Study Claims to Find Holy Grail of Liberalism: Proof That Anti-Obama Voters Are Racist
Barack Obama won the 2008 election in an electoral vote landslide, but racism darn near cost him the election - and if he loses this year, it will be because of racism, so says a doctoral candidate at Harvard University.
Google search data proves it, says Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who is a candidate for a Ph.D. in economics, and wrote a post for the New York Times' “Campaign Stops” blog entitled “How Racist Are We? Ask Google.” Unfortunately, the study is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.
Before getting into the details, let's stipulate: There is no doubt that, somewhere in America, there are some people who voted against Obama because he is black. But not many – certainly not enough to cost Obama the election, which he won with a hair under 53 percent of the vote, which is 10 points more than Bill Clinton got in 1992.
But Stephens-Davidowitz argues otherwise – and says that if Obama loses his re-election bid, racism will be the reason why.
After Obama's big win in 2008, writes Stephens-Davidowitz, "Many naturally concluded that prejudice was not a major factor against a black presidential candidate in modern America. My research, a comparison of Americans’ Google searches and their voting patterns, found otherwise. If my results are correct, racial animus cost Mr. Obama many more votes than we may have realized."
Stephens-Davidowitz used Google Insights, a service which tells researchers how often words are searched in different parts of the United States:
"Can we really quantify racial prejudice in different parts of the country based solely on how often certain words are used on Google? Not perfectly, but remarkably well. Google, aggregating information from billions of searches, has an uncanny ability to reveal meaningful social patterns. 'God' is Googled more often in the Bible Belt, 'Lakers' in Los Angeles. The conditions under which people use Google — online, most likely alone, not participating in an official survey — are ideal for capturing what they are really thinking and feeling. You may have typed things into Google that you would hesitate to admit in polite company. I certainly have. The majority of Americans have as well: we Google the word “porn” more often than the word 'weather.' And many Americans use Google to find racially charged material. I performed the somewhat unpleasant task of ranking states and media markets in the United States based on the proportion of their Google searches that included the word 'nigger(s).' This word was included in roughly the same number of Google searches as terms like 'Lakers,' 'Daily Show,' 'migraine' and 'economist'.”
Stephens-Davidowitz says the Google Insights Data shows that that West Virginia had the highest racially charged search rate in America, followed closely by western Pennsylvania (a region later maligned by Obama with his infamous and bigoted “bitter clingers” quote slamming small town people who own firearms and go to church) as well as eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi.
After ranking 200 metropolitan areas by their racially charged search data, Stephens-Davidowitz then came up with a way to compare it to the election results – a way that depends solely on his own conjecture about how many votes Obama should have gotten. In short, he assumes that Obama “should have received” more votes everywhere than John Kerry did in 2004, simply based on how much better Democratic congressional candidates did in 2008, on average, than in 2004.
The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did,” says Stephens-Davidowitz. He concludes that “racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote” and “racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.”
While admitting that Obama “also gained some votes because of his race,” he dismisses that as “comparatively minor” because “the vast majority of voters for whom Mr. Obama’s race was a positive were liberal, habitual voters who would have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate.”
How Stephens-Davidowitz can possibly know that is unclear. Is he really prepared to say that there are no independent or Republican voters who voted for Obama because they wanted to see a person of African descent win the presidency? There is simply no way of knowing that and short of conducting a series of focus groups or polls, Stephens-Davidowitz cannot even offer any emprical evidence that his contention could be true.
He also gives no such credit to voters, especially in places like Mississippi and West Virginia, who could be similar described as “conservative, habitual voters who would have voted against any Democratic presidential candidate.”
No, to Stephens-Davidovits, if you voted for Obama and lived in areas he's focused on, it was because Obama deserved it, if you voted against him, you did so out of racism.
He doesn't even try to factor in the differences between Obama and Kerry as candidates – from their personalities and effectiveness as campaigners to their positions on issues and even to their backgrounds and experience. These matter. Kerry was a long-serving U.S. Senator with a record of accomplishment and military experience; Obama was a rookie Senator of no legislative distinction who, as an Illinois state Senator, mostly voted “present,” who never served in the military and whose pre-political career as a community organizer impressed few outside the liberal Left. Obama's avowed promise to "bankrupt" the nation's coal industry certainly had to have had an impact on West Virginia, a state where many voters are directly employed by coal.
Both candidates campaigned drastically differently as well. Kerry emphasized his experience and portrayed himself as a patriotic voice of reason. Obama, meanwhile, spouted vague platitudes with plenty of signaling that he was a man of the far left, one who was interested more in the new Democratic coalition of minorities, single women, and government employees than in the old Democratic coalition of private sector unions, rural voters and the less-educated.
Further, Stephens-Davidowitz doesn't bother to factor in the very divisive 2008 Democratic primary campaign, in which the rise of Obama the back-bencher to the nomination angered many supporters of Hillary Clinton – both women and many in the blue-collar and rural areas where Bill Clinton also found a lot of support. The very same areas where Stephens-Davidowitz asserts that Obama "underperformed" due to racism.
Surely these other factors played a role in how voters voted, but to Stephens-Davidowitz, Obama and Kerry both are Democrats, thus, both would get the same reaction from voters, and the only difference would be that 2008 was simply a better year for a Democrat to run for the White House. And when you make the scenario that simplistic, it's easy to then compare the vote totals to the Google data on racially-charged searches and come up with the conclusion that, except for racist voters, Obama would've won even bigger in 2008.
The question Stephens-Davidowitz can't answer is, how many of those race-searching voters have voted against Obama even if he had been white? Most assuredly many of them would have. Unless there is a strong third party candidate, at least 40 percent of the electorate will vote against the Democrat (and another 40 percent against the Republican) every time.
When you look at it that way, what you realize is, if racism cost Obama any votes – it potentially cost him Democrat votes, not Republicans, since the vast majority of Republicans weren't going to vote for the Democratic nominee, period.
But that's not the narrative Stephens-Davidowitz is trying to construct. And having constructed his conclusion based on data sets from two drastically different time periods, as well as his own conjecture, Stephens-Davidowitz then drops the bomb:
"Race could very well prove decisive against Mr. Obama in 2012,” he says, adding that “prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania.”
He says Obama was “able to overcome” racism in 2008 because of the collapsing economy and the unpopularity of the Iraq war, which given him “an unusually strong tailwind.” But this year he says, “the tail wind is gone; the obstacle likely remains.”
You'd think a Ph.D. candidate in economics would note that Obama faces other obstacles in 2012, primarily the economy, an area in which Obama's policies have utterly failed. Under Obama, America has endured a record 40 months of unemployment above 8 percent. Chronically anemic job creation that has barely kept pace with population growth has forced record numbers of Americans onto food stamps, left half of all recent college graduates unable to find a good job, and caused millions of Americans to simply drop out of the work force.
There's no data anywhere which ties a specific person's voting record to their online search record, so Stephens-Davidowitz is only looking at two different sets of data and coming to a conclusion driven by his own assumptions. He went into the study looking for signs of racism, and, lo and behold, he claims to have found them.
- Matthew Sheffield's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Brit Hume's buying it
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 5:22am.
Per Noel Sheppard's earlier blog post (albeit, about Eric Holder):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/11/brit-hume-holder-c...
Hume isn't buying it.
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:14am.
He's not saying he believes it; he's saying that's what will be said. And he has ample reason to predict that.
It's the accusation of every race-baiter out there whenever criticism of Obama comes up, so why not Holder?
Misunderstanding
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:40am.
I didn't mean that Hume was buying the charge of racism, but the prediction that any opposition to Obama will be labeled as racist.
Racism DID affect the 2008 Presidential race
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 6:10am.
Actually, racism is what cost McCain the Presidency.
He got almost zero votes from the racist 'African-American' peoples.
ZERO
Just because of the color of his skin.
racism
Submitted by Huapakechi on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:52am.
mccain was a 'place marker' candidate. There was no fire in the campaign until he (perhaps accidentally) named Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The campaign was so inept that it went beyond incompetence and had to be a deliberate failure.
With "o"boy's entire history to expose, mccain refused to attack any of the myriad of holes in the background of his opponent, and even when his citizenship was 'investigated' did not demand that the questions about "o"boy's birth and background be answered.
"skepticism is contagious in a time of disillusionment."
~Thomas Lifson
McCain lost
Submitted by chiefpayne on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 10:30am.
because of racism (people WANTED a First Black President) AND because he allowed Obama to define his campaign.
The FIRST TIME it came out that Obama "had more experience" than Palin, McCain should have spoken up and said "Maybe...but you see Obama is running against ME for President. Now would you like to talk about experience AGAIN?"
The FIRST TIME it came out
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:08pm.
The FIRST TIME it came out that Obama "had more experience" than Palin, McCain should have spoken up and said "Maybe...but you see Obama is running against ME for President. Now would you like to talk about experience AGAIN?"
Since Obama had less experience than McCain and Palin, Barack and his surrogates shouldn't have said anything. That it had any currency says more about the stupidity/ignorance of some of our fellow Americans than anything else.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Harvard must be so proud.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 6:37am.
Harvard must be so proud. First, Liz Warren. Now, this hyphenated male. Keep turning 'em out, Harvard.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
So what?
Submitted by Franksam on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 6:47am.
I'm 62. I lived in places that had separate waiting rooms at the bus station for Negros. I saw blacks getting the whatever beat out of them so they could vote. I remember when the IBEW had fewer members than the Mormon Church. And now we have a mixed race President.
But these poor fools think the country is racist. To them, proving who you are at the polling place is too hard for minorities. That doesn't demonstrate much confidence in racial equality, does it?
Okay, I'm a racist because I'm voting for the white guy. I'm already over it.
Proof That Anti-Obama
Submitted by NewLife56 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 6:47am.
Racist?
Or could it have something to do with the fact, this guy is a failure at just about everything he has done in the White House as President? He has done a decent job on National Security, yes, I do give him credit for that.
But on the economy? Gas prices? Energy Prices? Nope, he has failed. He has also divided the country in more ways than just about anyone has.
Has nothing to do with the color of his skin, has to do with his failed polices in office. Has to do with the radicals he has hired to give him advice, and his wanting to grow Government. Racist??
national security?
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:31am.
The movie? What has he done with national security that is decent? The only way I can see that being true is if you believe the ME and N. Africa in a portion of the Mediterranean Caliphate being controlled by the MB is a preferable to the fragmented condition the area was in before.
Racists or rap fans?
Submitted by Yarbles on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 6:57am.
Based on my study via google search terms the suburbs of Los Angeles are the most racist place in America. Apparently people there hate "(N-words) with attitude". Further research finds these racist googlers are fascinated with cubed ice, royal families of the Mideast , and a doctor named Dre who apprently gives them easy access to the drug "E", or ecstasy. These drug fueled racists seem to want to run these N-words with attitude straight out of the Compton area in particular. They also appear to have a campaign with the slogan "(N-words)4life", which I suspect may be responsible for the racially linked disparity in sentencing observed in the US criminal justice system.
PS. Tell'em Steve-Dave!
Ok... I'm convinced.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:26am.
I am not a racist. Therefore if I were able to vote, I would vote for Obama. In fact, I MUST do all I can to support Obama to prove that I am not a racist, and I don't want anyone to think I'm a racist because I didn't vote or support the far-left, radical, "teleprompter-in-chief"... I mean "campaigner-in-chief"... I mean "community-organizer-in-chief"... I mean communist-in-chief... "I mean......... /sarc
This guy's a PHd candidate in... what now? "ECONOMICS"???
EPIC FAIL!!! How in the world did he get into Harvard??? Sorry... Ask a stupid question...
I should ask "How in the world did he get out of High School???" Oooops... I did it again.........
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Keep it up!
Submitted by Fenwick on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:30am.
As I've said before, racism certainly exists, but most Americans are NOT racist and judge people as individuals. These fair-minded Americans are getting SICK of the whole race card thing being tossed out with every criticism of this president and his record. If four more years of having "The First Black (or Half-Black) President" is going to give us four more years of this crap, then they are going to go out of their way to get him out of there.
Americans ARE concerned about the economy and the future of their country; they do NOT want to be constantly insulted as being "racist."
Keep it up! Obama is going to lose by a landslide - and it WON'T be because of racism!
I agree totally Fenwick
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:09am.
I grew up in Philly in the 70s, and was exposed to (and truth to tell, participated in) racial confrontations. Then I joined the Air Force and rubbed shoulders with and HAD to trust people of all racial and cultural backgrounds. I am not a racist, and I say that with 100% conviction. While there are indeed white racists, there are far, far more black ones.
Simple experiment: Black man walk down the street in a white neighborhood. What happens (and disregard the RACIST projection that he will inevitably be challenged by the cops the instant he sets foot in the neighborhood)? 90+% probability - absolutely nothing.
Now reverse the parameters. White man walks down the street in black neighborhood. What happens? 80-90% probability he will at least be accosted by residents, with high probability he will be assaulted physically.
So who are the racists?
What these intellectual morons (yes, it's a contradiction in terms - but it fits the liberal mentality) don't realize is that, as usual, they are again beating a dead horse. People may have bought into the hype the first few time is was used. But when EVERY challenge to Obama is automatically and instantly labeled "racist", people at the very lease simply tune it out. At worst (which I believe is the case), people get sick and tired of the same story, over and over. It becomes a meaningless and childish response to the Obama administration's incompetence.
As to this "study", obviously this is the product Haaarvard is turning out (after all - they produced Obama didn't they?). This is nothing but making the "facts" fit the conclusion. A secondary objective is to have a reason for Obama's loss in November ready at hand. Thirdly, this will provide a basis for the rioting almost sure to occur WHEN he is defeated.
I certainly hope Haaarvard is proud...
yeah, there is racism
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:22am.
Back in '68 when I was in basic training for the Army I was in a very integrated company, basicaly composed of i/4 Blacks, 1/4 Hispanics and 1/2 whites. But one thing that I remember well is that whenever us trainees lined up for the chow line the Blacks went to the front of the lines. They just walked up there. The Whites and Hispanics couldn't say anything and the drill seargents let them do it.
I was in the AF beginning in '81
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:57pm.
And I really never ran into anything like that. Of course, times have changed considerably. I've learned to treat people as people and to become color-blind. I don't think of someone as black or white unless THEY throw it in my face.
One point I forgot in my original post: If this dimwit googled for the N-word, did he factor in rap music? Find me a rap song that doesn't use the word. And I would think googling rap songs would account for a significant percentage of searches.
BTW, thanks for your service Mid! Keep The Faith!
Seth
Submitted by lilium479 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:44am.
Only a racist would play the race card.
Point, Game, and Match lilium!
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:38pm.
.
please
Submitted by soosan on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:47am.
please tell me he's not on a scholarship.
Racists
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:48am.
The only racist-voters I have heard about are those that explicitly voted
for OBAMA simply because he is BLACK. [Half BLAck, actually]
The rest of us are suffering because of their collective ignorance.
This guy is yanking our leg, right?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 7:53am.
Google insight is publicly available. I plugged in the search term in question for the U.S. in the last year. You can't get raw numbers, that is - how many searches were performed in a given period in a given place. It is only relative to how often the term was used in what context or something.
I teach research and
Submitted by texastommy on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:09am.
I teach research and statistics at a university at the doctoral level. That means I sit on many dissertation committees as the methodologist (the research specialist). I make sure that the methodology is "scientifically" sound and that the conclusions are supported by the data.
If this dissertation was one of mine, I would not approve it, if Sheffield's description of it is accurate. It appears to have many fatal flaws, not just minor ones. I'd like to see the real deal. I'm going to hunt it down.
I know, I know. Based on my usual level of comments on this blog, some of you may not believe my first statement. It's true. I use my anonymity to spout invectives that I could never do in my professional life. It's therapy.
But, in any case, I'd like to wish Seth Stephens-Davidowitz better luck in his next research attempt. I suspect, though, that it will be worse.
I urge you to take a look at google insight.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:02am.
Take a look.
The top searches for the term "nigger" in 2008 is
1. jokes
2. nigger jokes
First of all, I type in the search term "jokes" and it gets included as the top search for the term "nigger". What? How? Huh?
Then the second most common search in 2008, "nigger jokes". Still can't get a total national number. But you click no that, and the top search which includes "nigger jokes - funny nigger jokes. So someone searching for ethnic humor automatically correlates to hardcore racist that will never vote for a black man?
Plus, there is no age given for any of this. In fact, google does not ask the sex or age or race of anyone performing a search. Why do I get the feeling that a lot of these searches may be teenagers exploring?
Thanks, Tex
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:54am.
We'd all love to see your results. And of course we believe you, you've given us zero reason not to.
As for your "therapy" comment, no worries, why do you think we're all here? LOL.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Link
Submitted by Blorg on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 2:07pm.
A link to a draft of the "research" report was provided in the opinion piece:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVoting...
Harvard?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:22am.
You mean that prestigious source of higher learning that turns out people who are successful and highly regarded among the world's elites but usually fail if they try to enter the real world beyond the cloistered confines of academia. That Harvard?
NiceHypebole
Submitted by Lamdog on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:26am.
I would argue that McCain lost not because he white, because Obama was black.
The claim of racism is so easily tossed about by race baiters that one fact continue to be obscure.
Obama won the White vote. Something no democrat had done since LBJ. Not Carter, Not Clinton.
This is a Rush is right moment. The White male vote continue to be the dominant factor in Presidential elections. You have to look below the numbers to find out why.
Single women voters are the democrats biggest voting block.
90% of all women vote the same way as their husband.
If the Republican win the white male vote they get a two for one. As a Black man who did not vote for Obama. I can assure you of two things. One I will be voting for Romney, now because I am an ABO voter, but slowly coming around to his camp. And two: My daughters at least one will be voting for Romney, if not both. As for my wife, still time don't see it happening.
This election has only two outcome:One a Romney blowout. Two a narrow Obama victory. It all hinges upon Romney being able to get the White male out unlike McCain.
ABO = Anybody But Obama
the real racists
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:31am.
If it wasn't for the nearly universal racism of Blacks obama would not have won 2008. It was not the anti-Black racism that obama overcame to get elected but the use of anti-White racism that propelled his victory.
Just one more study that wasted community resources to make a
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:29am.
partisan point.
Question 1) Who funded this study? Taxpayers? Or Private Foundation?
Question 2) How much did the study cost?
Question 3) If the money could have been applied to a worthy cause, how many people would it have helped?
Question 4) IF one asked the proper question in the first place would there have been need of a study at all?
Question 5) IF Obama (the real black person) won the election with 53% of the vote, which was 10% more than Clinton (the fake black person) did in 1992 and blacks are only 12% of the population then it should be clear to even the most obtuse person that racism has ceased to be a causal factor in deciding who is president. So why wasn't it obvious to two supposedly college educated people conducting this study?
Conclusion: Attributing Obama's loss in November 2012 to racism is a transparently lame partisan attempt by liberals to claim America did not reject the failed results of the liberal agenda implemented by a liberal who happened to be black. In fact, the conclusion of the study (and those two who wrote it) is a confirmation of liberal racism because what they really mean is a black person could not properly implement a liberal agenda.
When you review the hiring practices of the Obama regime and the previous Democrat administrations such as under Clinton, a pattern emerges of discrimination against blacks occupying posts when compared to GOP administrations who consistently fill a higher percentage of administration positions with Blacks. Liberals in practice when given the choice DO NOT hire Blacks in relevant numbers because they lack the connections and confidence in them to perform the job assigned. This pattern of hiring preference is translated and clearly reflected in the liberal patriarchy and their attitude that Blacks are second class citizens. This is in complete contrast to the GOP attitudes where merit supported by conservative outlook is the first priority on the job qualification list in filling positions. A Herman Cain is fully embraced by the GOP because he reflects and has succeeded because of those priorities. People like Herman Cain are a fulfillment of the original intent of the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln. So Blacks as a group should never be surprised that the GOP consistently has more Blacks in their administrations than Democrats because equality based on merit is the continuing guiding principle of the GOP since it's inception. We (GOP) believe in equality without excuse, not Democrat's equality of outcome whose very premise is an excuse. Ours is empowering independence, theirs is debilitating dependence.
IF the Harvard Committee reviewing doctoral theses submission does not reject this study then they are the problem of why higher education is failing.
Other reasons not to support Soetoro
Submitted by Arlen Cooper on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:40am.
I didn't vote for Soetoro in 2008 because I have the uncanny ability to spot a "BS" artist. I won't vote for him in November 'cause I now know that he is an "imposter posing as an American," bullcrap artist. He has hood-winked a nation of electoral idiots!
let's cut the guy some slack
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 8:43am.
The guy is trying to get his PHD from HARVARD. What do you think his chances of success would be if he tried to put forth a paper that found racism was a minor and not deciding factor?
IF there is racism . . .
Submitted by burnadams on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:01am.
Another blindingly obvious point is this guy has no idea what the race is of the people who type in the 'n' word.
By all accounts, if you use this word to measure racism, then African Americans are the most racist people in this country. Maybe these people doing these searchs were just looking up their buddies or rap lyrics. Wasn't Trayvon Martin's screenname something with the 'n' word too?
Liberals have falsely cried
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:16am.
Liberals have falsely cried "Racism!" so many times that it no longer has any effect.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
google search
Submitted by Huapakechi on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:40am.
Anyone who has used a google search will realize (I hope) that google is handing you the results they want you to see. Ask about the 'campaign contributions by google to the democrats and "o"boy.
Check in to the association between google and the national intelligence agencies, particularly the NSA. Of course, the "most ethical administration in U.S.history" would never keep files on American citizens who are not under investigation....... would they? This administration would not deliberately utilize the media and information services to influence the thoughts and attitudes of American citizens........? The current administration would not violate the law to manipulate attitudes and demographics to it's own ends....like Fast and Furious, the EPA persecutions, and the lawsuits against states purging their voter rolls of ineligible and fraudulent voters. But then there's these embarrassing questions about the lawsuits and refusing to comply with investigations.........
nullius in verba
take nobody's word for it.
If they refuse to offer evidence and data they have something to hide..
Wow.
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:59am.
Stephens-Davidowitz should be denied his Ph.D. just on the basis of the utter inappropriateness of his "research". I'd love to see a John Lott review of it.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
On being a racist
Submitted by cristo on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 10:00am.
The Al Sharptons and the Jessie Jacksons and the Eric Holders of this world have always and will continue to blame their shortcomings on race. Holder recently testified in front of Congress. He's a grown black man and the chief law enforcement office of the United States a graduate of Columbia University and Columbia Law and when the questioning got a little rough, he blamed it on race. It's pathetic. Sharpton and Jackson have made millions of dollars on the the bent backs of poor blacks - and they continue to do so. Michelle Obama has been heard to say that race is a problem in this country and that there will be people who will not vote for her husband because of his color. It's time for them to move on and quit the bellyaching. They are locking the door on themselves. The more they complain, the less people want to hear it. They cling to the old notion that all white folks are racist and that there's noting that will change that. Well, they can change it. And they have been given an opportunity with a half-black president, but instead of championing their good fortune and holding their head high, they tramp around, sullen and depressed, as if it were 1912 instead of 2012. It's as if they feel guilty about having achieved so much, that they deny they have achieved anything. It's really sad. Many blacks today have attended the top universities of this country, they've advanced beyond their grandparent's wildest dreams, no long do they drink from separate water fountains and their children attend the same private school as ambassador and diplomats, there are no signs in Laundromat windows that say "whites only." They cling to the memories of the 1960s because it's easier and safer than forging ahead into the unknown.
Most of the the racists . . .
Submitted by Northeast Elizabeth on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 10:15am.
Most of the racists Googling the "N" word are Harvard economics grad students trying to bolster a bogus study with a pre-ordained conclusion.
I'm starting to think
Submitted by chiefpayne on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 10:32am.
that almost everything that comes out of Harvard is something you could find in a cow pasture!
So far, the ONLY thing I have found that is logical coming out of Harvard is what Alan Dershowitz said about the charges against Zimmerman.
And this is indicitive, how?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:07am.
"And many Americans use Google to find racially charged material."
How is that indicative as to someone's apparent racism? Just because they search for it, it don't mean they agree with it. People search for things not only because they support a subject, but because they oppose it. The material that the search reveals can be used to support an assertion, or oppose one. It all depends upon how the material is used, and that's something Google can't tell you. Google searches in and of themselves can't tell you someone's motivation as to why they're searching for something. To claimed that the number, frequency, and subject of any given search item, like "racially charged material," is indicative of racism is asinine.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Is it not just possible
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:12am.
that a person could disagree with the President on policy issues and never reach the issue of race because it is irrelevant to the discussion?
Maybe?
Irrefutable proof...? or 'Proofiness?'
Submitted by EX-XO on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 11:13am.
So his irrefutable proof is that people from West Virginia, whose jobs Obama is trying to destroy by closing the coal mines, and the people of Western Pennsylvania, whom Obama publicly insulted to raise money, are making negative Google searches just because they're racist....
I didn't vote for Obama because...
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:31pm.
HE'S A DEMOCRAT!!!!!
RACE wasn't even a consideration and with a message of "hope and change" I knew everything I needed to about him.
Charlatan, socialist, con artist, and friend of Bill Ayers?? Man, for me the choice wasn't even close.
Hey! Ms PHD guy! It isn't the outside of Obama that's the problem.
If not for racism, Obama would've won in a historic landslide.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 1:10pm.
Right.
BTW, why is an economics student pontificating about elections? Is he a mini-Krugman-in-training?
Great example that liars can figure... more tax $ wasted.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 1:46pm.
Flip that race card BtB...Should be as easy as dumping top secret information.
You Didn't Build That.
B.S.
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 4:51pm.
Stephens-Davidowitz, "If my results are correct...."
Well, sir, they aren't. You proceeded from a false assumption and reached an equally false conclusion.
Ginning Up the Guilt Vote
Submitted by Wags on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 3:27pm.
I think the real purpose with Seth's story could be to gin up the guilt vote. Guilt is powerful and the weak-willed will want to prove, yet again, that they are not racist. Those with racism guilt are a voting block that has to be courted, just like any other group the left typically panders to. We will continue to see this Alinsky tactic used effectively against those who fear being labeled, ridiculed, or marginalized.