The same could be said of Trump in 2016 who lost by even smaller margins, but you are using that as proof-positive as some type of massive voter swing.
Goddamn, you're so consistently disingenuous.
The swing wasn't from "zero" to a razor-thin margin, dumbass. Obama had won the previous two elections by very safe margins and the Democrats should have done the same against a horrible candidate like Trump in 2016 if they'd had any kind of Black turnout.
They went from "winning easily" to "barely losing by 0.3%" to "barely winning by 0.3%". Those are NOT the same two swings.
Do you disagree with racial backlash against Obama from white voters as being real or are you still on the economic anxiety angle?
Still? Don't put words in my mouth without quoting me cause you're a dishonest creep. Of course racial shyt was a huge part of Trump's win and a Black president in power is a big reason why he was even there. But considering all the Black voters the Dems lost, it obviously isn't a sufficient explanation by itself, is it?
I want a proudly pro-Black party that can also win. What do you want to do, hide the Black folk so you have a chance to sneak out a win with policies that neither Black nor progressive nor young voters give a shyt about?
you're not even comparing like for like data. But it seems you're intent on blaming black voters for Clinton losing, despite Biden winning while doing worse among black voters than both Obama and Clinton.
No, YOU weren't comparing like for like data when you disingenuously said that the Black share of the dem vote only dropped 1% while ignoring that the Black share of eligible voters grew during that time.
But let's just focus on the fact that I just gave you 5 links from serious sources that support my exact argument and you responded with a throwaway line. At least you signal when you're out of your league.