Warning: this is half diatribe and half collected thoughts about race, identity, and its weaponization by democrats. It's terribly long, probably boring, and certainly controversial, especially, perhaps, the related observation at the end.

Weaponized Identity Politics is a Losing Strategy

I've already indicated my views on how identity politics have been weaponized. The democratic party--shorthand in this essay for certain members of the leadership and prominent democratic pundits--engages in a campaign of "divide and conquer" in order that the people who benefit--insiders comprising the de facto leadership of the organization--face as little opposition as possible from within.

In modern times, since George W Bush, the primary focus has been on making use of ethnic, and recently gender, identity politics. Typically the weaponized ethnic identity politics hyper-focuses on African Americans and excludes, erases, and diminishes others (e.g., Latino, Jewish). This completely misguided approach to political organization is deliberate, of course. The use of the black vote as a cudgel to beat others into submission has been a potent means to preserve power:

• it establishes a control of narrative: anyone who disagrees is ostracized as a racist, privileged, or ignorant, or all of the above
• it boosts the status of one group of already (relatively) high status individuals (i.e., leaders in the black community) and drives loyalty--people naturally are inclined to support and aid those they perceive as being allies
• it introduces friction between factions that may individually threaten the leadership, making it more difficult for these factions to form alliances

It has been a very effective tool for that purpose. Factions with agendas that are not entirely focused on identity have been effectively marginalized in democratic politics: economics, foreign policy, and the social welfare are all second-class citizens in democratic partisan discourse. Exceptions exist, generally only as long as they are within the context of identity politics, and only as long as the causal relationship is "correct" (namely, that racism is part of the discussion, and also is the primary or a major direct or indirect cause of the ill under discussion).

It's not so effective at supporting victories where it counts: winning elections.

Let's assume the above is a cynical, incorrect view: that these people in the leadership of the party truly desire power specifically because the want to advocate for people in the ways they profess, and that they care as much about economic and other policy as they do about identity issues. The data show their tactics are misguided and short-sighted, at best. In fact, the data show the following, over the last five presidential elections (since 2000):

• the share of democratic votes from whites has fallen from a high of 70% in 2000 to just under 55% in 2016
• the share from blacks has gone up from 18% to 23%
• the share from latinos has gone up from 7% to 13%
• the share from asians has gone up from 2% to 7%

It's commonly asserted that black voters are the base of the party. That isn't true. I mean, full stop, the data show otherwise: the drop in white democratic votes has been made up for more by an increase in asian and latino votes than black votes. In fact, the data show the black vote is essentially near its maximum of the past 30-40 years, and typically is much lower!

Now, the response will be something like, "It's not just votes, it's soul, energy, GOTV, activism," and any number of other things which have little or no supporting evidence. This kind of argument is a specious appeal to emotions without basis in fact. To hear the party leadership, the only reason democrats haven't completely disappeared from the electoral map is thanks to black voters, even though the data clearly show otherwise.

The Democratic Party rests on a shaky coalition, and the hammering on identity politics to the exclusion of other issues is a losing strategy for the future. Like black voters, latinos and asians do not comprise a monolithic voting bloc. As the latter two become a larger share of the democratic coalition it will become apparent that there is no "single issue" with respect to identity politics. The current approach to weaponizing identity politics in the democratic party belittles and infantilizes individuals in these groups, and it can only lead to electoral disaster (at all levels, not just top-of-ticket).

Historical Turnout, National

I've used the following sources for this data:

• FEC election data for total votes: 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016
• Exit polls for vote by race data: 2000 (Roper Center), 2004 (CNN), 2008 (NYT) 2012 (CNN), 2016 (CNN)

Percentage of Vote By Year and for the Dem Nominee

How to read the table
There are two columns for each year and race. The "% of Total" column is the percentage of all votes cast by the given race, e.g., in 2000 AAs cast 10% of all 105,405,100 votes, or about 10.5 million votes. The "% of Dem" column is the fraction of votes for the Democratic Nominee attributed to the given race. That is, if 100 people voted in total, and 10% of the vote was from AA, then 10 AA's voted. If Democrats got half the votes (50), and AAs went for them 90%, that means AAs account for 9 / 50, or just under 20% of the Democratic vote.

Key Takeaways
Over the last five presidential elections:

• whites account for a declining fraction of the democratic vote
• blacks accounted for a big jump in the share of votes in 2008, but remain static since* and more strikingly the black vote as a perecentage of the total (across all parties) is static at around 12%
• latinos and asians doubled the share of votes they contribute to the democratic nominee

* There was a dip in 2016, but given the primary turnout to-date and character of Trump, it's not unreasonable to expect 2012 or possibly 2008 levels of turnout among black voters.

Select States

I'm presenting the "Key Takeaways" first because there are a lot of tables supporting the conclusions.
Key Takeaways

• In "deep red" states, there are not enough black voters to overcome any deficit--the number of whites who vote R is more than the number of whites and blacks who vote D, even assuming 100% black turnout
• In swing states (e.g. Florida, Ohio), the same thing is true
• Data for hispanic voters is just terrible; aside from the issues in reporting at low-granularity by rounding to thousands, it's unlikely the percentage of hispanic registered voters who actually vote is close enough to 100 to have the numbers indicated in the source data
• The share of votes for democratic nominees, and the turnout rates, from blacks in deep red, swing, and solid blue states are all roughly the same: about 90% and 85% - 90%, respectively

Some states are turning from red to swing states. Most often, as shown by these numbers, this is driven by an influx of white liberals moving from states like California, and asian and latino immigrants choosing to settle outside of regions they have historically. The Census results of this year will be especially interesting to see if this trend is confirmed!

The harsh reality these data tell us is that, were one to stick strictly to racial demographics as a means to electoral victory (at any level of office), one should choose to focus less on issues affecting African Americans and more on those affecting latinos, then asians.

Data sources:

• 2000: Census Table 4a
• 2004: Census Table 4a
• 2008: Census Table 4b
• 2012: Census Table 4b
• 2016: Census Table 4b

The raw numbers of those who voted are in 1000s. The "Turnout %" is based on total voting versus total registered, not total voting versus eligible population, which is the number often reported. I wanted to use this number because it shows how close to the actual ceiling most states are, by demographic, without boosting registration rates (assuming changes in registration rates yield proportional changes in voting rates).

Alabama

California

Florida

Mississippi

Missouri

New York

Ohio

South Carolina

Related Observation

As noted by a commenter, this likely deserves its own essay, but I have something to say about antisemitism in this country.

Antisemitism runs deep in this country and is often entirely ignored, especially the strain that exists in the south in blacks and whites in equal measure, because of the thinking that Jews have been "whitened" in some sense (i.e. that Jews are accepted as "white" now). Some creatures in other venues will point to cooperation during the civil rights area as counter-evidence, or point out racism among some Jewish communities in some twisted tu quoque argument, but the fact is African Americans are four times as likely as whites to harbor antisemitic thoughts. The relationship between these two communities is complex, to be sure, but we shouldn't ignore the bigotry present (on either side) when discussing current affairs. I believe Bernie never had a chance at anything more than a plurality of the black vote in the south: he could have run against a white racist Republican and still lost in a landslide (some might say he did, twice) due in no small part to antisemitism. Some in my family fled Europe with nothing but the clothes on their backs while Hitler was rising to power--they'd have been exterminated had they not escaped: a fact that I am ever grateful for. Their time here in America wasn't exactly roses and sunshine, thanks to the antisemitism then, and it persists today. I don't appreciate the eliding of antisemitism and the heritage of hate against Jews that exists in this country, and it's especially galling to see it in the the party that uses identity as a weapon. I simply don't trust democrats (as a group; some individuals are fine) on this matter, and I never will.