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."
And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Technoli
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
Remember, all this is based on the "researcher's" interpretation and "intuitive" guessing as to people's motivations. In other words - horseshit.
"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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
RTFA; they did exactly this, figuring that nigga-googlers wanted rap lyrics.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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
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".
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.
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.
And in 1994, 95% voted for Clinton. It was because he was black, right?
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.
"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.
You mean like New Black Panthers intimidating voters... oh, wait... Eric Holder said nothing to see there. Never mind.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
I for one would love to see this study on a conservative black at the top of a general election - like an Alan West - so we could see the inverse: 90%+ of blacks would vote against them because the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and other modern day plantation owners* world would tell them not to. Finally then we prove that it's policies, not color.
Cites in Reverse: find me a black conservative candidate that they endorse. Hint: there isn't one.
* yes, you read that right - they're just as committed to keeping every black on their own ideological plantations as white slave masters were in the old south. Do you see them working to shrink (free!) their dependent constituency?
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"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)." So why do people vote Republican, anyway? Oh, yeah, because they will do anything to keep a Democrat out of office... So Race vs. Political party, what' s the difference, to low information or bigoted voters?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Well, they got tired of the nasty tasting Tea....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
And yet the Republicans and specifically the Tea Partiers were supporters of Herman Cain...ergo the Tea Party and Conservatives are RACISTS because they don't vote for DEMOCRATS...
Remember, this is ONLY purporting to describe the difference between observed polling results and the final vote tallies.
I'd suggest that if we discard the hot-button issue of race, we'd find that generally there is almost always (at least) a single-digit difference between what people SAY they're going to vote for, and what they ACTUALLY vote for.
Otherwise, what's the point of a secret ballot? (Union members aren't entitled to comment on this.)
Further, I've noticed in my observation of local (MN) elections since 1984, a 4-6% difference in poll results vs real results, with poll results always skewed in favor of the Democrat. My interpretation is that
a) liberals love to tell you how they voted and what they believe in; conservatives are far more reluctant to do so or to deliberately mislead a pollster
b) we all agree that Liberal policies are perceived to be 'nicer'. It's better to feed the hungry, shoe the children, and house the homeless; less pleasant to say we can't afford it. (And yes, we all know that it's a guns/butter priority thing, and that BOTH parties today seem more about lining their friends pockets ANYWAY.)
-Styopa
Most people who vote base their decision on stupid stuff.
FTFY.
The mentality of the typical U.S. voter boils down to "Who cares that Candidate A would start another war in the middle east, strip us of our Constitutional rights, and give trillions of our dollars to his campaign benefactors - he's against/for abortion/illegals/puppy mills/gay stuff/[insert preferred non-issue here], and so am I, so I'm going to vote for him."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think telling that the Hillary campaign didn't jump on this. The Clinton's have a reputation (according to the political right) of being ruthless in their campaign tactics and if there were something to the birther movement then Hillary would have been all over it. Same thing with the accusations of Obama being a closet Muslium. The only commentators who devote time to either of these seem to be the more conspiratorial talk shows, or Sean Hannity.
Time to offend someone
You've got "hell yeah, he's just like ME" and "no way, he's nothing like ME"
How many would/wouldn't vote for Romney because he's Mormon?
How many would/wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman?
How many would/wouldn't vote for McCain or Paul because they're older than dirt?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
It appears to me in posts like this that the true nature of our electoral process is actually lost on most people. It doesn't matter if the popular election is biased one way or another, or if you have strong feeling for a certain candidate. Our electoral process makes it so that your personal vote doesn't really matter anyway, because you long sense cast your vote by the electors you put into power. Like Santa and the Tooth Fairy, our power of election is simply a myth we teach our children to make sense out of complex ideals and inspire hope. Overall, many people seem to not know or understand the process by which a president is elected. For burden of proof I submit that one should research the Electoral college and the 12th Amendment. Also on a side note I submit that one should inspect the amount of president who were not of the two major parties or the Senate so that they might understand the fallacy of believing in the capabilities of a 3rd party candidate winning an election.
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.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
If 20% of America is black (it's actually less than that), and Obama was +6% vs. typical democrats, he got a 1.2% margin in the general election that he otherwise wouldn't have. Which makes being black a very, very clear net loss.
20% advantage of black voters, which are 12.6% of the population... so any such effect results in a 2.52% boost in support over previous democratic candidates. But yeah, 20% sounds scarier.
So, are you saying that Democrats are racists?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It is ludicrous to censor the word "nigger", as some areas are doing with Huck Finn, and it is cowardly to avoid any word at all. To what god are you bowing when you asterisk out the word? Are you saying that merely typing it will turn you into some fucking klansman? Do you think you are racist if you say it?
That's ludicrous. It's an important word with serious history. Calling someone a nigger and typing the word are two entirely different things. No one's gonna ask you if you want to be grand fucking wizard because you didn't ***** out a fucking word, and no one will assume you use it in conversation. There's things in history way worse than "nigger". You never asterisk out mass murderers and those who carry out genocide, or the word genocide itself, right?
Stop playing games and speak.
...controlling for John Kerry's vote share
That's not much of a control, considering that John Kerry and Barack Obama ran against two completely different candidates.
What, you can't even spell nigger anymore? Self censorship to this degree is not about sensitivity, it's about fear: people are afraid that if they use the word nigger, even in a non-insulting context, they'll get labeled. I've never seen it censored in print like this before, maybe that's common now, but this is just unacceptable.
Part of growing up is learning that words can't hurt you.
We learned in decision theory that when faced with a difficult decision, people tend to simplify. We also learned people tend to simplify irrationally. It is a foundational principle for advertising.
After 9/11 - everyone was racist against Muslims, after Obama - every white person is racist. The media fuels the fire of hatred by spreading lies!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
didn't vote for McCain because he's a really old white man? And who voted for Obama because he's black? Yes, some people voted against Obama because he's black but probably not nearly 5% because most people who would vote against someone because they are black wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway (so this would not effect the general election). Democrats have their own forms intolerance and bigotries but voting against black people is low on that list. This is just a FUD piece published by a Democratic shill, a student trying to graduate, and/or a professor trying to get tenure.
Just because the NY times _choose_ to ignore increased voter turnout among blacks in their analysis doesn't mean it was not a factor. Taking their less then 1% number on face value reveals your bias.
Your dismissal of this issue is telling about _your_ bullshit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well, he WAS semi-jokingly called the "first black President" before Obama announced that he was running. ~1992 - 2007 - that is 15 or so years of being "black" by my handwaving calculation.
To answer your title, the researcher used the anonymony of the internet to draw out results that are not drawn out by regular survey questions. More specifically, we got taught racism was bad, so we don't talk about it even on surveys. When election time rolls around then a black candidate actually does significantly worse than his polling numbers.
There was no search for "mormon cracker". The research is incomplete, and obviously biased.
This election will be a true test of America's bigotry, Mormon versus Black.
I suspect your average bigot is far less likely to vote for a Mormon, given the amount of misinformation present in popular culture. I suspect the same sort of bigot that hates both Blacks and Mormons.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Blacks voted for Obama over 95%, some of them famously stating they voted for him only because he is black.
Also, black voter turnout was higher than usual, setting records in many categories, just because he's black. Black turnout took its biggest jump in decades. Meanwhile, white voter turnout in 2008 was actually lower, taking its biggest decline in decades. Some whites may have been making racist statements about Obama, but fewer of them were voting.
Look at hard numbers, not what comes up in Google. It catches the word "nigger" in relation to Obama as being a racist against him? Samuel L. Jackson recently used that word quite a bit when talking about the fact that he voted for Obama only because Obama is black.
What election did Bill contest in 1994?
Sure, Obama's black appearance might have cost him some votes, but it's plainly apparent that it also won him a disproportionate (to his ability, qualifications and eligibility) number of votes by whites to "prove" their progressiveness and lack of bias. Yeesh.
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
In my sadly all-too-Red little burg, come Halloween night that election year, people's presidential lawn signs disappeared. But only the Obama signs.
'Kids being kids', the cops played it off. Yes; kids being as racist as their Christian, 'Family Values' parents.
Not that deep down, we're not that far removed from the 1950's. And in some places, the 1860's.
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.
No. This statement is so diametrically at odds with the facts, you'll need to provide specific citations to support your contention. "You've seen?" This doesn't make sense even if you were six, much less a grown adult.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Nationally, there may or may not have been fewer votes for Barack Hussein Obama than a generic Caucasian Democratic candidate (say, Hillary Rodham Clinton).
However, not only wasn't there a "Bradley Effect" against Obama, there wasn't even one against Bradley. Rather, the very hypothesis was based on - at best - an incomplete look at the 1982 California Governor's election results. The exit polls suggested a Bradley win, and in fact Bradley won at the polling stations. However, the state GOP put out a major absentee ballot effort, votes that tended strongly for Deukmejian.
Luke, help me take this mask off
>>>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.
(shrug). You and others post misleading crap about how Libertarians want to end all government. Or that the "R" in Republican means "racist". So you're really no better when it comes to parroting the party line of the Democrats (or communists or whatever party you belong to).
Note: The L's are not anarchists.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
>>>You deserve to have your karma absolutely trashed for spreading that misleading crap. The whole point of the moderation is that shitty posters who spread lies (such as yourself) get downmodded and start at a lower level, thus helping prevent the spread of their lies.
>>>
It doesn't seem to stop you from saying "Republicans are racists" and other bullshit. Strange that you think that's just a-okay??? Worthless scum. How DARE you (and others) go around and make those blanket statements and insults against millions of people? I hope you take your "republicans are racist" nonsense and shove it.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
A correlation between "nigger" searches and poor Obama voting does _not_ imply causation.
Other explanations exist. For example, maybe people who hate Obama's left-wing policies could become so angry at him that they would call him the most offensive name they could come up with - and that is "nigger". In fact, I think this is much more likely.
And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?
Yes. They would have to take into account a higher vote among blacks, a higher turnout of blacks, and the white progressives who thought it would be awesome to have a black president - meaning that some progressives who would previously not be bothered to vote decided to get out their vote.
Besides, a correlation between "nigger" searches and poor Obama voting does _not_ imply causation.
Other explanations exist. For example, maybe people who hate Obama's left-wing policies could become so angry at him that they would irrationally offend him by calling him "nigger". So the causation is in the other direction. And I think this is much more likely.
If that was totally true, and there are many more people who voted against him because he was black, why did he win? According to you there are many more people who voted against him then for him.
Could it be that this study is there to try to go against the fact that most black people voted for Obama.
The first sign that you've gotten involved in a cult is that they tell you that everyone else is lying - which is exactly what Fox does.
Case in point: You seem to think the media is in some way supportive of Obama, when last year not 10% of news stories they ran about him were positive (this year the percentage is in the teens so far, whooo!). Romney has had more positive coverage since last July. The republic-ending catastrophe called "citizens united" is only going to make it worse.
Step back and see the reality: The corporate media (all of it, including Fox) is biased in favor of controversy and things that fit in the ADD-addled attention span of their viewers.
Mind pointing out the history of this. Documented cases , especially widespread ones?
Ever tri,ed sticking c,omma,s i,n the mi,ddle of word,s? it wo,uld be, only margin,ally mo,re retard,ed then[sic] the way you w,rite now, you ig,noran.t shit,brai,n.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nope.
Got any other questions?
Maybe the destruction of the economy and the fear of the future has shocked enough people into realizing that the Republican Way (tm) isn't actually delivering what they claim it will and is in fact only serving to make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful.
Obama is pretty rightwing (from my Canadian perspective) but he's closer to being rational than anyone else on the field.
Plus of course, you folks south of the border do have a huge racism problem that always amazes a lot of Canadians (not that we don't have a bias up here, but its more directed at our Indigenous population).
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Really, moderator? -1 Troll for this? I am so disappointed in Slashdot's mod system.
Loading...
Would you like the acorn related ones, or the non-acorn related ones to start with? And would you like the Chicago related ones or the non-Chicago ones? Also Detroit as well as S.Carolina.
Om, nomnomnom...
Hahaha, man, you take yourself way too seriously. The Republican Southern Strategy is racist. The whole point of it is to get the racist vote. That doesn't mean that all Republicans are racist.
I assume that's what you're talking about, because I didn't make any other posts that could be construed as "Republicans are racist". I also assume that you're the one who ran through and modded down all my posts over the past day as overrated, all modded down within seconds of each other, which is pretty pitiful. But no worries, I have karma to burn. All you're going to accomplish is getting your alt accounts banned from moderation. Enjoy :-)
by the blacks.
From the study:
The top hits for the top racially charged searches are nearly all textbook examples of antilocution, a majority group's sharing stereotype-based jokes using coarse language outside a minority group's presence. This was determined as the ïrst and crucial stage of prejudice in Allport's (1979) classic treatise. From 2004-2007, the searches were most popular in West Virginia; upstate New York; rural Illinois; eastern Ohio; southern Mississippi; western Pennsylvania; and southern Oklahoma.
I have more than a little passing familiarity with one or more of those places and I can tell you that "n*gger jokes " and hatred of minority groups as well as gays is alive and well quite as if it were still 60 years ago.
I just couldn't bring myself to continue to live there when I had the chance a few times for just this reason.
I travel around with my job and these places are some of the most regressive places in the nation. I can't imagine living in Birmingham AL or Syracuse NY or Pittsburgh PA or Akron OH or any of those places. They're horrifying to tell you the truth and it's the people themselves (sorry to everyone who lives there and is now offended.) .
I was standing on a street corner in Syracuse, just standing there, and some car full of teenages goes by in the middle of the day and shouts' "fucking queer" ((not, actually) and throws a beer bottle out the window at me. Just standing there waiting for the light to change. What a regressive shit hole.
We went to a place in rural Penn. and the guy I was working with was black but not obviously so - whatever that means- to our host - we we're in our host's living room with his kids there for cirssakes- because he started in as a kind of "getting to know you" ice breaker with n*gger jokes ....and then did back flip over back flip trying to extricate himself when I pointed out (I couldn't help myself) that my coworker was, in fact, African-American. Yeah, and he had to work with us for the next three months...
In another one of these places I was standing with my friend talking with a guitar vendor about guitars and getting advice about different vendors around town I was going to be visiting while I was there and he said "oh stay away from X, he'll Jew you every chance he gets". Yeah, that's right the girl I was standing with was *quite* Jewish. Her faced turned bright red and she stood there for a while while I explained the situation to Mr FootInMouth. Then she left to go cry somewhere, and he left to go smoke a cigarette outside, where we ran into him again on the way out, which sent him scurrying away like a rat.
This is how it is in these places.. this is how these people grow up and carry it on, generation after generation.
No surprise that the FM music stations are all apparently also caught in a time warp of around 1979.... Lynrd Skynrd and Journey and all that (no I don't care if they're still around) .
What is it with these Places That Time Forgot? What's the dynamic? IS it just *that* offensive enough that anyone with any progressive impulse just flees and they start inbreeding amongst themselves?
>>>I also assume that you're the one who ran through and modded down all my posts over the past day as overrated
I have no mod points.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I think you’re comparison between the two statements is a false equivalency. If you know a little about American history, then you should know that black Americans are more likely to share common interests, if for no other reason than the long history of racism in the US. ‘White people’ are less likely to have common interests because that is a much broader group. And it is in a lot of ways a sad reminder of what was lost to African Americans when I can identify as not just a descendant of Europeans, but can say that I have French and Scottish roots, and whereas many other white Americans can say they’re Italian or German or Irish, etc. When an influx of Irish immigrated to the north east in the 19th century, would it have been fair to assume that an Irish alderman would likely represent Irish constituents better? Maybe or maybe not, but I wouldn’t consider such an assumption to be bigoted. Or would it be fair to assume that a Jewish council member would better represent a predominantly Jewish ward better? Maybe or maybe not, but again I wouldn’t consider that bigoted. Black American’s interests are aligned with each other to some degree exactly because they are black, and this is in response to the way they’ve been treated over the years. I feel that in the near future this will no longer be the case and the argument that some of you are trying to make will actually have some merit at that point, but for now it’s still bunk.
FAQs are evil.
So they didn't support him because he was black. They would have supported him in similar numbers either way. The difference was that being black was enough to get them to go to the polls on voting day, not change any votes. It's possible that the numbers came solely from conservative blacks staying home because they didn't want to vote against him, and a few more going to the polls. But not swaying a single vote from someone who generally votes Republican to vote Democrat.
Not saying that happened, but from the statistics posted about how many black people voted each way, it's at least possible.
Learn to love Alaska