strawman.
Some other theories about why black turnout was low this election:
Voter suppression: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppressio...
Russian-funded fake social media activism specifically targeted at black people: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/20/559113232/russian-operatives-...
https://thinkprogress.org/black-matters-us-site-90625b18f262...
Both narratives are virtually impossible to prove or disprove, which makes them perfect fodder for the wishful thinking of the liberal think tanks.
I find them to be highly insulting to the working class whites and blacks that they pertain to.
It is the height of condescension when comparatively wealthy people ascribe a high level of gullibility to people groups who they likely don't associate with. It's patronizing and dehumanizing, and honestly, smug.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda and information warfare. Rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural.
Critically examining the way false information is spread via social media is not insulting or classist.
If you think that the fervor with which this is being done isn't being pursued due to a narrative that it caused Trump to win, you're being very naive.
I also resent the fact that you are insinuating I CALLED black people poor and helpless. I didn't. I simply characterized a belief that I believe many pushing the Russian meddling are running with: That these campaigns were not only run (of course they were) but that they were persuasive enough to have had an effect on the outcome of the election.
You aren't wrong about all classes being susceptible to propaganda. I've been shocked by how many well-off people I work and socialize with (fellow left thinking people) have begun to resemble the right-wing people I witnessed for years jumping to conclusions about the fake-scandal that was Benghazi. Rational people who latch onto rumors as facts.
Steve Bannon = White Supremacist (he's not, just an asshole) Donald Trump being blackmailed by Kremlin with tapes of him with hookers (zero evidence) Russians hacked voting machines in key states (zero evidence) Russian ads on social media influenced voting outcomes (zero evidence)
I want to point out that none of these are things that sway people's existing opinions. They are all just confirming their existing biases.
Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote, despite the media screaming constantly that Trump is racist.
This stuff is really, really not conducive to good discussion.
> Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote
A few things here:
* Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?
* Since the starting proportions were so skewed, you would expect lower black turnout to disproportionately impact Democrats (due to simple compositional effects).
* The propaganda was specifically anti-Hillary (not anti-voting), so you would expect it to disproportionately impact Democrats.
Do you think it is an unfair statement? Perhaps I should have said "despite the media frequently asserting that Trump is racist".
> * Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?
I compared the 2016 and 2012 CNN exit polls for this: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls and http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
I know exit polls aren't perfect but the samples are large here and I don't see any reason to expect some kind of pro-Trump or anti-Romney bias in these.
What exactly is the Russian propaganda you're talking about? I've only read about them promoting both sides of contentious issues like BLM