Search Tracking Purports To Show Effect of Racism On '08 Election 511
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."
Re:Social studies != science (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Counterbalance of vote for race (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:0, Interesting)
You are out to lunch here.
There have always been regulations. This is nothing new.
The "doh my god birth control!!11!" thing is just blown completely out of proportion and twisted. The president nor anybody else ever went around telling all organizations to provide birth control. If the regulation says that they should provide health care coverage to their employees in a particular situation, then that is what they must do.
Oh my god, the government also stamped out quack medicine from the likes of faith healers, con artists, and alchemists from being classed as health care. This is a *good* thing. Having the church decide what constitutes "health care" is so utterly moronic that you'd truly have to prefer prayers, or to pour oil and wine on your wounds to heal them, or some other hilarious rubbish.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not both sides [thecommongood.net]; It's not "the left's" issue, despite what your centrist heroes may tell you, you false equivalency spewing tool. All a "third party in the middle" would do is to continue to shift the Overton window [wikipedia.org] further to the right, increasing income inequality, decreasing civil liberties, destroying what's left of the (very) ragged social safety net that remains for the elderly, infirm, and poor, and increasing our military adventurism. Of course, if you actually believe the "centrist" (actually, moderate right-wing reactionary) claptrap, that's probably what you want.
Re:Both Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.