General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo Minorities Do Better Under Democrats?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/democrats_are_good_for_minorities_minority_voters_are_making_a_rational.htmlPresident Bill Clinton accepts the Thurgood Marshall Lifetime Achievement Award at an NAACP Legal Defense Fund event in New York City on Nov. 1, 2001.
***SNIP
Specifically, looking at data from 1948 to 2010, Hajnal and Horowitz found that African Americans tend to experience substantial gains under Democratic presidents whereas they tend to incur significant losses or remain stagnant under Republicans. On average, under Democratic presidents, blacks gained $895 in annual income, saw a 2.41 point drop in their poverty rate, and a 0.36 point drop in their unemployment rate. By contrast, under Republicans, blacks gained $142 a year, along with a 0.15 point increase in poverty and a 0.39 point increase in unemployment.
Whats more, this was true in relative terms as well. As they write, [W]hether we look at the gap between blacks and whites or at the ratio of black to white outcomes, the patterns are essentially identical: Republican administrations were, on average, bad for African Americans and Democratic administrations were, on average, good for them, both in absolute and relative terms.
The cumulative (i.e. year-after-year) differences are huge. Across 16 years of Democratic governance, the black poverty rate, for example, declined by nearly 40 points. Across 35 years of Republican governance, by contrast, it increased by 3 points. Indeed, during most years of Republican presidential leadership, black poverty grew and black unemployment increased.
Of course, this could all be a flukethe statistical artifact of broad trends that go beyond presidential politics. Its possible that Democrats had the good fortune of good economic times while Republicans governed during downturns and recessions. Or, alternatively, the findings could be affected by the influence of divided government and congressional action. As such, Hajnal and Horowitz ran another test that controlled for median income, inflation, changes in the economy, and control of Congress. In each case, the results were the same: All else equal, black family incomes grew over $1,000 faster annually under Democratic leadership than they did under Republican presidents. Likewise, the black poverty rate declined 2.6 points faster under Democrats and the black unemployment rate fell almost one point faster.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)liberal N proud
(60,338 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)My late Grandmother told me that....and she was a staunch FDR Democrat who actually voted for FDR and my grandfather was in the CCC's!
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)1st term, Obama's economic policy was: save Wall Street at all costs and appease vanquished GOP by not going FDR on economic stimulus in the form of big infrastructure spending and helping out distressed homeowners.
In the face of the great recession, this government did the max to protect the financial institutions and reduce the deficit, but could not solidify unemployment insurance, spend more on infrastructure (which creates jobs), etc.
Even if Obama's economic theory today flipped to FDR (instead of Alan Greenspan Part 2), the Total Obstruction that is the GOP run House of Representatives would stymie any constructive change. The GOP doesn't want to see any positive economic news on President Obama's watch (I wonder when/if he ever realized this. Would be fascinating see his response.)
Obama didn't have to look out for Blacks specifically (he stated as much which is ok - he is the President of all of us U.S. Americans), but a jobs bill would have helped EVERYONE.
Quantitative Easing as an economic stimulus ain't helping NOBODY, except the CEO of Bank of America.
On Edit: I shouldn't have to say the "Yes, Afican Americans do worse under the Republicans " because that truth is self evident. Fuck those guys.