The left needs the black vote
Back in 2016, I remember reading there was going to be a shift in the black vote towards Trump. It didn’t really happen. In 2020, it happened to a small degree in black men, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.
Depressed Black turnout could destroy Democrats’ path to victory in closely-contested gubernatorial and Senate races such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Although Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden won urban areas, President Trump did better in both cycles in cities like Philadelphia.
In 2020, support for the Democratic Party reached a new low, continuing a downward trend from President Obama’s 2008 election. In 2008, Obama received 95 percent of Black men’s vote, but that slid down to 87 percent four years later. Hillary Clinton picked up 82 percent of Black men’s vote in 2016, but Joe Biden only notched 80 percent of their vote. This bleeding of Black men’s support has liberal strategists worried, and candidates are desperate.
Odd to think of 80% support as a low figure, isn’t it? But the trend is down, and any loss of the support of black voters is very threatening to the left because they have a deep dependence on this voting bloc. Patrice Onwuka, the author of that article I just quoted, mentions the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and those are exactly the same states that were discussed in yesterday’s open thread.
First, from my post:
…Democrats also still own the black vote, although there have been some defections there. But the black vote is key to Democrat victories.
Next, from commenter “stan“:
When a sufficient critical mass of blacks realize that Dems choose to keep them on the plantation, the preference cascade will be stunning.
Next, commenter “MBunge’s” response:
Black votes tend to be concentrated in places Democrats would win anyway. Outside of Georgia, I’m not sure there’s another state where black support is that crucial for Democrat victory.
My response was that black votes are also crucial for Democrat victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and those states in turn have been crucial for Democrats to win presidential elections.
For example, Biden won in Michigan in 2020 by about 54,000 votes statewide. Detroit is 77% black (this site says 79%), and there were approximately 250K votes cast in Detroit. Do the math – the black vote appears to have made the difference, and a shift of about 25% more black people voting Republican, for example, would have changed the result.
The situation is similar for Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, although the proportions are different. Biden won by about 80,500 votes in the entire state. In Philadelphia, Biden got 81% of the total, or 604,175 votes for Biden. Philadelphia is 41% black. So black people accounted for about 248K (or more, if the percentage of blacks voting for Biden was higher than 81%) votes in Philadelphia. Again, a rather modest shift towards the GOP would have put the state in Trump’s camp.
Biden won Wisconsin by about 20,700 votes. Milwaukee is about 39% black. Biden won by 146,000 votes in Milwaukee, about 80% of the total cast there. Again, it seems pretty clear that a rather moderate shift in black voting patterns towards the GOP could easily have flipped Wisconsin into the Trump column.
And then of course there’s the changing Hispanic vote, which has been discussed on this blog in several posts (for example, this one).
For decades, the Democrats have been abandoning their earlier pitch to working-class Americans of all ethnicities and races, and gone for racial identity politics. It worked for them quite well in many districts and many election cycles, as well as many presidential races. But it finally – finally – may be coming back to bite them. Identity politics depends on division as well as actually performing in such a way that the various groups can see an advantage in voting for the Party. More and more black voters seem to be recognizing that this administration in particular has not helped them but has actually harmed them.
I’ve written many times that a mind is a difficult thing to change, and that remains true. People generally are very reluctant to abandon previous political beliefs and affiliations, particularly when those beliefs are bound up with their very identities – which they often are. It can feel like a betrayal and a huge dislocation. But the more people cross that line, the more acceptable it becomes to do so. That could spell big trouble for the left.
Democrats rely on the overwhelming support of black voters (especially in the large cities) without any compulsion to enact policies beneficial to the citizenry as a whole, whether black or white, simply by using a certain ubiquitous all-purpose term of abuse against their ideological opponents. That the word “racism” (created roughly a century ago and often changing in meaning to suit purely political ends) still maintains such power over the imagination of all is yet further proof of the alarming fact that much of the power of the left derives from Orwellian control (abuse and misuse) of the language.
I’m curious about the specitic reasons a black man may switch from being a presumably life long (D) voter to an (R) these days. Perhaps the dramatic increases in crime in urban areas over the past few years plays a part? Perhaps inflation and gas prices? Or could it be the unchecked illegal immigration leading to lost jobs?
Atlanta detroit milwaukee have the most lax voting rules
“My response was that black votes are also crucial for Democrat victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and those states in turn have been crucial for Democrats to win presidential elections.”
I’m pretty sure when Democrats win or lose those states, it’s because their percentage of the white vote changes, not the black vote. For example, the Census says Pennsylvania is 12% black. Georgia, meanwhile, is over 31% black.
Georgia is the place where going from 90 to 80% black support or having black turnout drop 5 to 10% is catastrophic for Democrats. On the other hand, blacks could split 50/50 in Pennsylvania and Democrats could still be competitive.
That’s how Republicans have been able to win the White House and Congress multiple times the past 30 years despite 10% or less so of the black vote.
Mike
Hispanics are are ‘God, family and country’. As a Catholic, watching the Democratic Party shift from the party for the middle class to the extreme left party it is today, the change in voting patterns of Hispanic’s is changing fast.
Our Country is center right, but the loudest voices are far left. I supported Democrats until the 2016 elections. HRC calling half of Americans deplorables, Peter Thiel’s RNC speech, Tulsi Gabbard quitting her position at the DNC, and reading about Kathy Shelton’s ordeal with Hilary, changed my mind quickly to drop the Democrat Party.
Maybe the same is happening with groups of people the Democrats take for granted and expect their votes:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/27/nolte-21-of-black-voters-support-gop-lights-out-donkeys/
MBunge:
Your point is nonsensical.
Of course, if the black vote is stable at something like 90%, a win by the GOP would have to come from a change in the rest of the vote.
The point is that the stability of the black vote at a super-high level is necessary for a Democrat win. The margins of victory in those states have been very small, and the near-unanimity of the black vote for Democrats is crucial.
True but thats almost a constant so the election margin has varied over the percentage of the white vote
This is why I believe the Left has been systematically cancelling Kanye West this past week. His anti-semitic posts are the justification used for the cancellation, but it was his politics that was the real underlying danger. He has–or had–influence among black people, and had done such verboten things as support Trump, say that George Floyd died of an overdose, criticized BLM, and more recently appeared with Candace Owens wearing “White Lives Matter” shirts. They couldn’t risk allowing black voters to be influenced or changed by his politics any longer and rushed to expunge him from society the first chance they got.
You can argue that his anti-Semitic posts were egregious and he deserved what he got, but precedent shows that many black celebrities who have posted/expressed anti-Semitic sentiments over the years that were similar or even worse got off with only a slap on the wrist at most, ranging from MSNBC’s Joy Reid (from an old blog from the aughts that she claimed “was hacked”), Kevin Durant (https://www.sfgate.com/warriors/article/Stephen-Jackson-Kevin-Durant-DeSean-anti-Semitism-15394993.php), and most recently, a college running back at Michigan (https://www.outkick.com/donovan-edwards-michigan-anti-semitic-tweet-retweet/).
“The point is that the stability of the black vote at a super-high level is necessary for a Democrat win.”
No, the point is that Democrats can and have had super-high levels of black turnout and support and still lost the states you mentioned.
If black votes were evenly distributed through the country (12% in Pennsylvania, 12% in Georgia, 12% in Iowa, 12% in Wyoming, etc.) losing that block 90-10 everywhere would be crippling for Republicans. But because black votes are concentrated in certain parts of the country, and often certain parts of states, the impact of that vote is limited.
Essentially, if Democrats started splitting the black vote 50/50 with Republicans, that would probably have some effect on Presidential elections and a handful of states but it would mostly mean Democrats would still win both Senate seats in places like 79% white Rhode Island and would just go from winning some House seats 80/20 to 60/40.
Mike
Mike wrote, “No, the point is that Democrats can and have had super-high levels of black turnout and support and still lost the states you mentioned,” in response to neo’s comment, “The margins of victory in those states have been very small, and the near-unanimity of the black vote for Democrats is crucial [for Democrats to win].”
Mike, I think you’re missing this point–Democrats are highly unlikely to win without a nearly unanimous black vote, BUT they still might lose with such a vote. That is, a nearly unanimous black vote for a Democrat might be necessary for a Democrat victory, but it is not a guarantee.
Perhaps the size of the disfunctional urban black population is just cover for vote fraud.
“Democrats are highly unlikely to win without a nearly unanimous black vote, BUT they still might lose with such a vote.”
No, the point is that if the black vote is less than 10% of the total, which is a lot of places, going from near-unanimous to simple majority for Democrats isn’t a death blow. It can be compensated for by making marginal increases in the other 90%+ of the electorate.
Look at it this way, if George is over 31% black and Democrats get 90% of that vote, the math says they only need to get 22.2% of the remaining 69% of the vote. They need to get less than 1/3rd of the remaining votes to win. How do Democrats EVER lose in Georgia?
Mike
What escapes analysis is the contrast: In something as comparably dysfunctional and disorganized as the social and economic order within urban black communities, how is it that a specific activity (voting) miraculously repeats as very highly organized – when it comes to balloting and turnout – as the numbers so resoundingly demonstrate. It’s a terrific example of how a well-designed system can thrive in a comparably chaotic system – but maybe only in that kind of comparable chaos.
Oh, look! : https://www.theflstandard.com/democrat-blows-whistle-on-alleged-ballot-harvesting-scheme-florida-opens-criminal-probe/
Chase makes a strong point. If we had honest elections, we’d likely find out a lot.
Inner city machines use criminal gangs to enforce party line voting. Easy absentee ballots make it easier. Mail in ballots make it beyond easy. They simply gather up the ballots by going door to door and hand them over to the Dem party to be filled out properly. There is no secret ballot. There is no right to vote.
We don’t really have any way of finding out how blacks would like to vote. Not in the inner city.
A few years back a Pennsylvania Republican actually had the courage to point out the rampant vote fraud in the Philly inner city. She was savaged as a racist. Of course.
Democrats know they cheat their butts off. They know. They don’t care. They know voter ID arguments are a lie. They don’t care. They know our election integrity system is the worst in the world. They love that. The only way that a Democrat voter can pretend to be shocked by the level of fraud is to pretend to be an idiot.
We live in South Carolina whose population is more than 25% black. My husband works a blue collar job. He has yet to meet a black man who doesn’t hate Biden or Hillary.
MBunge:
You refuse to understand the point, for some reason, but I think it’s been sufficiently explained
Michigan has three outstanding black Republican candidates getting lots of exposure–John Gibbs in a western Michigan US House race, John James (who ran for US Senator in 2020)in an eastern Michigan US House seat, and Kristina Karamo, who is running for Sec of State.
I have no doubt they are causing some people who may have reflexly voted D think about why they do that and what it’s getting them. The black community has been severely impacted by the school closures in that D mismanaged state; this inflation hits hem hard as well; and many lost elderly relatives in Covid infested nursing homes.
If there was ever a year to leave the plantation, this is it.
Some very positive news I learned yesterday. There will be over 11,600 R poll WORKERS deployed in Michigan on election day. Not watchers–workers. Have not been any in the thirty years the Rs have been under a consent agreement.
(I believe to avoid litigating charges of voter intimidation.)
“You refuse to understand the point, for some reason, but I think it’s been sufficiently explained”
What, that you and others are obsessed with the black vote for Democrats?
My point is just that the black vote is HEAVILY concentrated in relatively few parts of the country. That somewhat dilutes its importance by making it extremely important in a smaller number of political contests and significantly less important in a greater number of them.
If the black vote started to split 50/50 between GOP and Dems, it would make Republicans more competitive in urban areas but they’d still probably be dominated by Democrats. It would likely help the GOP Presidential candidate but not so much in most states that Democrats couldn’t still compete.
The black vote just isn’t big enough, and that’s going to become politically explosive if the Hispanic-American population does hit demographic projections of over 30% of the country by 2050. The things Democrats have to do to maintain abnormally high levels of black support are going to complicate efforts to win Latino votes.
Mike
“obsessed with the black voters”
aka “la, la, la la, la..I can’t hear you.”
Blacks are leaving the democrat party in slowly increasing numbers.
MBunge:
No one’s obsessed with anything about black votes. What an absurd thing to say. However, this happens to be a post about black voters and their importance to the Democrats. That’s why the topic is in fact black voters and their importance to the Democrats.
I write posts on thousands and thousands of topics. Once in a blue moon I write a post about black voters. This is one of them.
The black vote is substantial. There have been few elections in recent years, except in heavily blue or red states, that are decided by a very large margin. The black vote tends to go about 90% to Democrats. It is a huge factor in certain swing states, as I have documented in this post, illustrating with numbers. You seem to either truly not understand or refuse to understand, and would rather make bizarre accusations.
The Hispanic vote is an even bigger factor, and I have written many posts about that, too. However, although there are more Hispanic than black voters, they don’t vote in as solid a bloc as black voters do. That was true even before the last couple of election cycles, where Hispanic voters have been turning more to the GOP side than before.
Lee:
I remember James very well from the 2020 election. He was a great candidate, and before the mail-in ballots were counted, he was winning the race. Then when they were counted after the in-person votes, his opponent pulled ahead by a tiny margin. The difference was the Detroit vote, and for a little while James alleged fraud, but then conceded. The Democrats’ victory may very well have been the result of fraud, or it may just have been the heavily Democratic Detroit vote.
One must also consider the use of supposedly black issues–“defund the police”; “Jim Crow 2.0” voter suppression–to shame white voters into sticking with dysfunctional Democratic candidates. Supposedly black issues are the tail that wags the Democratic dog.
“If the black vote started to split 50/50 between GOP and Dems, it would make Republicans more competitive in urban areas but they’d still probably be dominated by Democrats.”
If the black vote were split 50/50, the direct result is that Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina*, and probably Pennsylvania would swing into the solidly GOP column. The Democrats might very well still control the urban areas, but the statewide votes in those states for governor, senator, and the electoral college would be GOP, giving the GOP presumptive control of the White House and the Senate for quite a while.
There would be knock-on effects, however. One of those is that GOP control of the statewide offices in those states would also reduce the fraud there, compounding the effect. Witness how DeSantis has been able to clean-up Florida substantially in his four years in office there. And the urban areas are concentrated enough that a 50 / 50 black vote would, though perhaps not give control of urban area to Republicans, elect enough Republicans that the wholesale vote fraud would be much more difficult to pull off. Vote fraud on the scale we are seeing requires almost top to bottom control by the Democrats to pull off repeatedly.
Not that I think 50 / 50 is going to happen any time soon, but if it did, it would be an atom bomb in American politics.
*Let’s not forget the rural blacks. Their votes in North Carolina and parts of Georgia keep the Democrats competitive in those states. It’s not just Atlanta.
Pat Moynihan had it right 57 years ago. The same disaster holds today.
An enormous number of black women are “married” to the (democrat) government. Black men (who at one time were bread winners) are out on the street getting either nowhere or getting in trouble.
https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/webid-moynihan
LeClerc
To the extent blacks have, metaphorically, kitchen tables, kitchen table issues will be important to them.
Now, you can’t hardly have a place to stay which doesn’t include a table, so I’m speaking in terms of having sufficient stability that the very basics are covered and the next level of importance is up for grabs. If you don’t have a car, the price of gasoline isn’t important. If you do…. If you’re not getting rent subsidies, the cost of housing is important. If you have a job, real wages versus prices are on your mind.
Groceries.
To the extent blacks approach the lower middle class or the upper lower class, their concerns will divulge from what the dems are promising–more muggers on your block!! that will show he wypipo!!–and move toward what the republicans are supposed to be promoting.
Which will drive the SJW nuts.
Dems for decades and decades rely on playing a simple, almost elementary school-esque, playbook. It fools the political normies and suckers. Just paint your opponents as mean, bigoted, sexist and racist while calling them Nazis, fascists and extremists.