Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Not necessarily. Blacks tend to support Democrats in national elections. There may have been an assumption that because Obama was black and a Democrat he would represent the interests of black Americans better, but I wouldn’t call that racism. Had Obama ran as a Republican would he have got the same support? Did Herman Cain have a strong following among black people? It is amazing for me to recall how black people in Alabama supported George Wallace. The last time he served as Governor he got 90% of the black vote. Black voters in Alabama supported Wallace because of the choices they had, Wallace represented their interests more than other candidates (his support of public schools at the top of the list, which are always under attack by certain political forces in the state).
FAQs are evil.
In other words, 3% - 5% of blacks voted for Obama because he was black? That would make sense, since it's reasonable to believe some black people are racist too.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........