the best way to explain the voting preferences of Southern whites is race, but the best way to predict their behavior is to understand that racist voting has become simple partisan voting

Should the words "explain" and "predict" be swapped in this sentence?

The attempt to plot curves through this graph bugs the hell out of me. Because it looks as if there are two distinct sub-universes here: (a) the 42 states on the left, which have little if any correlation of African-American pop to white voting, and (b) the eight states on the right, with a quite pronounced correlation.

Fitting a curve to all 50 states implies that what's true for the eight is also true to some extent for the 42 - but the main evidence of that is the behavior of the eight. Which is what bothers me.

I'm pretty sure the label for the party makes much difference. The message is pretty clearly: the white dominance party - where the pscyhological need for that is felt by white voters.

Oregon doesn't need a white dominance party because blacks are not the challenge to the white power structure, through simple arithmetic.

Race matters where it matters.

1. I love the way the grapher decided to bend the curve to make it go right through the heart of the five states on the bottom right. A linear curve wouldn't be nearly as dramatic.

2. The five states at the bottom right are SC, GA, AL, MS and LA. Contiguous, southern. Hmmmm, how do you suppose adding a southern dummy variable would affect his hypo?

3. Give me a break.

The following is the annual list from Black Enterprise 2007 (the most recent I could find)
http://tinyurl.com/567uc8

The full list of the 10 best cities for African Americans:

1. Washington D.C.
2. Atlanta, GA
3. Raleigh-Durham, NC
4. Houston, TX
5. Nashville, TN
6. Dallas, TX
7. Charlotte, NC
8. Indianapolis, IN
9. Columbus, OH;
10. Jacksonville, FL.

What does this tell us about the racist governance of those racist whites in racist states like GA, TX, TN, and NC?

In re Ostap:

1. I love the way the grapher decided to bend the curve to make it go right through the heart of the five states on the bottom right. A linear curve wouldn't be nearly as dramatic.

Well, which model fits better? Does the curve fit so much better than a straight line to justify the added complexity? This is the sort of thing statisticians just love to debate ...

2. The five states at the bottom right are SC, GA, AL, MS and LA. Contiguous, southern. Hmmmm, how do you suppose adding a southern dummy variable would affect his hypo?

I think that's the point, ain't it? Ever heard of somethin' called Jim Crow? For that matter, where were most African-American "involuntary immigrants" sent when they came here and why?

As Ezra and the commenters make clear, as an instructive tool this graph is interesting, but not much help if we are looking backward in trying to explain "how" or "why."

But I think it is very useful in helping us look forward to understand that, if the Republicans should actually heed the message of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles that they need to change their message and expand their appeal beyond their current constituency, this kind of information points them in the direction they should probably go. That is, the GOP could expand its appeal by reaching out to African-American voters because the party is already strong in states where African-Americans live.

Now, don't misunderstand. Under current leadership, I don't see this actually happening at all. What I'm saying is this is the direction that the facts on the ground point the GOP in. For them to actually follow that direction, they'd have to come up with a message that appeals to the black voter, and do it in a way that leads them to believe the Democrats have foresaken them -- decidedly hard to do when the Democrats put Obama in the White House.

Still, some voices in the GOP have urged outreach to blacks through their common ground of social conservatism with regard to faith and gay marriage issues. And prior to the Civil Rights era, the Republican party was the home party for African Americans. Maybe not in the next couple of years, but maybe by the time of the 2016 elections attitudes in the black community could shift such that, having cleared the hurdle of electing a black president, they are now ready to call the Democrats to task for perceived benign neglect by white party leaders.

I also wonder if some in the party aren't looking at the same graph when they float Michael Steele as potential RNC Chair?

Yeah, and by exit polls we now have President Kerry.

If they were once voting for Republicans because they were racist, they're now voting for Republicans because they are Republicans.

Or they are voting for Republicans because they feel Republicans provide good governance.
Look at that list of the best cities for African Americans again and tell me why you think more black people don't vote for Republicans.
Obviously Republicans are perfectly capable of presiding over governments that benefit African Americans.

The diversity of the GWB years

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm
Over four years and 24 appointments, Bush has named to his Cabinet five women, four African-Americans, three Hispanics and two Asian-Americans.

Before Bush, no person of color had been named to any of the four most prestigious Cabinet jobs — at the departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Justice. Now he has named two blacks as secretary of State and a Mexican-American as attorney general.

kaybeel, your last comment (3:04 p.m.) is a non sequitur.
I'd guess that few if any of the cities listed are presided over by Republicans, and some of them have black mayors.

Still, some voices in the GOP have urged outreach to blacks through their common ground of social conservatism with regard to faith and gay marriage issues.

This is all well and good, but the African American community is does not have the economic privilege to support any party but the one they perceive is going to improve their economic lives.

I don't think that, deep down, either Bush or McCain were racists in the traditional sense of the word. They were, however, completely lacking in empathy regarding the economic circumstances, needs, and concerns of much of the electorate, and African-Americans felt this most acutely. All the anti-gay, socially-conservative outreach in the world is just going to come across as patronizing from a party that calls basic economic policies aimed at improving the lives of the middle class and lower middle class as some kind of insidious Communist plot to undermine America.

The diversity of the GWB years ...

It's just possible, El V., that African Americans are less impressed with token appointments, and more interested in actual policies that benefit them (and perhaps some general competence as well).

Also, what Tyro said.

some of them have black mayors

Indeed. And of the eleven cities listed (Raleigh and Durham are two cities, each with a mayor) seven have Democratic mayors.

It's just possible, El V., that African Americans are less impressed with token appointments, and more interested in actual policies that benefit them

Great!

Then why always playing the race card?

ElV, regardless of McCain's and Bush's personal feelings regarding race, they did depend on the votes of people who were motivated by fears and resentment that somewhere, somehow, there were African-Americans being perceived to be "getting something" they didn't deserve. This, ultimately, influenced what kind of policies they could have supported and what kind of voters they were going to appeal to during campaigns. And unlike "socially moderate" Republicans, who were generally rather well-heeled, African Americans do not have the privilege to simply write these sorts of offenses off because they feel they are getting other sorts of electoral satisfaction.

In short, when the Republican party supports policies that are hostile to the poor and embraces an white nationalist/pro-Confederate narrative of the United States, it simply doesn't matter what the color of the skin of the cabinet appointees are: people care more about how politics will help their lives and whether politicians are empowering insidious elements of the electorate, rather than marginalizing them.

Then why always playing the race card?

It's totally unclear to me what "playing the race card" means in this context...

I'd guess that few if any of the cities listed are presided over by Republicans, and some of them have black mayors.

Cities don't operate as an island. They especially can't be healthy if everyone in the rest of the state is voting against the city's interest (because they are such racists).

But if you think they do, let me ask another way. Why would anybody living in a city like Detroit vote for a Democrat?

guess where the nativists got upset about the Irish

guess where the Irish didn't care for the newly arrived Italians

guess where whitey was upset by the presence and/or success of his Chinese, Japanese and Mexican brother

Lou Barrleta didn't give a fuck about immigration or Latinos 15 years ago.