Nate Silver: Are White Republicans More Racist Than White Democrats?

[Jemon]

He posts statistics on racial attitudes, as seen below:

?w=610&h=518

?w=610&h=516

?w=610&h=519

?w=610&h=518

?w=610&h=511

?w=610&h=518

?w=610&h=475

?w=610&h=520

?w=610&h=510

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/

[arcane1]

1. So yes. It's nice to see the trends going down over the years.

[frazzled]

2. "What they say ..."

These sorts of data sets seem pretty meaningless to me when it comes to an issue such as race. (If this were about sex or eating habits or similar topics, I'd say the same thing.) What people say about their racial attitudes and what they actually do (or support) may be miles apart. I just don't believe most people want to admit they have racist attitudes; they may not even believe they have racist attitudes. Which at least means they know right from wrong. But self-reporting on such sensitive matters is probably not very reliable. Remember, Mr. Stirling is still protesting that he is not racist.

[Dawgs]

5. Agree. How many are racists are going to truthfully answer..

"Yes, I think black people are dumb and lazy."? Many yes, but certainly not all of them. Polls like this are hard to believe.

[bettyellen]

6. between 10 and 50% depending on year and which question..... which means it must be much more than

that. I would not have guessed that.

[LooseWilly]

22. The irony to remember though, is that many will indeed answer thusly...

all the while thinking that it isn't because they're racist. Some seem to think the "coloring" of their perceptions, pardon the similarity to a pun, doesn't exist, and that they are therefore simply being empirical.

Obviously that is only objectively the case when one is judging the French.
( )

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Interesting, but all declared rather than revealed, and hence more questionable.

The gold standard would be an identical-resumes test cross referenced with political affiliation.

[Supersedeas]

13. this evidence demonstrates that racism persists

in both parties.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. But only provides a lower bound on how much.

This tells you how many people will freely express racist opinions; it doesn't tell you how many will, for example, subconsciously rate black employees as performing less well than white ones.

[Scuba]

4. So yes, but not as much as we'd like to think.

[Gothmog]

7. Water is also wet

[BKH70041]

8. Interesting

So they're virtually the same.

I live in the middle of Republican/conservative world and the comments I read here about them don't match up with the truth on the ground. If this were your only source, your world-view would be severely skewed in the wrong direction. The broad-brushes used make it impossible to take many here seriously. I really don't understand what they hope to accomplish by making such inaccurate statements. Those type of comments work in a closed community. Out in the real world? No, it doesn't.

[dsc]

9. No they aren't

Wouldn't vote for a black GOP 7, Dem 3; more unintelligent than intelligent 15 to 12; lazy 36 to 32; motivation 58 to 41; marry 28 to 20; neighborhood 28 to 22; not close 18 to 12; too much money 31 to 9; negative attitudes 27 to 18. Now I will concede that the second and third ones are quite close and likely not even a statistically significant difference, but the rest likely are. When the numbers are as low as the first question are a difference of 4 is huge. The rest are clearly large relative to the numbers.

[Jemon]

10. In other words, 93% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats would vote for a black president

And you are arguing that a huge difference exists?

And why did you say that the difference in the 3rd category isn't statistically insignificant (4 percent) without calling the first statistic (4 percent) insignificant too?

[dsc]

11. yeah that is a huge difference

twice as many GOP won't vote for a black person vs Dems who won't.

[Jemon]

12. That's spin

It's like saying that a 99% vs. 98% difference is "huge" because 1% is racist on one side and 2% isnt on the other, because 2% is twice as much as one.
Or like saying that 99.8% vs. 99.2% is a huge difference because 4 times as many people on one side are racist compared to the other side. (0.8% vs. 0.2%). I think you are shocked by the results.

[BKH70041]

14. Shhhhhhhh!!!!

The official viewpoint will not be questioned.

[LooseWilly]

23. Curious

If the comments you read here don't match up with "the truth on the ground"... and you "really don't understand what they hope to accomplish by making such inaccurate statements"... I wonder - why don't you ask them?

I presume you aren't actually referring to any "statements" by the OP, as it was just a posting of some charts from Nate Silver. I therefore conclude that you are referring to others commenting in this thread. The question then is, why don't you respond to these inaccurate statements and ask for clarification?

Instead of actually asking any specific questions of any specific commentators, you instead toss out a "broad-brush" yourself... exactly the sort of thing you attribute to they... and which you use as a basis for judging "it impossible to take many here seriously"?...

Erhhm.... are you sure you're not a pot, sir, calling kettles black?

[BKH70041]

24. There's nothing I'd like to do more.

But this place is filled with itchy alert fingers when someone asks uncomfortable questions. I see that change, then I might reconsider.

Besides, in this case, I already know why the inaccurate broadbrush statements are made. Mine was more of a "It's obvious what you're doing, and your not fooling anyone" statement.

Feel free to PM me about things and I'll expound. But on the board? Too many itchy fingers.

[LooseWilly]

31. Hehe... you're on a discussion board and afraid to discuss?

I find that amusing.

I'm not looking to indulge in some surreptitious discussions for fear of what the general population might think of the "uncomfortable" points I might make... and I'm not in particular disagreement with the "broadbrush" statements being made.

The admission that you're afraid of being alerted upon says enough, in my opinion, about what you're liable to tell me in any PMs that... I don't figure I care enough what you have to say, if it's not out in the open, to be bothered.

Carry on with your broadbrush condemnations of the commentators who broadbrush though... the irony makes me giggle in your general direction, which is always fun.

[BKH70041]

34. Cautious

Sometimes things can be said without really saying them. Which is always fun. But you wouldn't understand.

[LooseWilly]

40. Your dizzyingly agile intellect astounds. Which doesn't impress.

When you choose not to use complete sentences, it may make your prose seem agile, but not all that astounds does so in a good way.

Gnome sayin'?

[AverageJoe90]

15. I'm sorry, but although I respect Nate Silver.....I'm afraid he missed the mark on this one.

I'm especially suspicious of the interracial marriage survey: say what you will, but I have some serious doubts that 70% of even Republicans were actually genuinely opposed to interracial marriage, let alone Democrats.....even in 1972, let alone 1992.

[fishwax]

18. many states still outlawed it until 1967

And the only reason it changed then was that the Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional.

[AverageJoe90]

19. There's some truth to that.

But just remember, this was pretty much a Southern thing by 1967.

[fishwax]

20. legally, yes -- as to the question of close family members

marrying across racial lines (which was the question in the poll), though, not so much.

[LooseWilly]

25. And you judge that based on what?

Many white folks well into the 1980s... and presumably beyond... feel the scorn of judgement from peers and neighbors, let alone family, for dating, let alone living with or marrying black folks.

My mother tried it (marrying a black man) in 1983, in Northern California. The judging eyes of the neighbors were too much for her. The marriage ended after 13 days. I don't know that she ever had the nerve to admit the marriage to her father (she was in her 40s by this time)...

The notion that this was solely a Southern thing by 1967 seems ridiculously "optimistic" (myopic even?).

[AverageJoe90]

26. You kinda misread what I stated; I was referring to the laws still in place.

BTW, I don't doubt that problems still occurred, even in the '80s; my sincere condolences to your mother, btw......I just don't buy that the numbers were as high as 70% outright disapproval as late as 1992, as claimed by the surveys Silver quoted. That smells of blackwashing at best.....and of a far right wing agenda at worst(remember this "America is a center-right country" bullshit from a decade ago, btw?)

BTW, if you don't mind me asking, did your mother grow up in a right-wing family? That might explain a lot of why she might have kept it a secret.

[gollygee]

30. "Blackwashing" ??

What's that?

[LooseWilly]

35. The OP was discussing issues of opinions, not legal status. If you want to change the context...

then your comments should make a note of that.

Just saying...

And no, my mother grew up in a liberal and rather well-off California family. They even tolerated her first marriage to an Iranian (which, at the time, 1964, would've been illegal in many states). Her father was actually rather open-minded. And she was a bohemian artist borderline hippy... but the awareness of judgement of her peers didn't escape her. Ever.

Considering that the numbers seem to have been nationwide, rather than reflective of opinions in the relatively liberal circles of Northern California... I don't find a 70% disapproval in 1992 to be at all surprising.

[AverageJoe90]

36. Okay, I see.

BTW, I would like to apologize in advance; I hope I didn't come off as disrespectful with that last post of mine.

[LooseWilly]

41. No offense taken

She didn't keep the man secret, she introduced them.

I don't think she admitted to the marriage though.

[gollygee]

27. How old are you?

I remember a serious difference in people's opinions about it since just the 80s.

[wandy]

16. These graphs show something else also.................

The importance of propaganda.
Note the significant changes in the red line shortly before and shortly after the 2008 election.
Could it be that right wing media has some whistle that only Teapublicans can hear?

[Supersedeas]

17. there's only percentage points of a difference

[Johonny]

21. For things down in the lunatic fringe of statistics 20%, but notice once $$ enters the dicussion

the two stats involving money there is a 20 % difference in the parties. Also note that the Republican voter base is 87% white the Democratic voter is currently around 61 % according to Pew. So that 20 % difference represents a lot more people. What the stats tell you is most people don't openly answer yes to dog whistle racism anymore and really haven't since 1990s. But subtle racism like socioeconomic disadvantages... they clearly do. Once again if you couched the questions with more acceptable language used by the RW you wonder what the polls would have been? IDK but my guess based on the data is about 20% different. Are there racist Democrats... well yes.

I simply argue as most people these days know the language of racism has changed over the last 40 years and this is not addressed in the survey although the survey reveals interestingly that my statement likely has some truth.

[bravenak]

28. Not much of a big difference that i can see.

I find that sad. But Nate silver is usually pretty good at these things.

[Number23]

46. Did this thread die a quick death or what??! I am DYING laughing

And the OP got the boot as well!

I don't know if that's because of this OP or if he did something else but it's certainly interesting.

[bravenak]

47. Is he gone for real?

Musta been an infiltrator.
Well, i better save the charts.

[ananda]

29. I will shout: BS!

This poll is just so much bullshit!

My big question: why should anyone trust Nate
Silver on anything?

I should add: anyone with half a mind who's been
paying attention to the world knows that Reeps
are seriously deranged, sociopathic, and very racist;
and that most Dems are not.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. The time series data here is misleading

If we're trying to determine which party is more racist, we're talking about what the numbers are right now in 2014 (or 2012 if that's the most recent data we have).

The Democratic Party today is not the same as the Democratic Party 20 years ago. A LOT of white racist people who used to vote Democratic (even as recently as the 90's) have either died or left the party.

[AverageJoe90]

37. Some truth to that, btw.

[Supersedeas]

42. I think that we would need to see more data before you can reach that conclusion

[ZombieHorde]

33. Not too much, I guess. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

39. Interesting

Thank you for posting this.

[SidDithers]

43. Come back soon, again!...nt

Sid

[hughee99]

44. Poll results are only reliable when they confirm what one wants to believe. n/t

[Number23]

45. In my self-imposed DU hiatus I somehow missed this. I'm shocked this went over like a lead balloon

Kick.