This article is nothing more than blog spam. Yeah, it provides a link back to the original post, but that's about it. Even most of the images are lifted.
When the original story is just a click away, a repackager only adds value if he/she expands on the original in some material way -- coming at the story from a different perspective, say, or adding facts or background information that were not present in the original.
This post does none of that. It's a straight-up rewrite of the original, with no new contributions to the story. It makes the same points and even uses the same illustrations as the original. It does cite the original and link to it, but there's nothing in the new piece that would make it a more authoritative version of the story than the old one.
I generally don't oppose people posting links to blogs, but in this case it really does seem like sending people straight to the original post would have been the classier thing to do.
I think the poster has said it was an oversight; that the links to the original article were missed.
In this case it would have been nice to post to the original article, but as you say they're pretty similar.
I think it's much worse when some document is released, and then eight different tech blogs have a minimal but opinionated write up which each get posted to HN, and then people don't reply in the threads but on their own blogs, and then the tech blogs pick up each other's coverage.
-- Much better title.
Why are HN readers trying so hard to be assholes about stuff like this?
-- This is not really needed. the tone is ~petulant.
It does make an unwritten assumption that more black people = more democrat votes. But I guess that is probably a fair assumption to make.
One might attribute the beginning of the polar reversal to Truman's integration of the military services, but by the time of the Kennedy administration sent paratrooper's to Oxford the seeds from which the Dixiecrats grew were clearly sown.
(1) The popular image of a segregated South is of course correct, but segregation was a national policy (e.g. the military). It enjoyed popularity in the North as well (e.g. at the time Jackie Robinson came to the Dodgers there were no Major League teams in the former Confederacy and the only Southern city with a team was Washington D.C. Despite not being subject to any state law and home to the Federal government, it was a bastion of Jim Crow.
There's a lot of elitism from the Northern states still about how they are so progressive but I saw way less racial hostility and more interracial interaction on a daily basis in New Orleans or Atlanta than I do in cities like Chicago or even Saint Louis, a lower midwest town where you can cut the racial tension with a knife.
* 93% of black voters voted for Obama
* 73% of Asian voters voted for Obama
* 71% of Latino voters voted for Obama
* 39% of white voters voted for Obama
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Research/Elec2000/GeolElec2000.HT...