If you want to claim going from 90% to 93% is a "significant" ( a term you're using loosely from a statistically perspective) then you have to say the same as for jumping from 84% to 90% between Clinton and Gore as also "significant." Either way the trend seemed to be heading upwards since the 90s. Obama had an increase into the low 90s from the 88% that Kerry had prior to him which wasn't an unprecedented change as we just pointed out Clinton to Gore.

I'm not using the term loosely. Explain how going from 90% to 95% in 8 years is not a significant change. Or better yet, going from 88% to 95% in 4 years.

And yes, the jump from Clinton to Gore was significant. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, exactly. So something in the late 90s caused more people to vote democrat in the 00 election, that's supposed to mean that the increase in 08 wasn't because Obama was black? Just ask yourself this extremely simple question: If you have a white guy running on the same platform instead of Obama, do you think those numbers are any different? Now take it even further, you have a white democrat running under Obama's platform, but you have a black republican, and do you still think the white democrat takes 95% of the black vote?

You do have a fair point about voter turnout, regardless I'd go back to point one that as a whole the percentages weren't an unprecedented statistical increase.

Black turnout increased dramatically in '08. I don't really know what you mean by "weren't an unprecedented statistical increase." I never said it's the largest increase in black turnout ever, but it was a a clear anomaly when it comes to black voter participation. How can you honestly say this isn't because he was black?

Your third point though seems somewhat irrelevant seeing as how we have a two party system that endorses one primary candidate each. It's rare to have two legitimate candidates for one party in any presidential race as it's self-defeating to split the votes, so we'd never really be able to entertain that scenario regardless. The best we can do is compare demographics between election years because we're never going to get two major democratic candidates running against each other aside from the primary elections (which have much lower voter turnout as it is.)

I never said anything at all about a third legitimate candidate splitting the vote. I'm saying people who voted for Obama because he's black aren't just the extra 7% that voted democrat. There are people who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama who voted for Obama because he is black.