is almost entirely dependent on white voters?
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.
