African American turnout is absolutely crucial to the Democratic Party’s chances of winning a third consecutive term in the White House, and winning back control of the U.S. Senate in some states like PA, WI, FL, OH, etc. If black turnout is lower than it was in 2008 and 2012, and even 2004, can Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democratic Party nominee win?
Well, here’s some basic numbers from Washington Post:
So, if turnout drops to 2004 levels and support for the Democrat drops to the historical average, Clinton would still likely win. That’s assuming all other variables (support from white voters, hispanic voters, GOP turnout, etc) remain the same.
if Hillary can pick up some white vote that Obama didn’t get in 2008, then it’s a wash. But the Clinton machine doesn’t strike me as one that won’t get the black vote out. Bill regained his large popularity in it in the years after the 2008 primary, and bc Obama wants his legacy continued/honoured, as well as probably some library donors the Clintons can get him, he’ll also help get Hillary a nice chunk of black vote.
A realclearpolitics app to play with that adaher had first linked to. Was 60.3% in 2004. Was above non-Hispanic White turnout in 2012, -1% 2008, -7% in 2004, -5% in 2000 … you have to go back to '96 to get -8%.
So go with that 1996 level of 8% less than White turn-out and increase the GOP share of the Black vote from 6% to 15%. Clinton wins per the app with 50.4% of the popular vote and 272 to 266 EC.
BTW, that WaPo claim that 85% is the historic norm of Black vote for the Democratic nominee (and thus 15% for the GOP one)? Not what the numbers I can find show. Last two pre-Obama elections anyway:
2004 93/7%
2000 95/3/2% (The 2% Nader.)
To win by way of lowered Black turnout and increased share, in a era in which Whites are less of the voter demographic than previous, they need to have the Democratic candidate completely implode with the demographic. Not impossible but it means doing much much much worse than did Kerry or Gore.
Women make up a far larger % of the electorate than blacks do, and they are not as reliably Dem as them either. I don’t see why you wouldn’t get that same bounce among women that Obama got from blacks.
I do think that many otherwise Republican-leaning women will vote for Hillary. I also believe that as the Republicans go out of their way to alienate Hispanics that the black vote totals will become less important (as long as they don’t go for the other guys). But I also think that black voters are sophisticated enough to realize that anybody that doesn’t like brown people probably doesn’t much like them either.
Gee, GloryDays, you’re starting a LOT of these types of threads, aren’t you?
The African-American vote is critical to Democrats. But I think at this point the Democratic Party has a problem. A campaign that maximizes African-American support is going to cost white support, and a campaign that seeks to maximize white support will cause African-Americans to stay home. Black Lives Matter is really laying down the gauntlet to Democrats, and Martin O’Malley and Rahm Emmanuel are becoming examples of how it may become impossible for Democrats to actually govern and continue their political careers.
Only if you view race relations as “us versus them”. Democrats can and do push policies that are good for blacks and whites alike.
On the other hand, I can see how this idea would arise, from a political party that apparently does view race relations as “us versus them”.
Problem is, that’s not the #1 issue on African-American voters’ minds right now. Sanders already tried that tack with BLM and got slammed for it. If BLM represents African-American views even partially in 2016, then there’s no way to get black voters to the polls in big numbers without addressing police and justice issues, which is actually an area where white and black voters have a sharp divergence in views.
Dude, race relations may not have the essence of “us versus them,” but politics most definitely does.
The key is to inoculate the anger that that entails so that your opponents in the other party are not more motivated (read: angry) to turn out than your own voters.
Fortunately, as per the app you provided, a Democratic Presidential does not need to maximize either to win by a reasonable margin. The magic of changing demographics results in a circumstance in which historically average performances in each will lead to wins even where they were associated with losses before.
A GOP candidate cannot prevail without all of maximizing White turn out and share, maximizing their Black share, and minimizing Black turn out, all to levels that are extremely unrealistic. White vote has to get up to levels not seen since Reagan v Mondale while Blacks have to go back to turning out at levels which have not been as low since '96.
No question that you are correct that there are some White voters at the edges who will be turned off by recognition that Black lives also matter and by a recognition that the problem is not just a few bad cops but a need to address systemic failures of the institutions. But not more than were already turned off by the prospect of a Black president … probably a smaller set. And some conservative and libertarian Whites not only acknowledge the truth that some videos make horribly clear, but are also on board with the need for drastic prison and sentencing reforms.
Clinton or Sanders against any of the choices on the GOP side is no Mondale v Reagan. Doing significantly better with Whites than Romney did is just not going to happen and a futile effort to play to the worst of Whites will not only not earn enough of the White vote but cause a backlash among minorities as well.
You’ve got Congress and a majority of state governments, for now and the near foreseeable future … but the Presidency is not within easy grasp.
Yes, and thus, maximizing Democratic support will mean decreasing Republican support, and vice-versa. Nobody disputes that. But that’s not what adaher was claiming.
“That”? That what? I didn’t specify any single issue, and there are a whole lot of them. And so far as I can tell, the issue that is biggest to the BLM movement is police brutality, and that’s one of those common issues I referred to: Blacks and whites alike are opposed to it.
But whites are more likely to prioritize lower crime, and when Democrats last went down this road of worrying more about the police than criminals it cost them huge.
I’m sure we are all entirely aware of the circumstances, but some of us may be hazy on the precise details. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind filling that out a bit? Oh, and cites, of course, you bring out the dancing elephant, gotta be sure the floor is solidly built.
Ah, you think that BLM are worried about criminals. Duly noted.
We’ll see how that works out for you and for your party, shall we?