Finally a poll that looks at race. And it aint pretty!

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
This is pretty ugly.

40% of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view towards blacks.
More than a third of white Democrats agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks.

But WAIT!!

Race is NOT the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama.
More than a quarter of Democrats express doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want.

link
Link is worth a click just for the graphic.
Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks ? many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 ? about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents ? voters Obama can't win the White House without ? agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home ? among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president ? white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes ? including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries ? particularly whites with high school education or less ? were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Yeah I agree...it is ugly, not just for Democrats or Republicans but all Americans. It's a sad state of affairs when people have negative views towards whole races comprised of many respectable, hard working and law abiding citizens.

But WAIT!!

According to your numbers 40% of all Americans have negative views towards blacks and 1/3 (~34%) of Democrats have negative views towards blacks. According to Rasmussen there are 39% registered democrats versus 33% registered repulicans...therefore x(33)+.34(39)=1(40)...x=0.81

Meaning 81% of Repulicans must have a negative view of blacks. And the Repulicans call themselves the party of inclusion? Yikes...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,675
136
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.

As for the rest of it, your attribution that a quarter of Dems are being driven away from Obama is facetious. Yeh, they see Obama's chances of bringing about the change they want as unrealistic... Why? Because of the simple fact that repubs will mount a rearguard action to protect the ideological poppycock they've foisted off on us ever since the RR era. Driven to where- the McCain camp? Not even in your wildest dreams- there's no change there, other than for the worse...

But, please, keep on spinning- as desperation grows on the Right, the arguments and distractions become more and more transparent. It'd be comical, if it weren't quite so serious, if what they've accomplished so far didn't threaten the very foundations of the middle class...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.
If Obama looked like Romney he would have never won the nomination.

It has been PROVEN that Obama won several states based solely on the 90% of blacks who voted for him.

Make Obama a white guy and split that vote 50/50 and Hillary is the nominee.

But for some reason you guys always ignore that part of the equation when you talk about how racism is going to cause Obama to lose.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As for the rest of it, your attribution that a quarter of Dems are being driven away from Obama is facetious. Yeh, they see Obama's chances of bringing about the change they want as unrealistic... Why? Because of the simple fact that repubs will mount a rearguard action to protect the ideological poppycock they've foisted off on us ever since the RR era. Driven to where- the McCain camp? Not even in your wildest dreams- there's no change there, other than for the worse...

But, please, keep on spinning- as desperation grows on the Right, the arguments and distractions become more and more transparent. It'd be comical, if it weren't quite so serious, if what they've accomplished so far didn't threaten the very foundations of the middle class...
What the fuck is wrong with you!!!!!!!

It is not MY attribution! I took the line right from the article I linked too.

There is NO spin in my OP at all.
Every line of my OP is copied right from the article!

Is your head so far up your ass that you missed that fact?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,580
32,279
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.
If Obama looked like Romney he would have never won the nomination.

It has been PROVEN that Obama won several states based solely on the 90% of blacks who voted for him.

Make Obama a white guy and split that vote 50/50 and Hillary is the nominee.

But for some reason you guys always ignore that part of the equation when you talk about how racism is going to cause Obama to lose.
And what about all the votes he lost from whites because he didn't look like Romney? As much as you'd like to say something is PROVEN, you are ignoring effects that are certainly present but not measurable.

I also fail to see what this has to do with the fact that were Obama white, he would be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt. Are you trying to make some sort of statement about blacks only voting for Obama because he's black or something?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.

As for the rest of it, your attribution that a quarter of Dems are being driven away from Obama is facetious. Yeh, they see Obama's chances of bringing about the change they want as unrealistic... Why? Because of the simple fact that repubs will mount a rearguard action to protect the ideological poppycock they've foisted off on us ever since the RR era. Driven to where- the McCain camp? Not even in your wildest dreams- there's no change there, other than for the worse...

But, please, keep on spinning- as desperation grows on the Right, the arguments and distractions become more and more transparent. It'd be comical, if it weren't quite so serious, if what they've accomplished so far didn't threaten the very foundations of the middle class...
I didn't even bother to read the OP, however I don't buy that Democrats are immune to race considerations. There are going to be Dems who pick McCain or not vote because they don't want a black President.

What we can't know is how this plays out in practice. Because someone doesn't overly thrilled with someone doesn't mean it's the sole consideration.

A non-political example. I have a redneck dirt farmer uncle who doesn't like blacks. At all. He uses all the names you expect, and isn't very subtle. Once I was visiting my family down south, and he came home late. There was an accident and a black guy got hurt. So he left him, right? Nope. He was the one who stopped and made sure he got medical treatment before he left. Why? Because a person got hurt and he needed to make sure he was OK. He never thought about him being black. He never saw the disconnect.

What's that got to do with politics? People may say one thing, but when it comes down to it they'll often do what they think is right regardless.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A non-political example. I have a redneck dirt farmer uncle who doesn't like blacks. At all. He uses all the names you expect, and isn't very subtle. Once I was visiting my family down south, and he came home late. There was an accident and a black guy got hurt. So he left him, right? Nope. He was the one who stopped and made sure he got medical treatment before he left. Why? Because a person got hurt and he needed to make sure he was OK. He never thought about him being black. He never saw the disconnect.
I think it has to do with stereo typing and group dynamics.

Look at the question about blacks being good neighbors. It was one the highest scoring questions overall because it forces you to make a one on one comparison to blacks you know.

But then look at the 'lazy' question which has the worse response. Here people are obviously looking at the stereotype of blacks sitting around on the street corner being lazy.

You see this on almost any type of poll that deals with large groups.

Europeans will tell you that they hate the American government, but then talk about how much they love the American people.

It is easy to look at a group of people and form a negative opinion of them as a group, but MUCH harder to look at individual people and form the same opinion.

Your uncle is a perfect example of this.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I also fail to see what this has to do with the fact that were Obama white, he would be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt. Are you trying to make some sort of statement about blacks only voting for Obama because he's black or something?
In the North Carolina primary Obama took 91% of the black vote verse Hillary's 7%.

In Alabama Obama won 84% of the black vote.

In Mississippi Obama won 92% of the black vote.

In Indiana Obama won 89% of the black vote.

Notice a pattern yet? Explain to me why Obama won the overwhelming majority of blacks in nearly every primary. If he were a white first term Senator would the results have been the same?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,675
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As for the rest of it, your attribution that a quarter of Dems are being driven away from Obama is facetious. Yeh, they see Obama's chances of bringing about the change they want as unrealistic... Why? Because of the simple fact that repubs will mount a rearguard action to protect the ideological poppycock they've foisted off on us ever since the RR era. Driven to where- the McCain camp? Not even in your wildest dreams- there's no change there, other than for the worse...

But, please, keep on spinning- as desperation grows on the Right, the arguments and distractions become more and more transparent. It'd be comical, if it weren't quite so serious, if what they've accomplished so far didn't threaten the very foundations of the middle class...
What the fuck is wrong with you!!!!!!!

It is not MY attribution! I took the line right from the article I linked too.

There is NO spin in my OP at all.
Every line of my OP is copied right from the article!

Is your head so far up your ass that you missed that fact?

Just because you make the same erroneous claim as the article's author doesn't make either one of you right, PJ, or make it any less spin...

Not to mention that the article pooh-poohs the basic reason many whites, particularly in the South, vote Republican, no matter what. Repubs' appeal in that sector of the electorate is racist at its core, despite protestations to the contrary, or any efforts to gloss over that glaring bit of reality. WTF do you think "States Rights", "Local Control", and "Family Values" are all about, other than keeping uppity blacks down and the White Race pure?
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt

According to your numbers 40% of all Americans have negative views towards blacks and 1/3 (~34%) of Democrats have negative views towards blacks. According to Rasmussen there are 39% registered democrats versus 33% registered repulicans...therefore x(33)+.34(39)=1(40)...x=0.81

Meaning 81% of Repulicans must have a negative view of blacks. And the Repulicans call themselves the party of inclusion? Yikes...
Your algebra makes absolutely no mathematical sense whatsoever. Why is basic probability so hard to understand? Assuming rasmussen is correct, this country is 39% democrat and 33% republican, yet somehow in your equation you managed to assume the other 28% of the country doesn't exist. You also randomly swap percentage representations(party affiliation vs negative view towards blacks). Is this the level of mathematics on the forum? Yikes...
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
anyone who isnt skeptical that obama OR mccain can bring "change" ..this buzzword is getting quite annoying... is a moron
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
64,699
19,108
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

But for some reason you guys always ignore that part of the equation when you talk about how racism is going to cause Obama to lose.
Um, I think most Obama backers here are starting to feel that he is going to win. Sometime this weekend or early next week Congress will pass and Bush will sign a bailout package for the credit industry that will cost at least $700 billion to the taxpayers. Seven weeks before the election. Seven weeks in which Bush/McCain will have to explain clearly how they intend to pay for the fix and what they are going to do to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Obama doesn't. Seriously, Obama just needs to stick to his campaign script while Bush's protege McCain explains how to fix the fix. Screaming that "Obama doesn't have a plan" to fix this colossal Republican/conservative fuckup isn't going to help McCain one bit. The voters know who created the conditions promoting the current fuckup, the same folks who created the S&L mess, and McCain has to propose a plausible fix...in seven weeks. Maybe he can assign Palin the task.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
A non-political example. I have a redneck dirt farmer uncle who doesn't like blacks. At all. He uses all the names you expect, and isn't very subtle. Once I was visiting my family down south, and he came home late. There was an accident and a black guy got hurt. So he left him, right? Nope. He was the one who stopped and made sure he got medical treatment before he left. Why? Because a person got hurt and he needed to make sure he was OK. He never thought about him being black. He never saw the disconnect.
I think it has to do with stereo typing and group dynamics.

Look at the question about blacks being good neighbors. It was one the highest scoring questions overall because it forces you to make a one on one comparison to blacks you know.

But then look at the 'lazy' question which has the worse response. Here people are obviously looking at the stereotype of blacks sitting around on the street corner being lazy.

You see this on almost any type of poll that deals with large groups.

Europeans will tell you that they hate the American government, but then talk about how much they love the American people.

It is easy to look at a group of people and form a negative opinion of them as a group, but MUCH harder to look at individual people and form the same opinion.

Your uncle is a perfect example of this.
That makes sense.

If we extend that, then what race comes down to is (political leanings aside) the individual voter perception. Will they view him as primarily black or as a person, in the context of our example? That's going to be tough to quantify especially if the voter doesn't realize he's making that determination at all.
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Assuming the other 28% are registered independent, and they share the same numbers as democrats as per the article, we have x(.33) + .34(.39) + .34(.28) = .40(1) , where the number in () represents the percentage affiliation and x represents the percentage of a negative view for republicans. x ends up being about 52%, not 81%.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: ss284
Originally posted by: Stunt

According to your numbers 40% of all Americans have negative views towards blacks and 1/3 (~34%) of Democrats have negative views towards blacks. According to Rasmussen there are 39% registered democrats versus 33% registered repulicans...therefore x(33)+.34(39)=1(40)...x=0.81

Meaning 81% of Repulicans must have a negative view of blacks. And the Repulicans call themselves the party of inclusion? Yikes...
Your algebra makes absolutely no mathematical sense whatsoever. Why is basic probability so hard to understand? Assuming rasmussen is correct, this country is 39% democrat and 33% republican, yet somehow in your equation you managed to assume the other 28% of the country doesn't exist. You also randomly swap percentage representations(party affiliation vs negative view towards blacks). Is this the level of mathematics on the forum? Yikes...
You are correct...it should be x(33)+.34(39)=.4(72)...x=0.47

So 47% of Republicans. Independents are not included, earlier I assumed Dems + Reps = 100%...my bad :)
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
You still need to include the independent part, because 40% covers all polled, not just the 72% of people that are affiliated.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.
If Obama looked like Romney he would have never won the nomination.

It has been PROVEN that Obama won several states based solely on the 90% of blacks who voted for him.

Make Obama a white guy and split that vote 50/50 and Hillary is the nominee.

But for some reason you guys always ignore that part of the equation when you talk about how racism is going to cause Obama to lose.
How many Hillary voters voter for her because Obama is not white? How can they accurately say?
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,880
47
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I also fail to see what this has to do with the fact that were Obama white, he would be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt. Are you trying to make some sort of statement about blacks only voting for Obama because he's black or something?
In the North Carolina primary Obama took 91% of the black vote verse Hillary's 7%.

In Alabama Obama won 84% of the black vote.

In Mississippi Obama won 92% of the black vote.

In Indiana Obama won 89% of the black vote.

Notice a pattern yet? Explain to me why Obama won the overwhelming majority of blacks in nearly every primary. If he were a white first term Senator would the results have been the same?
What is your point? Black people are voting for the first black man to have a chance to become the president of the US and you think that is racist?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Clif, it is identity politics.

Obama wins 90% of black voters in the primary because he is black, there is no other explanation for it. And no one seems to have a problem with it.

But if the majority of whites vote for McCain because he is white then it is racism.

Why the double standard?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,580
32,279
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Clif, it is identity politics.

Obama wins 90% of black voters in the primary because he is black, there is no other explanation for it. And no one seems to have a problem with it.

But if the majority of whites vote for McCain because he is white then it is racism.

Why the double standard?
Pro-Jo, this has been explained to you probably dozens of times. Do you seriously not understand why minority groups that feel alienated and oppressed by a society attempt to band together to get minority people elected?

Can you see how this is different then whitey voting in McCain? How people can be so dense not to understand this is simply beyond me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY