Using Google Insights, a Harvard doctoral student compiled a paper purporting to demonstrate that areas of the country in which there were a high number of "racially charged searches," i.e., searches for the "N" word, also had a poor voter turnout for Obama in 2008 as compared with the turnout in those same areas for John Kerry in 2004. Here's his article at nytimes.com: How Racist Are We? Ask Google (via yahoo.com). Excerpt:
Add up the totals throughout the country, and racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote. In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.
Rather astonishing. He dismisses the concept that many people voted for Obama because of his race because he believes those voters would have voted for Obama anyway.
As for the next election, there's this:
If my findings are correct, race could very well prove decisive against Mr. Obama in 2012. Most modern presidential elections are close. Losing even two percentage points lowers the probability of a candidate’s winning the popular vote by a third. And prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania.
[Bold added.] We knew someone would say it: If Obama loses it's because of racism.
Actually, there are many reasons to vote against Obama this time around that have nothing to do with race -- the dismal job situation, the security leaks, the stagnant economy, the growing government debt burden, the regulatory uncertainty, and on and on. However, one thing that should be of concern for race researchers is whether the experience of having Barack Obama for president will make it harder in the future for black Democrats in national races. Shouldn't be a problem for black Republicans as Herman Cain demonstrated before he exited the primaries.
Meanwhile, the take-away lesson from all of this is that something as seemingly innocuous as a Google search can and will be used against us regardless of the purpose of that search.
Comments