An oldie but a goodie. And then they (NAACP)pretent to be offended when the President gives their organization a pass.

They better do something--it looks, from this poll, like 17 percent will vote for Bush. If that happens, they're toast.

Every 4 years there are stories the GOP is going to win a larger percentage of the African American vote. I believed this in 2000 until the Dems pulled every trick possible (especially the Jasper TX ads) to ensure this didn't happen. Unfortunately I expect a repeat of this in '04.

Start reading LaShawn Barber. Some interesting postings.

Seems the chat room at NAACP about W not attending had some interesting comments.

Sandy, come on: we're lazy. Please elaborate on the NAACP chat comments...

I don't think Jasper TX will play again. Bush has run the Country for 4 years and the world has not come to an end.

Kerry is not going to motiveate them to get out the vote and fear won't do it either. Bush may only up his pecentage a little, but a small drop in turnout vis a vis 2000 would be a disaster for the D's.

Its not really about percentages, its about turnout.

I see 2000 as the high-water mark. There is no possible way for them to do any better in the black community. No way to have better turn out or to be more solid behind the donks.

Sandy: Thanks for the pointer to Ms. Barber's blog. It makes for very interesting reading.

This is for EO who claims to be lazy.

It's a myth that the Democrats need a huge majority of the black vote to be competitive. While they do need a majority of blacks to win, they don't need anywhere near their current 90%. There would have to be a huge shift for the Democrats to feel any pain.

There are two reasons for this: blacks are only 10% of voters; and the states with highest percentage of black voters are in the South, where the GOP already has a lock.

Of the twelve states where blacks made up at least 15% of the vote in 2000, Bush won ten, all in the South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). Only Florida is competitive (though FL is obviously very important). The two states won by Gore were Maryland and Delaware, and the white vote was about evenly divided in both states, so Gore wouldn't have lost there unless he actually lost the black vote.

Massive Democrat majorities among blacks certainly exist in every state, but they aren't propping up the Dems in any of the states where the black vote matters (except FL).

Tom: if the GOP won 25% of the black vote everywhere, the Democrats (given current patterns) would be lucky to field 38 Senators. That is really where it counts.

Jim,

I tested your hypothesis for the 2000 Senate election. (Exit poll data isn't freely available for the 2002 election.)

Giving the Republican candidate 25% of the black vote in every state would have cost the Democrats 2 of the 34 races:
Michigan (11% black)
Washington (only 2% black, but an extremely close election)

Two other Democrat wins would have been very close:
Florida (15% black; margin went from 5% to 1%)
Missouri (12% black; margin went from 3% to 1%)

This analysis only looks at 34 states in one election, and it's based on exit poll data, which is far from perfect, so it doesn't prove anything. But it does seem to indicate that a 25% black vote would cost the Dems a few Senate seats.

Of course, 25% is about double what the average Republican candidate actually got in 2000. That's a big increase, and I think we're still years away from seeing anything like it.

Tom:

At 25%, the GOP would have won Landrieu's seat in 2002, Schumer might not have beaten D'Amato in 1998, Cleland would probably have lost in 1996, Hollings would have lost earlier, Corzine would not have won, and so on. This year, the pickups would be much more obvious - all 5 Senate seats in the South, CA, and possibly WA.

I agree 25% is unlikely, but if the GOP did it, the modern Democratic party would cease to exist.

Landrieu, Cleland, and Hollings, definitely.
But D'Amato would have needed 44% of the non-white vote to beat Schumer; Franks would have needed 35% to beat Corzine; and Fong would have needed 45% to beat Boxer.

The bottom line is, whites are still a large majority of voters in every state. That means that if the race is close among white voters, then either candidate needs a big chunk of the minority vote to win. In Southern states, Republicans win big enough among whites that the minority vote usually doesn't matter. If Republicans could get 25% of the black vote, you're right, no Southern Democrat would ever win. But in states like NY, NJ, and CA, 25% isn't nearly enough.

The Democratic and Republican parties are, first and foremost, dedicated to winning political office for their candidates. If blacks start voting in line with their values, the short-term result may be a Republican blowout, but the long-term result will be to shift the center to the right, as the Democrats will go where the votes are. (Well, actually they'll go to some spot that maximizes their votes and their money, which will still be somewhat left of center. It'll get very interesting if blacks start to insist on vouchers. A Democratic party forced to choose between the NEA and blacks will be a very different Democratic party.)

I'm black and i think the dems have crippled the black community through enslavement to welfare trapping us in failing schools by pandering to the NEA and utter political brainwashing. to me the dems are completely offensive and i pray for the day that their strangle hold the black community is finally broken.

TAKE RESPONIBILITY VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!!!!