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

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."

Comments

Re:Looking at it from a different angle

[Your.Master]

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:Both Ways

[crmarvin42]

Not an apples-to-apples comparison. Clinton won by a landslide if i recall correctly. His proportion of just about any demographic category would need to be skewed to the high side in his favor when compared to a much closer race like that of Obama v. McCain. Now, if the proportion of black voters going Democrat in a similarly close presidential election are also in the high 90's then your point would be valid.

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, 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 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.