interesteddad

Just to make clear what I'm talking about in terms of racial bloc voting, let's take an example state, perhaps one like North Carolina that has 40% black voters and 60% white voters in Democratic primary.

The black candidate gets 90% of the black vote:

.40 x .90 = 36%

So, he starts at 36% of the Democratic primary vote.

Now, he gets a pathetic 25% of the white vote:

.60 x .25 = 15%

Add the 15% to the 36% from the black vote and you have a 51% winning margin for the nomination.

But, here's the grim general election math, when black voters are 20% of the electorate and white voters are 80%.

.20 x .90 = 18% (from black voters)
.80 x .25 = 20% (from white voters)

The Democratic nominee gets 38% of the vote in the same state against the Republican. There is an insurmountable disconnect between the Democratic Party nominating math and the general election winning math.

The Democrats are structurally configured to nominate losing candidates, unless they can figure out how to INCREASE their white vote in general election, not DECREASE it. Whatever Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry offered, didn't work for white centrist voters. To win elections, Democrats need to figure out a nominating process that identifies candidates with appeal to white centrist voters.

Now, here's the irony to end all ironies. As the black voting block gains more and more power over the Democratic Party (thru "white flight" to the Republicans), their chances of actully electing national and statewide Democratic leaders to push their agenda items decreases. For example, nominating Obama ensures a Republican win which ensures the one more Supreme Court justice necessary to drive a nail in the coffin of affirmative action.