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

Both Ways

[Bigby]

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

Re:Both Ways

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Entropius]

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

[slashmydots]

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

[ftobin]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[tnk1]

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

[Roarkk]

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 .

In Thailand, the Bangkok Post recently ran an article entitled Is Farang an F-word?.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Desler]

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

[SirGarlon]

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

[Desler]

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

Re:Both Ways

[akboss]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575591490726929572.html thry here

Re:Both Ways

[Reverberant]

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% Obama got is consistent with the 90% that Gore got, the 88% Kerry got, the 90% Mondale and Dukakis got, the 94% Johnson got 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

[h4rr4r]

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

[Desler]

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

[cayenne8]

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

[Bob the Super Hamste]

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

Re:Both Ways

[Desler]

They are also idiots.

Re:Both Ways

[Desler]

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

[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.

Re:Both Ways

[azalin]

I dare say that religion is much more important than race in an election. A faithful follower will use his religion as a moral guideline. It is an integral part of his/her personality. If this is good or bad depends on your own views and how close they match.

Re:Both Ways

[Beerdood]

To be fair, democrats have been getting the vast majority of the black vote for at least 30 years now, somewhere around 90%. Clinton had the lowest percentage at "only" 83-85%. Sure, we can recognize that some percentage of the black population purely voted for Obama because he is also black, (thereby ignoring policy) - but it's probably around the same percentage of people not voting for him for the exact same reason. 96-98% of black americans didn't "ignore all policy, all politics, all qualifications" etc.. when they voted for Obama, they did because republican policies fuck them over a hell of a lot more than democrat policies (wasn't always this way, but it has been for at least for a few decades now).

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

[Lumpy]

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:Both Ways

[Artraze]

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 within the executive branch and thus under the office of the president. From the FBI to the DHS, the DOT, 'Obama Care', etc... Congress does create these with law, but with that law they also grant them (the executive branch) the ability to act with the force of law. Such actions are known as "regulations".

So, even though the office of the president technically (i.e. constitutionally) doesn't have the power to tell all organizations to, say, provide birth control, congress has, via the healthcare bill, granted it the ability to do so.

Re:Both Ways

[jedidiah]

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

[artor3]

Black people voted for Democrats by...
+91 points in 2008
+77 points in 2004
+81 points in 2000
+72/+76 points in 1996 (depends how you count Perot)
+73/+80 points in 1992 (Perot, again)

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:Both Ways

[jedidiah]

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:Both Ways

[Reverberant]

Following up - another post reminded me about the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton had a significant lead among black voters in the early going. Things started shifting when Bill started running his mouth in South Carolina.

Re:Both Ways

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Both Ways

[asylumx]

It's true that he made history, but to be fair, he never once ran his campaign on the idea of "let's put the first black man in the white house."

Re:Both Ways

[Hatta]

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

[cayenne8]

But would you vote for an ignorant Republican and throw the people to the wolves?

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.

Obama is a center-right president, which of course upsets both the left and the extreme-insane-fallen-off-the-map-right. There's a real danger that we could wind up with wingnut throwbacks in charge just because modern people aren't quite satisfied with Obama.

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

[lister king of smeg]

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

[SuricouRaven]

Palin's purpose wasn't to win voters, it was to energise the base. The social conservatives supported McCain before, but only on the grounds that he wasn't a democrat. He wasn't one of them, and they knew it. He'd get their votes, but lackluster support doesn't bring donations, or efforts to drive supporters to the polls, or grassroots campaigning. So he picked someone who was very much one of them as VP - an outspoken, open Christian with intense and proven pro-life views and a proudly displayed dislike of intellectuallism. It worked, winning over their support, he just underestimated how much she would terrify more moderate voters.

Re:Both Ways

[Shagg]

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:Both Ways

[Beardo the Bearded]

Look man, he had to wipe out those vampires no matter the cost.

Re:Both Ways

[SpasticWeasel]

Please let me say that you have a very appropriate sig.

Re:Both Ways

[HornWumpus]

Couldn't rednecks also have voted against Obama because of his policy stances or is that excuse only available to blacks?

Re:Both Ways

[Jiro]

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 Obama in areas with high racism, but it doesn't mean that all of that reduction was because of racism. I'd imagine that, for instance, all-black areas don't have much anti-black racism, and also voted for Obama in large numbers. That would tend to make racism correlated with votes against Obama, but not because racism leads to voting against Obama.

Re:Both Ways

[tbannist]

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 was not properly vetted before she was chosen. According to some people who worked on McCain's campaign, she was chosen because she was female, pretty and strongly conservative. They didn't discover that she was a back-stabbing, gold-digging, drama idiot until after they brought her on.

Re:Both Ways

[tbannist]

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? Are you really sure you're not just repeating what you heard on Fox News?

Re:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt

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:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

You're the epitome of ignorant American. You do your country a deep disservice. I am truly sad for you all.

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:Both Ways

[The Master Control P]

Obama, the most lefty liberal progressive ever to rise to the office of President? Only in the fever swamps Fox "News."

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 Roosevelt (who said that the rich and moneyed are "United in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred!" during his 1936 campaign)? Further to the left than this raving moonbat:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

a Republican named Dwight Eisenhower, originator of the Interstate Highway System that took 500 billion public dollars and almost half a century to complete)?

Look up what the Overton window is, because you've been snowed. Thoroughly.

Re:Both Ways

[The Master Control P]

First of all, one's opinion of one of FDR's social programs has nothing to do with the fact that FDR was unquestionably far further left than Obama (As were Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower), thereby putting to sleep the notion that Obama is some sort of extreme leftist out of nowhere.

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:Both Ways

[gman003]

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

[uniquename72]

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

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

[cayenne8]

Or you could drop the selection bias and look at other European countries like Germany before making sweeping generalizations.

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:Both Ways

[Zakabog]

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

[shutdown -p now]

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 spend like crazy.

Re:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

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.

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 recipient, and therefore...will have it go belly up in the near future.

The money people put into it..isn't invested in any way for them...what current workers (investors) put into SS, is going directly to current beneficiaries.....so, like a ponzi scheme...current (new) investors are paying for older investors.

Counterbalance of vote for race

[Mean Variance]

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

[tompaulco]

On the flipside, how many votes are FOR the candidate because of his race. Does one cancel out the other?
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.

Nice!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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:Nice!

[poity]

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:Social studies != science

[swb]

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

[thrich81]

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.

Looking at it from a different angle

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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

[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:Looking at it from a different angle

[radtea]

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

[artor3]

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. 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.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters

[Desler]

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:So what?

[cayenne8]

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:Correlation != Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

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

wow, gg racist slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Mashiki]

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:So what?

[pezpunk]

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.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot?

[dgun]

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).

Tea Party racists

[RJBeery]

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...

Re:Prejudice, for the win!

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters

[Senior Frac]

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.

What is this 'n****r' bullshit?

[guises]

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.