Poll: Lingering racism may hurt Obama

[estranged4life]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/

One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - 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" or 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.

'Less likely to vote for Obama'
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.

Issue among Democrats
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 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.

Word association
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.

The Clinton factor
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 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.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2008 MSNBC.com

[Richard B]

Reminds me of the "one drop rule" in America, which I don't agree with. I think of Obama as mulatto if I had to describe him.

Wikepdia Quote:
"Many people in the United States are rejecting the one drop rule and are questioning whether a person with one black parent should be considered black or biracial. Although politician Barack Obama self-identifies as black, 55 percent of whites and 61 percent of Hispanics classified him as biracial instead of black after being told that his mother is white. Blacks were less likely to acknowledge a multiracial category, with 66% labeling Obama as black.[44] Forty-two percent of African-Americans described Tiger Woods as black, as did 7% of white Americans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

[strandinthewind]

I know people from age 21 - 80 or so who are not voting for Obama solely because he is black. One D remarked to me "I have been a D for 50 years and I am voting for McCain because the D's gave me the choice between a woman and a ni**er"

I have to remember to ask him what he thinks of Palin as Pres.

[Richard B]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

One D remarked to me "I have been a D for 50 years and I am voting for McCain because the D's gave me the choice between a woman and a ni**er"

I had only 1 friend that said the same thing to me. Granted, he can say what he believes, but it sure made me think twice about him. Now I'm disengaging from that "friend."

Sadly, I am sitting this vote out, as we're screwed with either choice and I do not see an independent or other party ever being elected anytime soon. I'm a registered Dem, but do not agree with some of Obama's plans and beliefs enough to just vote Dem and support Obama. The flip side is just as horrid.

Ugh.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Richard B

I had only 1 friend that said the same thing to me. Granted, he can say what he believes, but it sure made me think twice about him. Now I'm disengaging from that "friend."

Sadly, I am sitting this vote out, as we're screwed with either choice and I do not see an independent or other party ever being elected anytime soon. I'm a registered Dem, but do not agree with some of Obama's plans and beliefs enough to just vote Dem and support Obama. The flip side is just as horrid.

Ugh.

I tend to agree. I really am not that entralled with Obama. Moreover, I think the D's were out of their minds buying into all that "I'm for change" rhetoric. I think if Hillary was the nominee, she would be way in the lead as opposed to all this neck and neck BS.

In the end, I will vote for Obama because even though I do not like him, the thought of Palin and her theocracy is far worse to me. I live in Georgia. So, I am unsure what difference my vote will make as McCain is likely to win Georgia.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by Richard B

Sadly, I am sitting this vote out, as we're screwed with either choice and I do not see an independent or other party ever being elected anytime soon. I'm a registered Dem, but do not agree with some of Obama's plans and beliefs enough to just vote Dem and support Obama. The flip side is just as horrid.

Ugh.

considering sitting this election out too. I live in a weird state, Oklahoma, where the majority of registered voters are Democrats and polls already have McCain winning this state easily (The same polls said the exact same result even if Hill-Billy Clinton would have had won the Demo nomination) in the Presidential Election...

Most of it is based on two reasons:

#1 the word "Liberal" - which equates to the 'death kneel' in this state. If a candidate can be shown to be considered "Liberal" their chances of winning an election in this state are the same as William Shatner winning the Grammy for best "Rap Music" performance.

Oklahoma Democrats are notorious for being either "Conservative" or "Moderate", Never "Liberal". Oklahoma Demo leaders supported the definition of marriage law as ONLY being between man and woman, are pro-military, pro-faith based teaching in school, pro-Iraqi war. A Democrat can win Oklahoma if they support issues that are usually supported by the "right".

#2 the race issue. Oklahoma has the largest number of "Native Americans" per capita of any state in the Union. Tribal leaders are almost always Democrats, but usually do not trust what "white" and "black" National leaders of their party have to say. Most Indian tribes supported Obama moreso than Clinton after he gave his support to the Cherokee Nation's issue of "the Freedman" and that the issue is 'a tribal issue, not a racial issue - and the US govt. has no rights in dictating how a sovereign nation should do its business".

Blacks were upset with Obama's opinion and support and started to support Clinton in her bid to show their distaste of his actions. Whites are upset with the amount of $$$$ tribes are making with casinos, money that does not go to any pockets except for the tribes (When Oklahoma passed the law to legalize a lottery, 30% of the money from the lottery went towards state education - but tribes were exempt from having to add their share). And finally Indians are sick of of the "blacks" and "whites" wanting a share of their profits and then whining when they dont get their way.

Racism still is alive in this state (I am still in awe that Hurricane Katrina evacuees were located to Camp Gruber, outside of Braggs, Oklahoma - A known hotbed for racist groups such as the KKK) and considering how the 'worthless tribal reservation' that was the Indian Territory quickly became a state known as Oklahoma when OIL was discovered upon land that "Yanks" promised to tribes (Upon their ILLEGAL removal from their homelands of the SE U.S.). The moment the "Yanks" saw OIL they reneged on their 'treaties' and wanted the OIL and land of the "Indian Territory" for themselves. Over a hundred years later, TRIBAL leaders have NOT forgotten..."Let's see you screwed us out of our HOMELANDS, then lie and deceive us once we arrived in a worthless land - almost on the brink of extinction at the end of a long forced march. And now that we ARE turning a profit you want a slice of OUR pie? Dont think so...remember, we 'learned how to lie and steal' from the 'best of the best' when you thought we were the uneducated SAVAGES, But we adapted...We learned...Now we see who TRULY are the SAVAGES now!!!"

Some tribes have sarcastically (And some NOT so sarcatically) offered the US their casino profits in exchange for the land the US govt. STOLED from 'em - So the US govt. can effectively have Oklahoma and casinos $$$$ in exchange for Florida, N.Carolina/S.Carolina, Georgia - which will succeed from the Union (The Cherokee Nation, among other major Oklahoma tribes, fought along side the Confederacy in exchange that IF the Confederates won the Civil War, the land the "Yanks" STOLED will "rightfully be returned to their rightful owners") and force any non-Indian the "F**k out" of their new (And old) homeland.

Brian "God, I loved Oklahoma History in High School....My first taste of how CORRUPTION ran, and still RUNS this country - and it is still taught that way in high school 20+ years after I graduated...Interesting **** to learn when you are Irish and Cherokee" j.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I tend to agree. I really am not that entralled with Obama. Moreover, I think the D's were out of their minds buying into all that "I'm for change" rhetoric. I think if Hillary was the nominee, she would be way in the lead as opposed to all this neck and neck BS.

In the end, I will vote for Obama because even though I do not like him, the thought of Palin and her theocracy is far worse to me. I live in Georgia. So, I am unsure what difference my vote will make as McCain is likely to win Georgia.

I think the Dems made a huge mistake in not nominating Hillary. I really do not feel Obama is experienced enough (though Palin is much worse, obviously). I think her health care plan was better. And, I think she would have been more equipped to handle the "3 a.m. call."

I will vote for Obama anyway; not that it will matter much as I live in Kentucky. I fear he won't be able to accomplish much of his platform. I hope he proves me wrong.

[vermicious knid]

I too, live in a state that renders my vote completely worthless. I have always been willing to give a symbolic vote, but not this year. Not for Obama. Not when the smartest, most experienced, most capable, most tenacious candidate lost despite getting more votes than the other guy. The DNC is crooked.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

I too, live in a state that renders my vote completely worthless. I have always been willing to give a symbolic vote, but not this year. Not for Obama. Not when the smartest, most experienced, most capable, most tenacious candidate lost despite getting more votes than the other guy. The DNC is crooked.

They never showed the roll call vote at the convention on television. The reason, I think, is because they didn't want people to see the disunity of the party.

[BombaySapphire3]

I have three words for anyone thinking of 'sitting this one out" or voting for McCain because Hillary didn't get the nomination...President Sarah Palin.

[ajmccarrell]

This poll doesn't surprise me one bit. I'm not at all shocked about the racism here, yet it is almost never addressed in the Democratic party. Personally, I've always thought that Affirmative Action laws assumed a certain inferiority and general incompetence about minorities to make it on their own. I've thought the basic difference in philosophies was always racist as well. The Republican philosophy has typically been, "You've got bootstraps, so use 'em" to the point where real discrimination would be overlooked. Whereas the democratic philosophy to me has reflected a certain disdain and condescension that says, "You're not capable of doing anything yourself, you need me (the government) to prop you up because you are basically incompetant on your own." Before I get hostile responses, I intended both positions to be characatures of the parties, but it has alway seemed the Democratic position does assume a general inferiority of the proletariat and disadvantaged. In short, because of the philosophical differences, I can easily see this in the democratic base. Just a personal note, I do find racism basically disgusting. I would never not vote, or vote for, someone because of race or gender, or sexual orientation. I think I've mentioned before that my assistant is a gay man. We get a long just fine and I often wonder why he doesn't talk about his guy friends more. To me, voting is a job interview process.

[Richard B]

Obama Test

[Musicman408]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know people from age 21 - 80 or so who are not voting for Obama solely because he is black. One D remarked to me "I have been a D for 50 years and I am voting for McCain because the D's gave me the choice between a woman and a ni**er"

I have to remember to ask him what he thinks of Palin as Pres.

That's just inexcusable. It makes me sick to think that there are still people out there who are like this.

[David]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

This poll doesn't surprise me one bit. I'm not at all shocked about the racism here, yet it is almost never addressed in the Democratic party. Personally, I've always thought that Affirmative Action laws assumed a certain inferiority and general incompetence about minorities to make it on their own. I've thought the basic difference in philosophies was always racist as well. The Republican philosophy has typically been, "You've got bootstraps, so use 'em" to the point where real discrimination would be overlooked. Whereas the democratic philosophy to me has reflected a certain disdain and condescension that says, "You're not capable of doing anything yourself, you need me (the government) to prop you up because you are basically incompetant on your own." Before I get hostile responses, I intended both positions to be characatures of the parties, but it has alway seemed the Democratic position does assume a general inferiority of the proletariat and disadvantaged.

That isn't -- or only was & is no longer -- a Democrat-Republican division observable in practice. The division you cite is state-mandated collectivism vs. liberty. It makes more sense to discuss the topic in these terms. The "philosophical differences" between the two big parties are only slightly varying degrees of statism & collectivism.

Just a personal note, I do find racism basically disgusting.

I don't use the word racism; I use the word bigotry. I myself have many bigotries.

I think I've mentioned before that my assistant is a gay man. We get a long just fine and I often wonder why he doesn't talk about his guy friends more.

Maybe your assistant sides with Mass Manners, to whom the constant talk of private matters in the public realm (like the workplace) is a social misfortune.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by David

That isn't -- or only was & is no longer -- a Democrat-Republican division observable in practice. The division you cite is state-mandated collectivism vs. liberty. It makes more sense to discuss the topic in these terms. The "philosophical differences" between the two big parties are only slightly varying degrees of statism & collectivism.

I don't use the word racism; I use the word bigotry. I myself have many bigotries.

Maybe your assistant sides with Mass Manners, to whom the constant talk of private matters in the public realm (like the workplace) is a social misfortune.

I think the basic divisions between the philosophies I mentioned is the assumption of the competence of the average individual. I subscribe to the notion that most people are only as competent and capable as we treat them. If we are to assume someone is a moron, he's more likely to take the path of least resistance and act like a moron.

As for the latter, I doubt it. He doesn't mind coming in and telling everyone how much he drank the night before or about parties he went to, or fashions he bought, etc. I think he might be little gunshy about talking about his relationships because of previous negative reactions. I'd actually like to know him a bit better.