Search Tracking Purports To Show Effect of Racism On '08 Election 511
Hugh Pickens writes "Garance Franke-Ruta writes about a new study of racially charged search terms on Google that aims to predict the effects of the Bradley effect, a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some U.S. elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. 'How much we are under-representing people who are intolerant and therefore unlikely to vote for Obama is an open question,' says Andrew Kohut, the president of Pew Research Center. 'I suspect not a great deal, but maybe some. And "maybe some" could be crucial in a tight election.' The study found that the percentage of an area's total Google searches from 2004-2007 that included the racially charged search for the word 'n****r' is a is a large and robust negative predictor of Obama's vote share. 'A one standard deviation increase in an area's racially charged search is associated with a 1.5 percentage point decrease in Obama's vote share, controlling for John Kerry's vote share,' writes Stephens-Davidowitz in the study. The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points (PDF) of the national popular vote in the 2008 election. This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage, country-wide."
Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
What they failed to mention is the "Same Party as George W. Bush" disadvantage. Trust me, McCain might have had a built-in advantage, but it was more than overshadowed by the fact he was the Republican candidate who happened to follow Bush. There were people out there who would not have voted for Abraham Lincoln if he was running on the Republican ticket after Bush.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This very same sentiment may well, oust Obama from the presidency this time around.
I know MANY people that are pretty much thinking this time around "anyone but Obama".
Personally, I'm in this group too....I've said it bef
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing to see: People wanting to vote ANYTHING but actually voting for someone that is not the opposing party's candidate.
Anything but Obama seems to mean Whatshisname (yes, I ain't American) the Republicans have running this year. I'd love to see what happens if enough people realised there are other choices beyond the obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting you brought that up.
In the past few elections, I've heard at least of a few other candidates, a Green party one...etc.
This go around, I've not heard even a mention of a single viable 3rd party candidate even trying out there....
I've actually not even heard a name of anyone else this go a
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the problems though. The entire system is rigged so that there really aren't any other choices beyond the two parties with all the power. It's a two team game, and a significant percentage of the voters don't care who the candidates are, they just want to vote so that "their" team wins. Not to mention that any third team is rendered nearly invisible and can't even get on the field of play.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been quite possible for a third party candidate to win. Here are some examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000 [wikipedia.org]
Still waiting for examples of how it's possible for 3rd party candidates to *WIN*.
In both of these cases, not only did these candidates lose, but they split the vote so that the candidate most opposite of themselves won. IOW, a vote for Perot was actually a vote for Clinton, and a vote for Nader was actually a vote for Bush.
We need instant run-off elections.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no...I'd not vote an 'ignorant' Republican...but from what I've seen, I don't think Romney has shown himself to be an ignorant person.
At the very least, he seems to have much more on the ball than, say...Joe Biden, who can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth...and is only one heart attack away from the presidency.
I have to heartily disagree with you in my view of Obama. Perhaps you are describing him from a European point of view, not the US view on liberal vs conservative.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.
I think he believes he is so right, and that the US's approach for all these years is so fundamentally wrong..that he cannot step back, and see how he has been hurting the country.
Is he a 'bad' guy? No. I think he's likely an amiable person, and I'd have a beer with him too. I just think he makes for a horrible president, and I'm pretty much opposed to 99% of what he supports and his vision for the US.
Sure, he might be somewhere near the 'center' as you described in Europe...which to many Americans as being far off the left side of the liberal scale, it prevents acurate readings.
In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.
I think Hope and Change, rock-stardom and being the first black president overshadowed the election so much, that no one paid attention to his really political ambitons, till after the hoopla died down, and we saw him in action in office.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.
What has Obama done that's "left-wing"? "Obama's health care plan" is essentially the same as the one implement by Mitt Romney and suggested nationally by Bob Dole. He rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing. Canada's conservative government did.
In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.
Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt [wikipedia.org]? Are you really sure you're not just repeating what you heard on Fox News?
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
In my humble opinion?
Yes.
With what I've read about Obama, his past (what we can find of it)...his education, his writings (that self narrated book is quite revealing)...and his actions in offices (senator, president)....I do believe he is way out on the left (US version), and in many ways, that he has fundamental differences with what the US has been, what it stands for and how it operates.
I shudder to think what he and his administration would try for in a 2nd term, unencumbered with the need for re-election. I think they would unleash an unprecedented attempt at moving their far left agenda.
No, not just fox news...I find it best to try to get the news from as many sources as possible, and make up ones own mind. So far, this is my opinion on the fella and his movement.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry I just can't let this slide, cite something. What has he done that is so left leaning. I didn't like Obama before he was elected because I knew "Hope and change" was bullshit to get him elected. Now that he's been president for a few years a lot of people who supported him during his campaign seem to agree with me, so i just have to ask, what has he done that so radically changed the face of this country that republicans refer to him as far left leaning?
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Interesting)
Second of all, Social Security is not a ponzi scheme because it does not rely on new investors to pay old ones - Your social security payout is based on how much you invested in it during your working years. The current questions (of solvency decades in the future) arise from three issues. First, that at the time it was created the average lifespan was 5 years in excess of the retirement age, not 20. Second, the max for social security witholding ($100K) hasn't been raised in 20 years. Third and most importantly, Social Security was created at a time when the workers shared in the wealth they created, which has not happened for nearly 30 years now.
The first problem can be resolved by very slowly raising the retirement age in recognition of the fact that we are living longer, and this is already (slowly) underway. It will also require that money in the Social Security trust fund be locked to being spent on Social Security (put in some form of lockbox, if you will) rather than being stolen blind to cover the general fund. This will also need to be combined with efforts to improve health in general (If you work out regularly, the years added to your life will be approximately taken by time spent working out - but the latter third of your life will also be good enough to be worth living. You will get old, you don't have to get decrepit). The second can be trivially resolved by raising SocSec witholding in recognition of the dollar's value deflating over time. The third will require a readjustment of tax rates back in line with previous rates (compared to the current values which are historically low - ludicrously low on higher incomes, to the point of being the lowest in living memory - and low compared to other developed nations). It will also require, ultimately, that the baby boomers - who are collectively nothing so much as the I've Got Mine, Fuck You generation - cease being a political/economic force, which can be achieved by simply waiting another 20 or so years.
But this requires thought, and planning for the future, and possibly even delaying gratification now so we can have it later. It'll probably also require that the next war we start come with a war tax to pay for it (like every other war in US history, except for Bush's wars). You may now return to your scheduled trip through the Faux News fever swamps.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I would posit to you, that it is exactly a modified ponzi scheme, based on what you said.
Current people on SS, their benefits are being paid by CURRENT worker...or current contributors as it were.
The reason SS is in trouble, is...that we now have less and less current workers per SS recipien
Re: (Score:3)
You claim that Obama is further left than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that "I have some doubts as to [Jesus'] divinity." Further left than Teddy Roosevelt (known, basically, for siding with the progressives instead of the industrialists and ending the Guilded Age as a result - at a time when the Pinkertons were murdering people who led labor movements)? Further left than Franklin Rooseve
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.
Oh please. Obama is the biggest hypocrite we've ever elected.
He promised more open, transparent government. He denied more FOIA requests than Bush, by orders of magnitude. And the token White House Petition website is basically just another way for him to shout about how right he is and how he totally agrees with you, while only rarely being able to back that up with actual actions he's done.
He promised to improve America's standing in the world, make countries actually like us again. And he gave us more of what Bush did - ramped up drone killings, invaded Pakistan, and odds are we'll be at war with Iran by Election Day, the way things are going.
He promised healthcare reform. We ended up with a compromise that took the worst of private health insurance and the worst of socialized healthcare, none of the benefits of either, and topped it off with some rather superficial reforms.
Just about the only thing he's done *anything* on was gay rights, and that boiled down to "repealing DADT" and *accidentally* endorsing gay marriage. Gitmo hasn't been shut down. He hasn't ended the War on Drugs. He hasn't fixed the economy. He's actually *increased* the Federal deficit.
He promised us hope. And now, we don't even have that.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because I don't want to see the US set up and run like countries in the EU?
I'm seeing the problems in Greece, France, Spain...etc...and frankly, I'm not thrilled with what I see. At some point, you run out of other peoples' money to spend, and you get the problems we're seeing in parts of Europe.
I see Obama and his admin, wanting to set us further down the path towards emulating the EU way of life, and that's not what I want for my country.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, trouble is...the US won't have any Germany to bail them out like they're having to do with the rest of Europe right now.
Frankly, I'm thinking Germany is getting very weary of bailing everyone out too..and may just stop at some time here soon...which will throw the euro into a tailspin it might not recover from.
Re: (Score:3)
GP's point was that Germany is still a very "left leaning" country, from American standpoint, with strong social welfare, high taxes etc. But they don't have problems that Greece or Italy are having. Which seems to indicate that "socialism" isn't a problem - unrestrained spending is.
Curiously enough, US today has unrestrained spending without much "socialism". Go figure. And it's not that Republicans change that - they promise every time before the election, and every time they actually are elected they spe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Abraham Lincoln destroyed what was left of the Jeffersonian model of the United States and left us with strict federalism. His complete disregard for the Constitution set the stage for the complete disregard that we see today. He was the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus, for instance.
Slavery was bad, but look at where we find ourselves today. We have more black men in shackles today than we did at the time of the Civil War. We gave up state sovereignty for...essentially nothing. And now any state that thinks it might be better off on its own doesn't have that option. That's not freedom.
Abraham Lincoln was the worst thing to happen to the US since Alexander Hamilton.
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Funny)
Look man, he had to wipe out those vampires no matter the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Palin lost him the election. That and not running as mccain 2000. Had he run as McCain from 2000 he would have had a good shot, but Palin still would have sank him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw a number of people who were on the fence and were pushed over that fence by the simple act of McCain choosing Palin as a running mate. Palin is an idiot fundie nutbag that was bad enough to help people get over whatever lingering racism they may have had regarding Obama.
Palin proved that there's something the electorate fears more than a black man in the White House.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Palin's purpose wasn't to win voters, it was to energise the base.
Actually, I think that's wrong. As I understand it, Palin was a deliberate gamble. McCain chose her because his advisors told him they had an opportunity to pick up women voters. They hoped that some Democratic female voters would abandon the party to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because Obama had beaten Hillary. It's interesting to wonder if McCain would have chosen a black running mate if Hillary had won the nomination. Unfortunately, while Palin seemed ideal, she was a last minute suggestion and
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
both sides have nut jobs you just don't like the republican ones more that you don't like the democrats ones so you vilify them. unfortunately under the current two party system the most whacked out nut-jobs are generally the one elected on both sides and then we wonder why the country is headed to hell.
four years ago it was those war mongering right wing nut jobs killing th economy now it is the left wing socialist commies giving away all of the money they can ruining our economy. really what we need is a third party who can sit in the middle and say your both nucking futs and come up with a less insane perhaps even a workable solution but as soon as a third party starts up it is killed by the other two or is even more insane than the other two we already have and is shunned by the rest of the country
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Most races were pretty even split for obama/mccain, except for one.
Black voters gave 97% of the votes to obama.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
And blacks voted 88% for Kerry, 90+% for Al Gore, and in 1994 around 95% for Clinton. Last I checked they were all white.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I have is this study: it's completely one-sided. It only considers the negative effect his race had on the campaign, whereas it would be just as interesting and important to see the positive effect his race had. For example, he was 'making history' (and he did). Would you rather vote for the guy making history, or the guy trying to stop history?
The thing I like about the study is it's an original and interesting approach to solving the problem. Maybe it can be refined, but I like the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they perhaps realize that they are not white and ultra-wealthy.
This is the true constituency of the Republican party.
Why would ANY one else be foolish enough to vote GOP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to take a wild guess that those kind of numbers beat the 3-5% range of racist people stated in this article. I guess those voters didn't realize this isn't a Miss America
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When Obama won, a lot of people were saying it's so interesting and historic to have our first black president.
I responded that it is sort of interesting in the trivia sense, just like it was interesting that Truman was the first haberdasher president.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the choice of president would matter a lot more if America were a pure dictatorship. It's not. The president cannot actually do a lot without the support of Congress. So the president matters, but his practical power is limited. Che
Re: (Score:3)
Your view is quite outdated, and these days the American president very nearly has the powers of a dictator.
Remember all that uproar over Republicans, Catholics and birth control? That was all because Obama signed an executive order mandating the Catholic church (among others) to provide birth control.
While it once was true (and technically still is) that only congress has the power to create laws, that's no longer really meaningful. The federal government has grown, and basically all that growth occurred
Re: (Score:2)
Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin.
I'm going to take a wild guess that those kind of numbers beat the 3-5% range of racist people stated in this article.
Except that IS racism. It just changes the range to the favorable side for him.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin.
What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat - the 96% [politico.com] Obama got is consistent with the 90% that Gore got [cnn.com], the 88% Kerry got [cnn.com], the 90% Mondale and Dukakis got [talkingpointsmemo.com], the 94% Johnson got [factcheck.org] etc.
If blacks were voting overwhelmingly based on race, than you should see overwhelming support for Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, etc. That's not the case.
Tea Party racists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Informative)
Following up - another post reminded me about the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton had a significant lead [cnn.com] among black voters in the early going. Things started shifting when Bill started running his mouth in South Carolina.
Re: (Score:3)
The previous election 88% percent voted for the white democrat. This means less than 10% of black voters voted from him based on race. Probably closer to the 3-5%.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
In some alternate universe, Hillary Clinton is running against Herman Cain for the 2012 election. Herman Cain is not getting 90%+ of the black vote - doubtful that it would be even be 50%.
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Black people voted for Democrats by...
+91 points in 2008 [cnn.com]
+77 points in 2004 [cnn.com]
+81 points in 2000 [bev.net]
+72/+76 points in 1996 (depends how you count Perot) [cnn.com]
+73/+80 points in 1992 (Perot, again) [uconn.edu]
So that's a 13-16 point bump, among a demographic that makes up ~10% of the electorate. At best, Obama would have gotten an extra 2% in the total popular vote. Meanwhile, the summary found 3-5% voting against him because he's black. So it clearly worked against him.
And that's assuming the black people voted that way because Obama was black, and not because they were sick of the racist crap that they heard throughout the election season. They lean heavily against Republicans (gee, why could that be?). Hearing endlessly about Jeremiah White, hearing Michele Obama referred to as "Obama's baby mama", hearing Rush singing "Barack the magic negro", hearing all the birther nonsense (I actually forget when exactly that started) etc., probably just made them trust Republicans even less.
But go on, keep thinking of all the black people in America as some barely sentient hive mind that just votes for people who look like them, and never consider issues on an individual basis. That's not racist at all. Nosiree.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, this ignores turnout. Blacks voted for Democrats anyway, so the rate could only increase by a limited amount, but the numbers would increase by more than the rate suggests because of turnout. Not only did 96%-98% vote for Obama, that 98% is taken from a larger base (because of higher turnout) than voted for Clinton, so the effect is more than the 2% you describe.
And even going by the summary, the description of it as showing the effect of racism is misleading. It shows that fewer people voted for
Re: (Score:2)
The same evidence the article provides: correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
And that evidence takes into account that Kerry got 88%, Gore got 90+% and Bill Clinton got 95% in 1994? So it's like 2-3% more than Clinton got, less than 10% more than Gore got and at worse around 12% more than Kerry. Blacks vote heavily Democratic anyway so o claim ALL blacks voted based purely on race over party affiliation is flat out false when you look historically.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides the repeated interviews with black Americans who admitted they voted for Obama because he was black. Interviews that include famous people like Samuel L. Jackson? Really, why should we believe what black Americans say about why they voted for someone, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that means ALL blacks did so for that reason, right? You do know that the last three white Democrats got 88% in 2004, 90% in 2000 and 95% in 1994, right?
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
So in 1994 when Bill Clinton got around 95% of blacks to vote for him it was because he was black?
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are also idiots.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, I think the more telling measure of his black support is the record turn out of black voters (15.9 million in '08 vs. 13.8 million in '04 according to Pew [pewresearch.org], or 65.2% of eligible black voters in '08 v 60.3 in '04) combined with his winning almost every single black vote. According to ABC News [go.com] most of the 5 million vote increase in 2008 over 2004 is attributable to minority voters (which of course includes blacks), with whom Obama, in particular, and the Democrats, in general, do very well. It becomes even more compelling of an argument when you look at Young Black Voters who's participation jumped from 8% in 2004 to 55% in 2008.
Not that I see anything wrong with it, BTW. Just pointing out a better metric to show his record breaking support from the black community. Voting for someone frequently comes down to ephemeral decisions about a persons character, how likely you would be to have a beer with them, or some other equally vague criteria. That being black made young black voters like him more is no worse than any of the other reasons, and arguably better than the refusal to vote for someone becuase of he is black.
Re: (Score:3)
In Thailand, the Bangkok Post recently ran an article entitled Is Farang an F-word? [bangkokpost.com].
This implies bias based on racial characteristics, not only for caucasians, but for all ethnic groups. I think a study that tried to explain to what degree r
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly none that had any effect. Those who would do so would have voted democrat anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Just give it a rest, folks: most people who oppose Obama do so because of his beliefs, his record, and his policies. The racists are an edge case.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we be tolerant of religion?
Why can we not be intolerant of intolerance?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
I know white folks who voted for Obama, essentially, because it'd be so progressive to have a black president.
Elections have always had ties to demographics. The fact that the demographic in question in this case was "black" doesn't really change anything -- it just makes people wank about it more.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering these folks are attempting to be "so progressive", it sounds like there is little chance they would vote Republican.
Re:Both Ways (Score:4, Insightful)
I know a lot of white folks that voted for Obama because they were genuinely scared of Palin being in any position of power.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it could be, except its drowned out by the rednecks who claim that all blacks who voted for Obama only did so based on race without evidence. They couldn't possibly have done so based on his policy stances, his party affiliation, etc. Considering that 88% percent of blacks voted for the white Democrat in 2004, one can hardly claim that as a group that blacks were going to vote in any large proportion for McCain.
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't rednecks also have voted against Obama because of his policy stances or is that excuse only available to blacks?
Counterbalance of vote for race (Score:5, Insightful)
tl;dr, but it wouldn't be surprising that someone would vote against a candidate because of his/her race, gender, religion, etc.
On the flipside, how many votes are FOR the candidate because of his race. Does one cancel out the other?
And in the greater picture, how many votes for one candidate are purely superficial lacking perspective or insight into his or her take on policies, issues, and other big picture items.
I feel this kind of study, whether intended or not, has the effect of being purely inflammatory.
Re:Counterbalance of vote for race (Score:4, Interesting)
That all depends on the degree and of racism expressed by one side or the other. On the average, it is my experience that minorities tend to be more racist against whites and other different race minorities, than non-minorities are toward minorities. Of course, then you have kooks like the KKK, Nazis and other extremist groups which don't skew the statistics much because they are thankfully such a small percentage.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. There was more to the Presidential election than just Obama vs. McCain; before that, there was a primary election where voters had to choose between at least 6 candidates, one being Obama. Democrat voters chose Obama, and if many of them did so because of racism, then that certainly had a huge effect on the election. How would history be different if Hillary or Gravel or even Kucinich, had won the primaries?
Re: (Score:2)
So the African American community didn't increase their voting population by more than 1%? No AA Republicans switched? And no non-AA voted with "positive" racism? I personally know each of these were a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
You should subtract the number that would have voted for the democrat anyway. Which as previous elections show is only a few percentage points less.
So what? (Score:2)
No where is it written what criteria voters are supposed to evaluate their choice for President based on.
If a votes want to make their selection based on race, who are the rest of us judge them for it. You an I might agree its a terrible criteria to use but that does not make the votes of those who don't think that any less valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Ii am not even remotely comprehending your point here. Who am i to judge someone for being a racist? Well, I am someone who thinks racism is completely repugnant. Furthermore, if _you_ don't judge someone "just" because they are a racist, then i am going to go ahead and judge you too. Just try and stop me.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the consitution does not forbid any such thing.
In the US, you are free to believe as you please..whatever you want to be prejuiced about, or open minded about, you are free to believe that, and yes, you ARE free to speak your mind on it (so far).
So, no, there is no barrier or law or rule against voting based on race, you can vote your will as you please.
We do have laws that forbid discrimination from hiring, or barring entry or commerce with someone based on race, sex, religion....but that has nothing to do with voting. To do that...you'd have to invent a functional and accurate thought police force.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
the constitution guarantees the right of people to hold racist opinions, but it does not protect them from being judged or called out for their ignorance.
Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points
Assuming that it's correct* -- good! This is excellent! When you look at where we were 20, 30, 40 years ago... 3-5% of votes being lost due to prejudice is negligable - in any study of a large population it's within the friggin margin of error
So - good job, America. We've come a long way.
* that said, the methodology seems fairly questionable, and I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of this measurement.
Re: (Score:3)
I recall that this sort of reasoning nearly always gets a +5 Insightful in threads about China ("censorship and oppression? It was worse 30 years ago! They've come a long way"). Very interesting that the same reasoning is kept at a low score in this thread. Bookmarking for future reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but how many would have voted Democrat regardless of the race of the candidate?
Quite likely most of them. Blacks, for whatever reason, tend to vote liberal. I suspect it has something to do with many of them being low-income, who naturally tend liberal. I don't have any specific numbers myself, but a natural 80% Democrat trend (itself not unreasonable) would make your "95%" figure look like a much more modest "15% of blacks voted for Obama because of race reasons instead of politics".
Re: (Score:2)
I think the more telling stat the person you were replying to is the more important factor here...that blacks came out to vote in RECORD numbers, just to vote because a black man was in the running.
If Obama hadn't been half black....likely as not as seen in prior elections, the black turnout for vote wouldn't have been nearly so high.
Re: (Score:3)
In '04 88% of the 60.3% of the 13% of the US population that claim to be black voted for Kerry. In '08, 65.2% of that 13% showed up to vote, and the went 98% for Obama.
13*.60*.88=6.85% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Kerry
13*.65*.98=8.28% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Obama
Still, it ignores the number of non-black people that voted for Obama because he was black.
This study fails (Score:2)
I see no correction in this study to correct for those who seek to correct for the bias inherent in studies such as these. What idiot in his right mind would vote how these things predict he would vote for goodness sakes!? Everyone knows the questions in these polls are all geared to prove the polster right anyhow.
Looking at it from a different angle (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain. Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to charge one side of the equation with racial intolerance but totally unacceptable to even *consider* looking at the other side for similar -- perhaps even more egregious -- motivations?
And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to charge one side of the equation with racial intolerance but totally unacceptable to even *consider* looking at the other side for similar -- perhaps even more egregious -- motivations?
The alpha sociopaths in office get more mileage playing that side of the equation. Also: tradition.
Maybe they could get some powerjuice by playing with the other side, but they tend to go with known algorithms.
Re: (Score:2)
McCain stood for people supporting society, Obama stood for society supporting people. That small nuiance is the the very difference between conservative and social libertarinism. It is a shame that we can't settle this difference between ourselves without letting the authortaians stay in charge.
Re:Looking at it from a different angle (Score:5, Informative)
The study included that. Click the pdf link.
You can separate that out three ways:
- Not black, not white: population size is not significant relative to these other effects.
- Black people: supported Obama more than previous presidents, eg. John Kerry. You had 89% voting for John Kerry, so 96% for Obama (plus somewhat higher voter turnout) is not an overwhelming increase when there's far fewer black voters than white voters in the first place. Especially when Obama actually won overall when Kerry lost (implying he was probably more popular overall.
- White people: a bit harder to suss out people who might have voted for Obama because he's black, but would not have just voted for any democrat anyway, but little evidence that white people try to hide that motivation.
Re:Looking at it from a different angle (Score:5, Informative)
Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain.
You're about the 10th person to repeat this idiotic canard in this thread and the answer is still the same as it was when the first person posted it far, far, above: 95% of black voters supported Bill Clinton. 85 - 95% of black voters have supported Democratic presidential candidates for decades.
Are you will wondering? Are your racist fellow travelers who will no-doubt go on to repeat your silly question another dozen times on this story still wondering?
It is profoundly sad that so many Americans are so ignorant of a common voting pattern in their society that has persisted for decades, and so proud of their ignorance that they repeatedly trumpet it on popular websites like /.
Re:Looking at it from a different angle (Score:5, Informative)
Black people always overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic candidate. Might have something to do with Republicans openly pandering to racists every since the inception of their Southern Strategy [wikipedia.org]. They made a conscious decision to give up on the black vote in order to get the racist vote, and it has worked extremely well for them.
wow, gg racist slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I always thought there was a lot of intelligent people on slashdot... yet everytime there is a race based post immediately there are a bunch of racists posts that get modded way up when they should be troll.
Right now I see three big posts about "if 95% of black people voted for obama, how is that not racist" which is bullshit.
RTFA! It says he got a 1% bounce from being voting for him because of his race. Look at the past demographic breakdowns, 95% of the african american votes go to democrats even when they are white! So there was not change.
What is this 'n****r' bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of growing up is learning that words can't hurt you.
Re: (Score:2)
"We'll have the developed film at 11." It's interesting I guess but not really news. Some people base their decision on stupid stuff. "Obama is black" or "Romney is a cultist Mormon" or "Ron Paul is too old" and don't vote for the guy.
You forgot sexist, but yeah that covers pretty much alle the bases. What's the automatic religious bias against a non-Christian in the US? You've probably lost the whole Bible Belt long before you get to talk politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (Score:4, Insightful)
It is overrated snce you're repeating a ridiculous line claiming blacks only voted based on race which is silly. In 2004, 88% of blacks voted for white guy John Kerry and more than 90% voted for white guy Al Gore and nearly 95% for Bill Clinton. So, yes, while the jump for Obama is noted, it's not that much bigger when you look historically. It's not as if a large proportion were gping to vote for McCain regardless. So, it's much more likely that the vast majority vote based on pltical affiliation not race when you look at he last couple f elections.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA; they did exactly this, figuring that nigga-googlers wanted rap lyrics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, it makes a pretty big leap of faith in assuming what Obama "should have won" versus what Kerry won in the previous election and presumes that the negative difference is due to racism.
Why? Kerry was a much different candidate than Obama -- longer-serving Senator, Viet Nam and armed forces veteran -- it's easy to see where some percentage of swing voters may have found these kinds of factors compelling for Kerry but not for Obama and either not voted at all or voted for McCain or a third party can
Re:Social studies != science (Score:4, Interesting)
As a physicist/engineer I would say that a study like this IS science, but is investigating a very noisy system with lots of feedbacks, poorly understood interactions, and is not very amenable to controlled experimentation. So the choice is to try to tease some predictive observations out of these social studies using mathematical techniques or just throw up our hands, declare it is too hard, and let the politicians and religious leaders tell us everything about social and human systems that we are allowed to know. I'll take the social science research.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't see how "results" from a very noisy system with lots of feedbacks, poorly understood interactions, and not very amenable to controlled experimentation is any better.
If you just assume our fearless "leaders" are the alpha sociopaths of society, and are dedicated to complete self interest, you at least have a somewhat predictable model there, and you can find a little truth even if it's just gleaned via shadows cast by the light you shine on them.
Re: (Score:2)
As an observation, based on 20 years of IRC, then Vent, and a spattering of 4chan like forums, I can tell you that racism ( and sexism and many other 'isms ) go from near zero to well over the majority when anonymity or pseudo-anonymity is involved ( no doubt, see the above 5 posts in this articles response for affirmation). Often times, this occurs with 'minorities' or targets of the attacks in the channel or on the board (or in fact listening in vent). At the same time, having got to know some of these pe
Re: (Score:2)
The liars that concern me even more, are the ones who claim that Obama is a liberal, or a progressive, or has a moral character greater than GWB had.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not lying. They're just belligerently stupid. There IS a difference.
The worst part about this is that nobody who isn't crazy even cares.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like New Black Panthers intimidating voters... oh, wait... Eric Holder said nothing to see there. Never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well don't worry. There's enough history of democrat front groups getting the dead out to vote. And let's not forget in Florida, that the DOJ is trying to push the state so they can't remove dead voters from the register either. And hey, let's not forget that Holder refused to go after the NBP for voter intimidation either.
Of course the easiest way to fix what I've just mentioned is to have voter ID. Remember, racist Canada requires ID to vote. So should the US.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)