Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
It was actually by a % or 2, it wasn't as much as you are making it out to be. Clinton and Gore both had high 90s support among black Americans.
|
No, they didn't.
Clinton 83% in 1992
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_92.html
Clinton 84% in 1996
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_96.html
Gore 90% in 2000
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_96.html
Kerry 88% in 2004
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_04.html
Obama 95% in 2008
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_08.html
Obama 93% in 2012
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_12.html
Now, you might point out that Obama carried only 3% more of the black vote in 2012 than Gore did in 2000, and you would be correct. However, if Rubio were to win only 3% more of the Latino vote in 2016 than Romney carried in 2012, the election wouldn't even be close. Rubio would win the election in a landslide. If Rubio could even just improve the Republican showing among Hispanics to even something close to 50%, he'd win.
Interestingly, Hispanics/Latinos account for 16.3% of the American population, but only 10% of the actual voting demographic. Blacks account for 13% of the population and 13% of actual voters. What does that tell you? Either black people are more likely to vote, or black people are more likely to turn out to the polls when there is a black candidate on the ticket. Yes, it is an oversimplification, but don't think for a second that race is not a major factor when talking about elections, regardless of the issues. If a Cuban or Mexican or Puerto Rican American was on the top of the Republican ticket, I think they would stand a very, very good chance of winning in 2016.