Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536
Considering how much of the electorate is Black (around 12% I think), and blacks strong support for Democratic presidential nominees in the past (around 92%), it is a rather incredulous claim to say Obama's positions are significantly less popular then they poll to be*, because Blacks will follow Obama purely because of his race.
Even if every single new Black voter mindlessly follows Obama because of his ethnicity, it would only take around 2-5% of whites not voting for him because of his race to negate this.
I rarely read opinion pieces, So I can not comment on Bryan's overall quality, but that piece in particular was pathetic. My high school newspaper ran better articles then that.
*By that I mean that If you made two polls to gauge a policy's support, and only one supplied Obama's position on the policy, there would be a large discrepancy in the polls outcomes.
Well, a few things:
1) While blacks represent roughly 12% of the population, they often are overrepresented in the voting ranks. This time around I believe they represented roughly 14% of the voting total
2) There is no evidence that anti-black sentiment (Bradley effect) played any role in affecting Obama's number. Some analysts even purported an "anti-Bradley effect" but I don't think this idea has yet been proven.
3) Your point about Bill Clinton is a good one, and one that Byron likely didn't consider when he was writing his piece. But it is very clear that black voters in the south supported Obama over Hillary Clinton due principally, if not entirely, due to his having been (half) black. His support thus is more rigid than the traditional black support of democrat candidates and, again, separated from approval of actual policies. Short of proclaiming a national "celebration of Birth of a Nation" day, there's little Obama can do to lose his support from the black community.