Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Search Tracking Purports To Show Effect of Racism On '08 Election

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the maybe-they-just-don't-like-the-guy dept.

Google 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."

cancel ×

511 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck bonch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295085)

In before bonch or his sockpuppet whines about Google.

In conclusion, fuck off bonch.

Re:Fuck bonch (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295107)

So... you want him to come out..?

Both Ways (5, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295105)

And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?

Re:Both Ways (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295143)

My immediate thought was just how freaking badly McCain got pummelled despite having this 'home state advantage' across the states...

Re:Both Ways (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295343)

For me, McCain, lost his credibility during the primaries, where he had to seem less moderate, then placing on the ticket crazy Palian.

It is too bad, because I liked him before he ran.

Re:Both Ways (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295349)

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:Both Ways (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295645)

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.

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 before and I'll say it again.

At this point, I'd vote for a small soap dish over the current administration.

Re:Both Ways (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295677)

I'm not sure if a person like Abraham Lincoln would still be electable today. The game has changed.

Re:Both Ways (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295423)

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:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295155)

Only the ones that were sexist and just didn't want Hillary in charge, I'm sure.

Re:Both Ways (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295175)

I remember reading a "vote by race" percentages somewhere.
Most races were pretty even split for obama/mccain, except for one.
Black voters gave 97% of the votes to obama.

Re:Both Ways (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295437)

wow Racists voted you down.

It's indeed true, they released data showing exactly this.

Re:Both Ways (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295521)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295183)

Yeah, because being the minority candidate has always been a strong getter of votes throughout the history of US politics. Especially when the media was constantly asking 'are we ready for a black president?'. What next? These uppity blacks think they can date white women?

Re:Both Ways (4, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295261)

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 (5, Insightful)

ftobin (48814) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295331)

I know white folks who voted for Obama, essentially, because it'd be so progressive to have a black president.

Considering these folks are attempting to be "so progressive", it sounds like there is little chance they would vote Republican.

Re:Both Ways (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295533)

I know of one person who specifically voted for Obama so that he could say he voted for the first black president, he otherwise tends to vote straight Republican.
Even his his daughter who is much more likely to vote Democrat than anything else thought this was a terrible reason.
Granted he lives in an area where his vote didn't matter as it is solidly blue and he was well aware of this.

Re:Both Ways (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295189)

congratulations, you have just made the most predictable response of the day! now for extra credit: please expound on the inherent disadvantages and obstacles privileged white people must overcome.

Re:Both Ways (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295243)

But...but... He knows a guy who knows a guy whose 3rd cousin twice removed was denied entrance to medical school so a nigge... Er black man could get in to fill a racial quota. Also, he was unfairly called a racist by trying o form a white's only group in college. Help, help! He's being oppressed!

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295259)

It's a legitimate discussion point. 12.5% of the population is black, so if that group is almost entirely voting for one candidate, and many of them doing so primarily because of race, it could easily be a counter-balance. Now, if we were talking about a Native American candidate, which is only about 1% of the population, then yes, it probably is not significant enough to factor in.

Re:Both Ways (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295409)

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:Both Ways (3, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295293)

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. I guess those voters didn't realize this isn't a Miss America pageant where if a minority wins, it's all special and great and fantastic and a leap forward. The person who wins a presidency election has to actually do something once they win and it actually affects people (and the entire world and all of human history from that point forward).

Re:Both Ways (1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295317)

And you assume that all blacks ignored everything but race based on what evidence?

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295471)

Learn to read, not all, 98% of them.

Re:Both Ways (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295545)

So in 1994 when Bill Clinton got around 95% of blacks to vote for him it was because he was black?

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295585)

According to Monica, yes, Bill is black.

Re:Both Ways (3, Insightful)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295675)

Well I frequently hear various political commentators stating that he was the "first black president".

Re:Both Ways (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295715)

They are also idiots.

Re:Both Ways (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295481)

The fact that their voting numbers were far out of whack when compared to the overall population. Or did you think that Obama got 95% of the popular vote?

Re:Both Ways (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295559)

It's less than 10% more than what he last two white Democrats got in 2004 and 2000. So, it's not really much ut-of-whack.

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295623)

Kerry got 88% of the black vote, did they vote for him because he was black?

Re:Both Ways (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295541)

The same evidence the article provides: correlation.

Re:Both Ways (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295629)

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:Both Ways (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295339)

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:Both Ways (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295539)

I guess those voters didn't realize this isn't a Miss America pageant where if a minority wins, it's all special and great and fantastic and a leap forward. The person who wins a presidency election has to actually do something once they win and it actually affects people

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. Checks and balances really can work, as Congress has been proving since the mid-term elections.

So if you believe the president's power is limited and you believe checks and balances work, the choice of president becomes not a momentous determination of the future course of human history, but more like the choice between buying a Toyota or buying a Volkswagen. At that level, making a gesture to break the last great symbolic barrier seems like a reasonable factor to consider.

Re:Both Ways (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295597)

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 (5, Insightful)

Reverberant (303566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295599)

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.

Re:Both Ways (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295621)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295673)

If African Americans had the opportunity to vote for an African American presidential candidate (or any other minority for that matter) prior to 2008 then the percentage numbers may have been different. Before you can chalk up the fact that the majority of Blacks (which is different than African Americans) in america voted for Obama because of his ethnic background, you have to account for the fact that this was their first opportunity to do so. That being said, the only control we have is the 46 white presidents we've had up until this point. To make a fair assessment, African Americans would need the option of having a non-white candidate for the NEXT 46 elections. At that point we would have reached some sort of normalcy in terms of election diversification and we could disregard any type of 'new' effect a non-white candidate might have on an election. Regardless of Obama's background, he has a greater potential to identify with Black Americans (from all walks of life) and that will always sway voters. A candidate that can relate to people has a better chance of winning any election where popularity is a factor. There is nothing unfair or out of the ordinary concerning the voting patterns of Blacks with regard to President Obama. Contrary to European history, Blacks of all walks of life exude the same behavioral patterns as any other group of people because they are human in every sense of the word (JUST LIKE YOU).

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295319)

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never get-me-a-majority-in-a-swing-state"

Re:Both Ways (2)

Roarkk (303058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295367)

I think it's disingenuous in the extreme not to consider racial bias towards as well as against Obama in a study like this. In areas such as Atlanta, GA, where African Americans comprise more than 50% of the population, poliiticians are almost exclusively black [wikipedia.org] .

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 racial bias offset's itself would be more interesting.

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295371)

Let's stop this Black/White crap. I voted against Obama, but would have voted for Condoleezza Rice if she'd just run. Obama, as most politicians doesn't live up to expectations. It's better to have someone that can set clear and reasonable expectations. Jon Stewart would make a good candidate too. At least he has common sense and can communicate [youtube.com] .

Re:Both Ways (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295441)

Nearly none that had any effect. Those who would do so would have voted democrat anyway.

Re:Both Ways (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295449)

I also wonder how many people will vote against Romney because he is Mormon. Aren't we also supposed to be "tolerant" of religion? I do realize that you ultimately choose your own religious beliefs, but the fact is that the law makes no distinction.
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:Both Ways (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295687)

Why should we be tolerant of religion?
Why can we not be intolerant of intolerance?

Article covers that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295483)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/10/sunday-review/racially-charged-web-searches-and-voting.html

See that? The yellow region is where people vote for him because he is black. The gray is people voting against him because he is black. For those too lazy to click, the yellow is one tiny bar, the gray is nine much larger bars.

Re:Both Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295683)

'Th danged article sez 1%

Whatever... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295133)

Can we stop pretending that a black man who got elected president is somehow still a victim of racism? We're all hated by someone.

Re:Whatever... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295219)

For example, I hate Anonymous Cowards. Next time, post with your real name!

Counterbalance of vote for race (4, Insightful)

Mean Variance (913229) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295141)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295237)

If positive votes for a race matter, how come Jesse Jackson did so awesome when he ran for office? How come the GOP doesn't have more token blacks (eg JC Watts, Herman Cain)?

Re:Counterbalance of vote for race (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295301)

If you DID read, then you'll note the calculation that the positive effect of race was no more than 1% on the national popular vote because black voters are already overwhelmingly Democrat already and they constitute only 13% of the US population.

Re:Counterbalance of vote for race (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295425)

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:Counterbalance of vote for race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295591)

how did you come to that figure. because if 98% of black people voted for obama and they are 13% of the population it would stand to reason that the positive effect would be 13 *.98 = 12.74%. because you cant say that because some one is democrat or republican that they are not also voting for or against someone because of their race.

Doesn't this work both ways? (1)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295145)

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of folks in South Central, East St Louis, and Camden won't be voting Romney any time soon.

Oh wait, they won't be voting at all. My bad.

Re:Doesn't this work both ways? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295385)

That's true. Luckily, their dead relatives will be picking up the slack by voting for Obama both there and in Chicago.

Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295165)

"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.

BTW this article fails to mention how race HELPED Obama in 2008. Close to 100% of black Americans voted for Obama, because he was making history as the first black president. So that's a +20% advantage right there.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295255)

"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:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295365)

- 1 Overrated

Burn in hell. If you disagree with me and think I'm full of shit, then click the REPLY button instead of abusing your moderator status.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295495)

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:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295611)

>>> 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.

Now see? That's what I'm talking about. I want REPLIES not moderators damaging my karma (which also means losing the ability to post). Anyway I looked it up. 88% for Kerry in 2004 and 90% for Gore in 2000. So you're right.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295691)

Yes, all facts that can be found with 10 seconds of Googling. But apparently it's easier to parrot the race line than look up the historical facts.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295477)

And how the minority vote passed Prop 8 in California because the oh so oppressed minorities draw the line at those icky gay people getting married.

Every last person on this planet is a gigantic, raging hypocrite. Trying to isolate it to one group or another is just more hypocritical douchebaggery.

The ELE asteroid event that knocks the human race back to pre-civilization population levels can't come too soon. System reset time.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (1)

randizzle3000 (1276900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295619)

"BTW this article fails to mention how race HELPED Obama in 2008. Close to 100% of black Americans voted for Obama, because he was making history as the first black president. So that's a +20% advantage right there.

TFA says less than 1% (waaaay off from +20%), which doesn't beat the 6%, so no. Also, it was 96-98% of african american voters that voted, not of all african american voters.

Really? (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295167)

As I recall, even dyed-in-the-wool racists were voting for Obama. I recall the phrase "When your house is burning down, you don't care what color the fireman is" being said by some redneck in an article.

So what? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295171)

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:So what? (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295233)

It's actually written that the State Legislatures choose the Electors, and then they choose the president. All 50 legislatures have decided to let the people choose the Electors, but they don't have to.

Re:So what? (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295269)

Sorry for not knowing you guy's constitution by heart (not mine) but, isn't there written something in there about people being equal, with no discrimination for sex, race, religion,... If the constitution forbids race-based prejudice, doesn't it also forbid race-based voting choice?

Re:So what? (4, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295617)

If the constitution forbids race-based prejudice, doesn't it also forbid race-based voting choice?

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? (1)

pezpunk (205653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295287)

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.

What about n***a? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295185)

What about "nigga?" Is that a less "racially charged search word" to be excluded by such an analysis? Maybe they're searching for some rap lyrics or a Chris Rock bit.

Re:What about n***a? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295283)

RTFA; they did exactly this, figuring that nigga-googlers wanted rap lyrics.

Nice! (5, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295193)

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.

Prejudice, for the win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295323)

In 2008, black voters turned out in record numbers and gave Obama 95 to 96 % of their vote, depending on the source you believe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/democrats-have-black-vote-but-will-it-be-big-enough.php
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

Prejudice goes both ways.

Re:Prejudice, for the win! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295465)

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:Prejudice, for the win! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295699)

As I understand it, voter turnout generally tends to be lower among black citizens. As a percentage of total voters, a lot more black people voted in 2008 than did in 2004 or 2000 or 1992.

Re:Prejudice, for the win! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295579)

And in 1994, 95% voted for Clinton. It was because he was black, right?

Social studies != science (1, Troll)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295205)

Remember, all this is based on the "researcher's" interpretation and "intuitive" guessing as to people's motivations. In other words - horseshit.

Re:Social studies != science (2, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295347)

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 candidate.

Re:Social studies != science (3, Interesting)

thrich81 (1357561) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295387)

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:Social studies != science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295651)

Amen

Re:Social studies != science (1)

malakai (136531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295427)

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 people over the course of 20 years, I recognize the racism/sexism/anti-Semitic as benign and often used simply for trolling. In fact the more vitriolic the person is the less likely ( based on my knowledge of that person ) they are to in fact truly 'feel' that way.

So, I have no doubt that if you crawled the web and pulled out all the racist comments from different forums and chat logs the number would be absurdly high compared to what you see in phone interviews or direct interviews.

Donald Trump's Birth Certificate Lies (-1, Troll)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295207)

This year we can use the people who lie about Barack Obama's birth certificate to identify the impact of racism on the electorate.

I haven't met a single person that lies about President Obama's birth certificate who wasn't genuinely racist.

I know Donald Trump claims he isn't a racist, but give me a break. He's an idiot but he's not that stupid.

And when you ask what his team found in Hawaii, he whines about why we shouldn't worry about the past.. Se he knows he's lying, but he keeps claiming that Obama isn't American.

Then despite the fact that Obama was leader of the Harvard law review and was elected President of the USA, Trump claims that Obama was an affirmative action admission..

Donald Trump and the rest of the people who lie about President's birth certificate are racist, and since they self-identify it's a pretty easy group to study and/or mock.

Re:Donald Trump's Birth Certificate Lies (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295351)

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:Donald Trump's Birth Certificate Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295361)

Then this must include his own publicist, right? Damn idiots slash dumb. This is what happens when race is involved in anything, it becomes a weapon. Just vote for the race neutral person.

Re:Donald Trump's Birth Certificate Lies (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295467)

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:Donald Trump's Birth Certificate Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295511)

If any candidate, regardless of color, was hinted at being born outside of the United States, the other side would jump on that opportunity to attempt to gain votes. If there was a circumstance that made it seem remotely plausible that John Kerry was born outside the US, don't you think Republicans would react similarly there as well? And I doubt this is restricted to one side in terms of tactics.

The point is, you are painting "birthers" (is there a less derogatory term for them?) as racist because of this belief, which doesn't really make sense. While some or many of them may certainly be racist, I don't think you can argue that it is because of their opinion on this topic. This is just politics as usual, i.e., uneducated ad hominem, just like your response that people that don't vote for Obama for a particular reason are racist.

This study fails (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295311)

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.

Here they Come (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295369)

All the fucking Kool Aid drinkers.

Correlation != Causation (0)

C3ntaur (642283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295431)

I imagine those same areas with high racial animus also had greater incidents of voter suppression and other dirty tricks to keep people of color away from the polls. It's certainly not as clear cut as the summary makes it sound.

Re:Correlation != Causation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295685)

You mean like New Black Panthers intimidating voters... oh, wait... Eric Holder said nothing to see there. Never mind.

Looking at it from a different angle (5, Interesting)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295439)

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:Looking at it from a different angle (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295641)

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:Looking at it from a different angle (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295693)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295725)

And as pointed out above, Bill Clinton got over 95% of the black vote when he ran. Is he also black, and thus George W and Bob Dole were subject to reverse racism?

Or is it just that you're full of crap?

Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295605)

How is this news for nerds? Around 96% of blacks voted for Obama in '08. That isn't racist?

How about the Black Panthers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295609)

Black Panthers in at least two major U.S. cities (Philadelphia and Baltimore) used intimidation and threats of violence against white voters. Somehow I doubt these actions were counted as "racist" however since it violates their agenda.

That's nonsense (2)

sheph (955019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40295663)

I'd like to think that as a country we've come to the point where racisim is far less of a factor than things like policy position, character, and record. Based on those things (in my opinion) Obama should have never been elected to office. It seemed like around the time of the election most of the people throwing race around were those for Obama essentially saying that if you disagree with his politics that you must be a racist. To me it's highly dishonest and indicative of the fact that Obama more likely won precisesly because of racism and "white guilt" than because of his merrits as a potential presidential candidate.

wow, gg racist slashdot (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40295697)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>