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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[SpasticWeasel]

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

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.

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.