PDA

View Full Version : Elections Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama


Donger
09-20-2008, 04:55 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=Asnd1oNx1rqWCdBFaJRWvJKs0NUE

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

Donger
09-20-2008, 04:56 AM
Graphic:

Chief Henry
09-20-2008, 05:08 AM
Stupid article really. Barry is up big in Iowa.

Dick Bull
09-20-2008, 06:41 AM
particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.


gee doesn't that sum up the problem?

Mecca
09-20-2008, 06:42 AM
particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.


gee doesn't that sum up the problem?

This is why the Republicans play this elitist card.....think about it.

Dick Bull
09-20-2008, 06:44 AM
This is why the Republicans play this elitist card.....think about it.

good point

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 07:06 AM
The Bradley Effect.

Stupid article really. Barry is up big in Iowa.

Iowa, likely, will be much closer than current polling suggests; don't be shocked if McCain wins Iowa. Given the financial crisis, it's unlikely, but Iowa is precisely the sort of state in which the Bradley Effect would have a significant impact.

I'm hopeful the Bradley Effect has faded in the past 15 years or so, but I guess we'll see.

NewChief
09-20-2008, 07:07 AM
But we live in a post-racial society!

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 07:11 AM
But we live in a post-racial society!


Those of us supporting Obama sure hope so, but...I'm not so naive as to think this isn't going to have some effect on the election. Otherwise, Obama would be up by 10% or more IMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2008, 08:33 AM
The Bradley Effect.



Iowa, likely, will be much closer than current polling suggests; don't be shocked if McCain wins Iowa. Given the financial crisis, it's unlikely, but Iowa is precisely the sort of state in which the Bradley Effect would have a significant impact.

I'm hopeful the Bradley Effect has faded in the past 15 years or so, but I guess we'll see.

You change with the ****ing winds, man.

For six months, all we heard was the Bradley effect, then you say that Obama has won the election barring anything but the nastiest of October surprises and the Bradley effect won't matter, now you are talking about the Bradley effect.

This pretty much sounds like a classic push poll to me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2008, 08:35 AM
The Bradley Effect.



Iowa, likely, will be much closer than current polling suggests; don't be shocked if McCain wins Iowa. Given the financial crisis, it's unlikely, but Iowa is precisely the sort of state in which the Bradley Effect would have a significant impact.

I'm hopeful the Bradley Effect has faded in the past 15 years or so, but I guess we'll see.

He would have gotten piss pounded in Iowa had this been accurate. Moreover, more Edwards supporters, who are less educated, broke to Obama than Clinton.

HolmeZz
09-20-2008, 12:00 PM
I'm not worried about racist Republicans. I'm worried about racist Democrats.

SBK
09-20-2008, 12:06 PM
It's never his views, it's always his skin color as to why people won't vote for him.

Dick Bull
09-20-2008, 12:15 PM
It's never his views, it's always his skin color as to why people won't vote for him.

I'm pretty sure he never said that.

HolmeZz
09-20-2008, 12:19 PM
It's never his views, it's always his skin color as to why people won't vote for him.

Are you an idiot? The thread was friggin' posted by Donger and focuses more on Democrats, people who do align with Obama's views.

jettio
09-20-2008, 12:21 PM
I don't think there is a Bradley effect unless the pollster has a black sounding voice or the question is posed in a way that suggests the Obama should win.

If the pollster has a white sounding voice and asks a simple question, "Who are you voting for?" someone that is not voting for Obama would have no reason to be self-conscious about saying who they do want to vote for.

I also think any Bradley effect will be nullified by Obama's voter recruitment because new voters, and young voters with cell phones and not land lines are underrepresented in polls.

RJ
09-20-2008, 12:24 PM
It's never his views, it's always his skin color as to why people won't vote for him.


You didn't read the article.


"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."

SBK
09-20-2008, 12:24 PM
Are you an idiot? The thread was friggin' posted by Donger and focuses more on Democrats, people who do align with Obama's views.

I know you're one of the O-bots around here so you'll never understand, but we never see articles about people disagreeing with Obama. His problems are always due to his race, not his views or plans.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 12:27 PM
He would have gotten piss pounded in Iowa had this been accurate. Moreover, more Edwards supporters, who are less educated, broke to Obama than Clinton.

Edwards reminds to many Midwesterners of Bill....except a less intelligent, more car salesman type version. That's why Edwards failed to catch on there. Besides, he won the primary; the general election, as you know may be a different story.

I do think that with the economy, Obama wins...but he will still likely underperform expectations and polling, due to the Bradley Effect IMHO. The only question is: by how much? I still say he needs a 6% margin to feel "safe."

I'll feel much better on the evening of November 5th, if early on....Obama sweeps NH, VA, and FL. If he loses FL, Obama better win both PA and OH. Otherwise, the electoral math could become difficult.

If McCain takes any from the MI/WI/MN dem strongholds, then IA would be the next to fall IMHO....along with MO and CO too. Given the economy, I'd be very surprised if that happened now, but not entirely shocked. However unlikely, the Bradley Effect keeps that electoral scenario "in play" for McCain.

Dick Bull
09-20-2008, 12:27 PM
I know you're one of the O-bots around here so you'll never understand, but we never see articles about people disagreeing with Obama. His problems are always due to his race, not his views or plans.

Wrong

Here's a thread that's intention was dedicated to that purpose.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192036
Unfortunately it was hijacked by me arguing with a moron, but there are still some people who followed through with the purpose of the thread.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm not worried about racist Republicans. I'm worried about racist Democrats.


And Independents. And we should be worried too, IMHO. :shake:

Dick Bull
09-20-2008, 12:29 PM
Edwards reminds to many Midwesterners of Bill....except a less intelligent, more car salesman type version. That's why Edwards failed to catch on there. Besides, he won the primary; the general election, as you know may be a different story.

I do think that with the economy, Obama wins...but he will still likely underperform expectations and polling, due to the Bradley Effect IMHO. The only question is: by how much? I still say he needs a 6% margin to feel "safe."

I'll feel much better on the evening of November 5th, if early on....Obama sweeps NH, VA, and FL. If he loses FL, Obama better win both PA and OH. Otherwise, the electoral math could become difficult.

If McCain takes any from the MI/WI/MN dem strongholds, then IA would be the next to fall IMHO....along with MO and CO too. Given the economy, I'd be very surprised if that happened now, but not entirely shocked. However unlikely, the Bradley Effect keeps that electoral scenario "in play" for McCain.

So what's McCain next move then, holler out for support to the trailer trash KKK type folks?

HolmeZz
09-20-2008, 12:32 PM
I know you're one of the O-bots around here so you'll never understand, but we never see articles about people disagreeing with Obama. His problems are always due to his race, not his views or plans.

What the **** are you gabbing about? This whole forum is full of people who disagree with Obama's plans. Donger posts a thread about racism among Democrats and you're the one poo-pooing the notion that racism is going to play a part in this election.

HolmeZz
09-20-2008, 12:34 PM
I'll feel much better on the evening of November 5th, if early on...

You get your news a day late? :p

jettio
09-20-2008, 12:34 PM
I know you're one of the O-bots around here so you'll never understand, but we never see articles about people disagreeing with Obama. His problems are always due to his race, not his views or plans.


With you they are.

Nothing stirred you up like Hannity beating the Rev. Wright drum for the hyena pack.

No greater indication of your true colors then your actions around that. You can try to sell yourself to yourself as being different than you are but you showed your true colors.

Maybe when Obama does a good job as President under the disaster he will inherit and you admit that Obama is doig a good job, you will rid yourself of your problem. But you can't disclaim your membership in the Hannity hyena pack of racists until you get past your prejudices.

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 12:51 PM
Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president


Well duh.

:D

Guru
09-20-2008, 12:57 PM
racial views should push any voter away from a candidate since we can't seem to eliminate racial views at all.

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 01:56 PM
You change with the ****ing winds, man.

For six months, all we heard was the Bradley effect, then you say that Obama has won the election barring anything but the nastiest of October surprises and the Bradley effect won't matter, now you are talking about the Bradley effect.

This pretty much sounds like a classic push poll to me.Lmao off that you are calling out Kotter for his middle of the road fence sitting act.

ROFLROFLROFL at YOU Kotter. ROFLROFL

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 02:01 PM
I know you're one of the O-bots around here so you'll never understand, but we never see articles about people disagreeing with Obama. His problems are always due to his race, not his views or plans.
Frankly, I think he is just as big a dumb ass as the guy that's in the white house right now.

Logical
09-20-2008, 03:30 PM
The Bradley Effect.



Iowa, likely, will be much closer than current polling suggests; don't be shocked if McCain wins Iowa. Given the financial crisis, it's unlikely, but Iowa is precisely the sort of state in which the Bradley Effect would have a significant impact.

I'm hopeful the Bradley Effect has faded in the past 15 years or so, but I guess we'll see.I sometimes wonder if a person posts about an effect such as the Bradley effect as if they are obsessed about it, is it because they feel some guilt related to said political topic.

Logical
09-20-2008, 03:36 PM
By the way I was reading the poll questions Donger provided and I would bet they viewed the term boastful as a negative. I don't agree with that classification, I have seen probably 90 to 95% of the posters on this forum engage in a boastful manner. I do not think negatively for that activity. It is more how they boast and what they boast about that I react to either positively or negatively.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2008, 03:48 PM
Edwards reminds to many Midwesterners of Bill....except a less intelligent, more car salesman type version. That's why Edwards failed to catch on there. Besides, he won the primary; the general election, as you know may be a different story.

I do think that with the economy, Obama wins...but he will still likely underperform expectations and polling, due to the Bradley Effect IMHO. The only question is: by how much? I still say he needs a 6% margin to feel "safe."

I'll feel much better on the evening of November 5th, if early on....Obama sweeps NH, VA, and FL. If he loses FL, Obama better win both PA and OH. Otherwise, the electoral math could become difficult.

If McCain takes any from the MI/WI/MN dem strongholds, then IA would be the next to fall IMHO....along with MO and CO too. Given the economy, I'd be very surprised if that happened now, but not entirely shocked. However unlikely, the Bradley Effect keeps that electoral scenario "in play" for McCain.

You might find this interesting:

http://picasion.com/pic3/363ac70b00c3be29ecc2b262e4645391.gif

Mecca
09-20-2008, 03:50 PM
Yea that's gonna flip people out, if McCain loses Virginia he's as done as a Turkey on Thanksgiving.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2008, 03:51 PM
Lmao off that you are calling out Kotter for his middle of the road fence sitting act.

ROFLROFLROFL at YOU Kotter. ROFLROFL

I"m not accusing Kotter of becoming a Republican, I'm accusing him of being Chicken Little. It has nothing to do with his political views, it has to do with his prognostication abilities and his vacillations.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 04:11 PM
You might find this interesting:

http://picasion.com/pic3/363ac70b00c3be29ecc2b262e4645391.gif

I think, based on what I've read....the cell-phone estimates are over-blown.


Realclearpolitics.com's map, is more precise....IMHO. :shrug:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2008, 04:12 PM
Realclearpolitics.com's map, is more precise....IMHO. :shrug:

Go to 538 and read their methodology for this map.

Logical
09-20-2008, 04:24 PM
I think, based on what I've read....the cell-phone estimates are over-blown.


...
Why

whoman69
09-20-2008, 04:47 PM
Why

Because they use statistics. Math can't be trusted because its too confusing for everyone.

Here is their methodology:
How is this site different from other compilations of polls like Real Clear Politics? There are several principal ways that the FiveThityEight methodology differs from other poll compilations:

Firstly, we assign each poll a weighting based on that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll. More reliable polls are weighted more heavily in our averages.

Secondly, we include a regression estimate based on the demographics in each state among our 'polls', which helps to account for outlier polls and to keep the polling in its proper context.

Thirdly, we use an inferential process to compute a rolling trendline that allows us to adjust results in states that have not been polled recently and make them ‘current’.

Fourthly, we simulate the election 10,000 times for each site update in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes based on a historical analysis of polling data since 1952. The simulation further accounts for the fact that similar states are likely to move together, e.g. future polling movement in states like Michigan and Ohio, or North and South Carolina, is likely to be in the same direction.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html

banyon
09-20-2008, 04:53 PM
I think, based on what I've read....the cell-phone estimates are over-blown.


Realclearpolitics.com's map, is more precise....IMHO. :shrug:

I think the cell phone effect is countered by the voter disenfranchisement effect. I remember that I thought it would make a difference in 2004. It didn't.

keg in kc
09-20-2008, 04:54 PM
I wonder what the results of the survay would be if black democrats, independents and republicans were asked the same questions (about blacks).

Not making a political statement, just curious...

whoman69
09-20-2008, 04:59 PM
I think, based on what I've read....the cell-phone estimates are over-blown.


Realclearpolitics.com's map, is more precise....IMHO. :shrug:

How is it precise when they just take the latest poll and call anything less than 4% a toss up? At least make a prediction instead of calling a quarter of the electorate a toss up.

Ultra Peanut
09-20-2008, 05:17 PM
Ron Fournier wrote this, by the way.

penchief
09-20-2008, 05:45 PM
Those of us supporting Obama sure hope so, but...I'm not so naive as to think this isn't going to have some effect on the election. Otherwise, Obama would be up by 10% or more IMO.

If Obama could win it would do more to change the political dynamics in this country than anything else. Those dynamics will need to change, IMO, before we can get beyond the politics of the status quo.

Logical
09-20-2008, 07:57 PM
Because they use statistics. Math can't be trusted because its too confusing for everyone.

Here is their methodology:
How is this site different from other compilations of polls like Real Clear Politics? There are several principal ways that the FiveThityEight methodology differs from other poll compilations:

Firstly, we assign each poll a weighting based on that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll. More reliable polls are weighted more heavily in our averages.

Secondly, we include a regression estimate based on the demographics in each state among our 'polls', which helps to account for outlier polls and to keep the polling in its proper context.

Thirdly, we use an inferential process to compute a rolling trendline that allows us to adjust results in states that have not been polled recently and make them ‘current’.

Fourthly, we simulate the election 10,000 times for each site update in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes based on a historical analysis of polling data since 1952. The simulation further accounts for the fact that similar states are likely to move together, e.g. future polling movement in states like Michigan and Ohio, or North and South Carolina, is likely to be in the same direction.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.htmlThanks for the detailed analysis. I still hope Kotter provides his answer, I doubt it is as detailed.

Mr. Kotter
09-20-2008, 08:03 PM
Why

banyon answered the question for me, basically. 2004 estimates were off....because Republican voters/supporters make it to the polls in larger per centages. Consistently. Some say with Obama, that will be different. I'm not so sure. Many liberals I know participate in polling and surveys; most conservatives I know don't--they hold the media (which they consider pollsters a part of) in contempt, or don't take the time (it's too valuable, in their mind)...or they even play games with pollsters by lying.

Logical
09-20-2008, 08:10 PM
banyon answered the question for me, basically. 2004 estimates were off....because Republican voters/supporters make it to the polls in larger per centages. Consistently. Some say with Obama, that will be different. I'm not so sure. Many liberals I know participate in polling and surveys; most conservatives I know don't--they hold the media (which they consider pollsters a part of) in contempt, or don't take the time (it's too valuable, in their mind)...or they even play games with pollsters by lying.Thanks for answering, it seems we are doomed to a McCain Presidency, the republicans are just too smart.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2008, 12:30 AM
Thanks for answering, it seems we are doomed to a McCain Presidency, the republicans are just too smart.

I'm on record for predicting an Obama victory, that I shall dance-the-night-away to....in November (and on innauguration night, as well)....

I'm simply trying to be somewhat objective here. :shrug: