In response to your second edit; the vast majority of black voters voted for Hillary, a significantly greater proportion than any other race. Hillary ended up with 88%[1] of the black vote. Furthermore turnout was down across all demographics in 2016.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

But compared to the last few elections they stayed home [1]. It could be voter suppression but they were also down in California.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the-real-reason-black-voters...

Your link only talks about early voting in South Carolina. I haven't been able to find a source on black voter turnout numbers nationwide in 2016. As I said in my previous comment, voter turnout was down across all demographics[1]. It's very difficult to vote more loyally to the democratic party than black people have over the past two decades or so.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-...

I posted this later[1]. I think overall voter turnout was slightly down. Also, I am not blaming Hillary's loss on specific demographics. Just let's not start fighting with each other. We all need to step up and get in the game for all.

black voter turnout 2016 http://www.phillytrib.com/news/black-voter-turnout-a-look-at...

wide look http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/raw-data-turno...

"Why should we now help you? Serious question."

"We all need to step up and get in the game for all"

You answered your own question.

Look, we're not fighting about some abstract %. Can we agree to fight together? My whole point in this thread was that AA should join the anti-ban movement.

Edit: added not

I may have misunderstood your question.

>But black voters didn't turn out to vote for Hillary in support of Mexicans and Muslims. Why should we now help you?

Seemed like the opposite of coming together. My reading of it is; you're accusing black people of being unsupportive of the democratic candidate, and that consequently black people aren't owed the same unity you seem to be arguing for in later comments.

Sorry, Busy. Black people are Americans. So they can choose to do what they want like the rest of us.

Are you going to come out for us? I'm coming out for you either way.

What makes you think Hillary supported or supports Mexicans or Muslims? I mean, granted she used those groups as a foil to beat up on Trump with but as a rule her past actions (e.g. as Sec. Of State) indicate at best a casual (and in my view cruel) indifference to those communities.

OK. Are you saying Clinton = Trump? All I have to say here is I thought Gore = Bush. But 200k people died. So electing a president gets a little more nuanced.

No, I'm saying the differences, especially on immigration, aren't that great. They're far more alike than not. And to see Hillary supporters suddenly take an active protest-level interest in politics just smacks of partisanship.

Yes, I understand the argument is "so what if they're motivated by partisanship?" That's a facile argument, though, because movements like this require sincere dedication for the goal of the movement. If the partisans' goals aren't aligned with the movement's goals, then the partisans can do more damage than if they simply shut up and sat it out.

I'm still having a hard time.

Hillary never called for a ban on Muslims. Trump has many times. You can argue about the ban being a "muslim ban" or not, but the previous statement is fact.

She's called for doing much worse than banning, under the euphemism of the war on terror. Trump's ban pales in comparison and it's just a terrible bit of partisan hypocrisy to focus on the ban and how important it is to respect Muslims.

OK, again you're saying Clinton = Trump. Or Clinton < Trump. She for sure was a war monger. That concerned me. But she never called for banning muslims.

I feel this is an argument between two people that generally agree but are arguing about some small point.