Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
4. The problem with the analysis is it's based on the assumption that all of those people would
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:39 PM
Nov 2016

have voted.

It's hard to argue that given there was effectively no change in the percentage of African American or Latino voters as a percentage of the electorate. It's not that they didn't turn out, it's that a slightly higher number of them voted for Trump and a much higher number of whites (mostly men) voted for Trump. Palast has his conclusion in mind and then creates a story around it. But there's no evidence based on a decline in turnout among minority groups as a percentage of the electorate from 2008 or 2012. His "evidence" is based on wanting to believe they would have turned out, but given those groups turned out in roughly the same percentages as 2008 and 2012, it's a hard argument to make that the law change in 2013 had such a major impact.

It's just as inaccurate as people complaining the polls were massively wrong. The national polls were off by about 2 points, which was the difference between winning and losing. Switching 1 in 100 voters would have almost exactly flipped the electoral college (it would have been 307 Clinton to to 231 Trump instead of 232 Clinton to 306 Trump).

Look at the evidence and then find the conclusions.

The gutting of the Civil Rights Act should be opposed, but on principle that people should be allowed to vote.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Greg Palast: GOP Stole Th...»Reply #4