The lib media now says Obama’s race hurt him in the 2008 election.
A wacky new lib study proves it.
When most people are searching for information online, they’re likely to be alone and less likely to censor their thoughts, he explains. “You may have typed things into Google that you would hesitate to admit in polite company,” he writes in a New York Times article. “I certainly have. The majority of Americans have as well: We Google the word ‘porn’ more often than the word ‘weather’.”
He chose a common racial insult that starts with “N” and looked for searches that used the singular and plural forms of the word. “The most common searches including the epithet… return websites with derogatory material about African-Americans,” he writes in his study. “The top hits for the top racially charged searches are nearly all textbook examples of antilocution, a majority group’s sharing stereotype-based jokes using coarse language outside a minority group’s presence.”
That held true for searches from 2004 through 2007 (searches for “n**ga” led mostly to rap lyrics, which he disregarded for this study). “I used data from 2004 to 2007 because I wanted a measure not directly influenced by feelings toward Mr. Obama,” he writes in the New York Times.
But from 2008 on, he discovered, “Obama” was one of the most prevalent search terms in racially tinged online searches.
After gathering information on the racially charged search queries, Stephens-Davidowitz took a look at voting data from around the country and compared each area’s 2008 results, when Obama was running for president, to voting results from 2004, when all of the candidates were white.
Though many people believe that our first African-American president won the election thanks in part to increased turnout by African-American voters, Stephens-Davidowitz’s research shows that those votes only added about 1 percentage point to Obama’s totals. “In the general election, this effect was comparatively minor,” he concludes. But in areas with high racial search rates, the fact that Obama is African American worked against him, sometimes significantly.
“The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points of the national popular vote,” Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his study. “This implies racial animus gave Obama’s opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide.”
Of course, the study did not even touch the fact that 95% of black Americans voted for Obama.
It only focused on the crackers.