In socialised European England, the average lifespan in 2001 for a black male was 75 years. For a black woman, it was 80. In contrast, in 2007, the average lifespan for an African American was 74.
Again, this seems like special pleading to be able to throw out all the data-points but one. Your pretty sure turnout should’ve increased due to Obama’s presence on the ticket, and then you find an after-the-fact reason to throw out examples of similar jumps that occured when Obama wasn’t on the ticket.
That’s sort of my point. Its not coincidence. Its in line with the pattern thats been happening over previous election cycles. It happened when there was a black nominee because it had been happening for the previous nominees as well. That it finally went over previous levels in '08 was something of a coincidence, but I hardly find that as obviously meaningful as you do. If you keep growing at a constant rate, your going to surpass your previous limits at some point.
This I think is your actual argument. Strong incredulity that your thesis could be incorrect, regardless of what the data suggests.
But yes, I do think its possible Obama’s presence on the ticket didn’t influence AA turnout. Black voters were certainly (and understandably) enthused to have a black Presidential candidate. Its far from obvious that that enthusiasm actually led to higher turn-out though. After all, I’d expect those who were excited about the prospect of finally having a black President to be the same people that were already politically engaged, and who would’ve shown up at the polls for Hillary or Biden.
Of course, its equally conceivable that having an AA on the ticket did influence turn-out, but given that both seem possible, it seems the obvious thing to do is see if the recent increase stands as particularly unusual. Looking at the data, its almost exactly the same jump as the previous two elections, making me favour the first theory.
No, I disagree. Trying to get people to vote is not the “flip side” of trying to prevent people from voting. If Republicans were running voting drives outside churches on the basis of encouraging religious conservatives that would be the flip side of Democrats running voting drives in black neighbourhoods.
Statistically, I don’t believe jumps of the same value have the same significance- since any voter turnout efforts should have diminishing returns at the margins. Obviously this trend can’t continue forever (black turnout can’t get above 100%!), and increasing from 60-70% (for example) is more unusual then an increase from 50-60%, because it means a larger percentage of the remaining voters are being persuaded then in the previous jump. Looking at it this way, it seems pretty clear that there is more to it then just turnout efforts.
Another thing to look at would be polling- just ask the voters if Obama’s nomination affected their turnout.
But it really is ludicrous to me that you dismiss the nomination of Obama as a factor in the highest black turnout in recent history, if not all time. The latest jump was much larger than the previous one if you look at the proportion of previous non-voters- a continuation of that trend would have resulted in a smaller turnout.
You’re right. The jumps at higher levels have less significance because they represent a smaller percent increase.
You make yourself look neither smart nor credible by capitalizing that. Anyway, so if that’s “backward,” what do you think is the way to get income inequality down?
They actually represent a larger percentage of the remaining voters.
It’s also notable that black turnout went way up from 04 to 08, while white turnout went down.
Getting slightly off topic here- the point of the OP was that despite GOP efforts to reduce voter turnout for minorities, African American turnout stayed high (higher than their share of eligible voters). The link in the OP suggests that GOP efforts backfired by providing stronger motivation to black voters to vote.
How is a constitutional republic different from what we have now?
And no, I don’t believe in some pure capitalistic society where the rich and powerful get to exploit the poor and weak. I believe that as a government, we need to ensure a minimal standard of living and one way to do that is to make certain that voting rights are held up and no one has a more influential vote than anyone else.
If you think Europe is socialism, then you don’t understand socialism.
Envy and class warfare are perpetuated by those who want to lower their own taxes while eliminating the safety net of those who actually need it. If a millionaire gets a tax hike of 3%, apparently that’s immoral. But if you cut programs that help the poor like health insurance or food stamps, that’s ok because they apparently deserve to suffer. In a pure capitalistic society, you and I would be forced to work 16 hour days for pennies, get fired if we complain, and watch as billioinaires get bonuses for shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas (where they work 18 hours and get paid even less). Call it what you want, but I prefer that doesn’t happen, and if some rich guys have to pay a little more so we can have low-cost housing or public schools in the ghetto, then that is the right thing to do
As far as class warfare- that’s easy. Here’s one way to look at it- the average (R) seems to favor policies that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class- so they just support “class warfare” from the other side.
This is just because of math- not because of any special quality of any particular ethnic group. Mathematically, no politician can win a national race without a lot of white support.
And white dominated cities and districts almost exclusively promote white candidates. This isn’t particularly surprising. And, not surprisingly, there are exceptions for both cases.
Then white turnout should’ve been high too, shouldn’t it? After all, there was a very extremely white man on the ballot too.
(Just using your post as a jumping-off point.) It’s probably more interesting to look at increase or decrease in Black turnout in comparison to the white turnout (or overall turnout, if you prefer), rather than on its own. This article looks at the % turnout difference between “all citizens” and “black citizens” (Fig. 2.2) (looking at the source data, it appears that the actual numbers represent “residents” rather than “citizens,” but the general pattern holds). Relative turnout of black voters jumped 4.6% from 2004-2008 - respectably higher than the change in relative turnout from 2000-2004 or 1996-2000, but exactly the same as the 4.6% jump from 1980-1984.
However, going back to the source data (available here) and looking at the off-year elections, the relative turnout increase of black voters from 1980-1982 was 3.3%, and from 1982-1984 was 1.4%, while the relative turnout increase of black voters from 2004-2006 was -3.0% (a decrease), and from 2006-2008 was +7.6%, by far the largest two-year increase over the years 1964-2010.
So the takeaway here depends on whether you think *relative *off-year election patterns should be similar to those in presidential election years.
Yes, we even had a thread to discuss just how white Romney is.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Especially for that guy. 
I thought he was a product of a breeding program.
Malform follows malfunction. Disgenics.
What, did you think the polygamy thing was just because Joseph Smith was a horny bastard? Before-his-time eugenicist, he was!
While iiandyiiii may have* done better to use the term “jealousy” rather than “envy,” your apparent reluctance to accept as valid the notion of Republicans engaging in class warfare strikes me as odd.
What, precisely, does the term “class warfare” mean in your personal sociopolitical dictionary?
*although, to be sure, the average (R) is often not better off financially than the rest of his fellow Americans, but is cynically manipulated by power brokers in the Republican leadership.
You do understand, don’t you, that the phrase “class warfare” implies nothing as to whether the higher or lower class is waging it?