Hillary Is Losing the Black Vote

[WelfareQueen]

Things are looking good for the eventual GOP Presidential Nominee. The black vote is down for Hillary 30%-40% this primary season versus 2008 when Obama ran. The Dems are counting on the Obama coalition to win the election...but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

A Cook report analysis said Obama would have lost Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania without a huge minority turnout.

A link to the story and a key quote.


The number of African-Americans who voted in Tuesday’s primaries plummeted by an estimated 40 percent in Ohio, 38 percent in Florida and 34 percent in North Carolina compared with the 2008 Democratic primary when Barack Obama was on the ballot, reported the advocacy group Black Votes Matter.

Record numbers of African-American voters flocked to the polls to elect and re-elect America’s first black president.

Analysts expected some drop-off, but not the enormous numbers recorded Tuesday.


http://nypost.com/2016/03/18/black-dems-arent-turning-out-for-hillary-like-they-did-for-obama/

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Primary\Caucus vs General Election is a different game altogether, and Hillary Clinton will carry the Liberal White, African American, Latino\Hispanic, Women, and Gay and Lesbian vote, so what does that leave Trump?

Grab all the polls you want but the reality is Minorities usually vote for the Democratic Candidate and I really doubt that will change with Trump running on the GOP ticket...

So you will need the African American and Hispanic\Latino vote to stay home during the general vote and I don't see that happening...

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

, Losing the Black vote huh, funny guess that's why she has ran the table with 80% -90% of the Black vote against Sanders...

She will get 95% against the Orangutan..., Hispanics too both equally hate Trump..

 

[Sherry]

Primary\Caucus vs General Election is a different game altogether, and Hillary Clinton will carry the Liberal White, African American, Latino\Hispanic, Women, and Gay and Lesbian vote, so what does that leave Trump?

Grab all the polls you want but the reality is Minorities usually vote for the Democratic Candidate and I really doubt that will change with Trump running on the GOP ticket...

So you will need the African American and Hispanic\Latino vote to stay home during the general vote and I don't see that happening...

They don't need to stay home, just be less enthusiastic...black voters will not show up in the same overall numbers for Hillary as they did for Obama. She is not the great white hope.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Primary\Caucus vs General Election is a different game altogether, and Hillary Clinton will carry the Liberal White, African American, Latino\Hispanic, Women, and Gay and Lesbian vote, so what does that leave Trump?

Grab all the polls you want but the reality is Minorities usually vote for the Democratic Candidate and I really doubt that will change with Trump running on the GOP ticket...

So you will need the African American and Hispanic\Latino vote to stay home during the general vote and I don't see that happening...

It is turnout...or didn't you understand the entire point of the article? Hillary will not get anywhere near the minority turnout that Obama did.

 

[candycorn]

Things are looking good for the eventual GOP Presidential Nominee. The black vote is down for Hillary 30%-40% this primary season versus 2008 when Obama ran. The Dems are counting on the Obama coalition to win the election...but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

A Cook report analysis said Obama would have lost Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania without a huge minority turnout.

A link to the story and a key quote.


The number of African-Americans who voted in Tuesday’s primaries plummeted by an estimated 40 percent in Ohio, 38 percent in Florida and 34 percent in North Carolina compared with the 2008 Democratic primary when Barack Obama was on the ballot, reported the advocacy group Black Votes Matter.

Record numbers of African-American voters flocked to the polls to elect and re-elect America’s first black president.

Analysts expected some drop-off, but not the enormous numbers recorded Tuesday.


http://nypost.com/2016/03/18/black-dems-arent-turning-out-for-hillary-like-they-did-for-obama/

 

[Nyvin]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

 

[WelfareQueen]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

Your assumption is false. The Dems had about a 20%-30% primary turnout advantage in 2008 over the GOP. That translated into an 8% turnout advantage in the general election.

This primary cycle the GOP has about a 40% turnout advantage over the Dems. That spells big trouble for Hillary. The GOP electorate is much more energized than the Dems. That point cannot be argued.

 

[Nyvin]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

Your assumption is false. The Dems had about a 20%-30% primary turnout advantage in 2008 over the GOP. That translated into an 8% turnout advantage in the general election.

This primary cycle the GOP has about a 40% turnout advantage over the Dems. That spells big trouble for Hillary. The GOP electorate is much more energized than the Dems. That point cannot be argued.

Oh what a coincidence....538 just published an article saying "Exactly" what I just did...

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

Turnout in the primary is a reflection of the competitiveness of the primary, with no relation to the general....the Democrats were going to win 2008 in a landslide regardless. I know you won't be interested in reading the detailed, fact-heavy article...but primaries are not predictive in any way at all of the General Election.

2008 is a horrible indicator to go by anyway since it was such a blowout win in the GE and the Dem primary was "The" most competitive primary in modern history, at least since the early 80's. In other words if you consider 2008 as the "norm" and 2016 going "down" from there then the Republicans truly are f*cked.

 

[WelfareQueen]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

Your assumption is false. The Dems had about a 20%-30% primary turnout advantage in 2008 over the GOP. That translated into an 8% turnout advantage in the general election.

This primary cycle the GOP has about a 40% turnout advantage over the Dems. That spells big trouble for Hillary. The GOP electorate is much more energized than the Dems. That point cannot be argued.

Oh what a coincidence....538 just published an article saying "Exactly" what I just did...

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

Turnout in the primary is a reflection of the competitiveness of the primary, with no relation to the general....the Democrats were going to win 2008 in a landslide regardless. I know you won't be interested in reading the detailed, fact-heavy article...but primaries are not predictive in any way at all of the General Election.

2008 is a horrible indicator to go by anyway since it was such a blowout win in the GE and the Dem primary was "The" most competitive primary in modern history, at least since the early 80's. In other words if you consider 2008 as the "norm" and 2016 going "down" from there then the Republicans truly are f*cked.

Nope. You need to read your own link. The last election cycle....as I said....showed a big Dem primary vote turnout advantage that translated into the general election. Your link also showed that every election since 1992 this was the case.

I don't give a shit about 1976. The last three primary cycles saw the party with the biggest primary turnout win the election. In other words...1992....2000....and 2008.

The Dims are in big trouble.

 

[Care4all]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

Your assumption is false. The Dems had about a 20%-30% primary turnout advantage in 2008 over the GOP. That translated into an 8% turnout advantage in the general election.

This primary cycle the GOP has about a 40% turnout advantage over the Dems. That spells big trouble for Hillary. The GOP electorate is much more energized than the Dems. That point cannot be argued.

Oh what a coincidence....538 just published an article saying "Exactly" what I just did...

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

Turnout in the primary is a reflection of the competitiveness of the primary, with no relation to the general....the Democrats were going to win 2008 in a landslide regardless. I know you won't be interested in reading the detailed, fact-heavy article...but primaries are not predictive in any way at all of the General Election.

2008 is a horrible indicator to go by anyway since it was such a blowout win in the GE and the Dem primary was "The" most competitive primary in modern history, at least since the early 80's. In other words if you consider 2008 as the "norm" and 2016 going "down" from there then the Republicans truly are f*cked.

Nope. You need to read your own link. The last election cycle....as I said....showed a big Dem primary vote turnout advantage that translated into the general election. Your link also showed that every election since 1992 this was the case.

I don't give a shit about 1976. The last three primary cycles saw the party with the biggest primary turnout win the election. In other words...1992....2000....and 2008.

The Dims are in big trouble.

UH, was there even a primary for the president in the 2012 election cycle? No one ran against Obama? So it's kind of hard to use that election cycle for a presidential primary, no?

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary gets to run against Trump

All you need to know

 

[Nyvin]

People are generally less enthusiastic about a primary they see as non-competitive. 2008 was probably the most competitive primary we've seen in the last 30 years, Democratic or Republican. 2016 on the Democratic side by contrast is only very modestly competitive.

The figures won't reflect turnout in the General Election.

Your assumption is false. The Dems had about a 20%-30% primary turnout advantage in 2008 over the GOP. That translated into an 8% turnout advantage in the general election.

This primary cycle the GOP has about a 40% turnout advantage over the Dems. That spells big trouble for Hillary. The GOP electorate is much more energized than the Dems. That point cannot be argued.

Oh what a coincidence....538 just published an article saying "Exactly" what I just did...

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

Turnout in the primary is a reflection of the competitiveness of the primary, with no relation to the general....the Democrats were going to win 2008 in a landslide regardless. I know you won't be interested in reading the detailed, fact-heavy article...but primaries are not predictive in any way at all of the General Election.

2008 is a horrible indicator to go by anyway since it was such a blowout win in the GE and the Dem primary was "The" most competitive primary in modern history, at least since the early 80's. In other words if you consider 2008 as the "norm" and 2016 going "down" from there then the Republicans truly are f*cked.

Nope. You need to read your own link. The last election cycle....as I said....showed a big Dem primary vote turnout advantage that translated into the general election. Your link also showed that every election since 1992 this was the case.

I don't give a shit about 1976. The last three primary cycles saw the party with the biggest primary turnout win the election. In other words...1992....2000....and 2008.

The Dims are in big trouble.

"Translated into the general election" how? Most of them are registered democrats to begin with.

The Republicans were the incumbent party in 1992, the Democrats "won" the popular vote in 2000, and the Democrats could've nominated a dead fish and won in 2008.

People see a competitive primary and are encouraged to vote in it....it doesn't affect whether or not they'll vote in the General Election at all.

I love how you just ignore everything else and cherry pick a few tidbits of data, and then compare this primary to literally "the" largest primary turnout in decades.

If you want to see a party that's in trouble, look at the 1964 Republican primary, a frontrunner that wins ~40% of the vote and then leads to utter disaster in the General.

 

[Care4all]

from the article.... and I think they could be right...

Clinton supporters said the thought of a Trump presidency would change all that.

“There will be a spiritual fervor for Democrats to come out and vote,” said Clinton fundraiser and Democratic National Committee member Robert Zimmerman.

 

[Vigilante]

I hear that BLACK MEAT is her favorite!