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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
i could live a little longer in this prison
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...
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.