Will racial bias cost the President the election?

Here's some interesting campaign math: If the white vote constitutes 74 percent of the total vote, as it did in the last election, and Romney receives at least 61 percent of that white vote, Obama must either improve on the 80 percent non-white vote he received last time – and maintain the same turn out levels, or Romney wins.  Polls estimates are that Romney leads Obama among likely white voters 60-37. Can it really be true that 60% of white voters disagree with Barack Obama over policy? Or is there something darker that is being rejected?


A recent study titled, The Effects of Racial Animus on a Black Presidential Candidate, attempted to measure the effects of racial bias on the popular vote in the 2008 presidential elections and extrapolate into the forthcoming election now one week from today. The conclusion is that racial bias cost the President between 3.1 and 5% of the popular vote in the 2008 election and that a similar result can be expected in this one.

While some of this was offset by the overwhelming voting majorities he received among African-American and Latino voters, the numbers were not enough to overcome those that were presumed to have been lost.

Although Mr. Obama won the 2008 election handily, receiving 52.9% of the popular vote and 41% of the white vote, that result likely reflected a weak opponent and an enthusiasm among many in the electorate for electing an African-American as Commander in Chief; an enthusiasm that, in the absence of novelty and the harsher realities of incumbency as opposed to candidacy, has surely waned to some extent.

Given the reluctance of people to admit to bias as a motivating factor in the polling booth, the  methodology involved applying the frequency of racially charged terms found on Google searches against voting patterns in the 2008 election. The study itself is formidable and dense, but broken down simply by its' author, Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz in an accompanying opinion piece in The New York Times.

In an election as close as this, in which the President trails his challenger by 21% among white voters in the polls, the effect of hidden racial bias may be the crucial element that defeats the President.

To those who oppose the President and will deride this as an excuse in anticipation of a loss based solely performance and policy, I tell you that I have had dialogues with individuals who are unabashed in expressing their hatred of the President for reasons that have everything to do with his birth origins and the mixing of his blood. There is no reason to believe these people stand alone and that there are not many others who hold similar feelings, even if less intense feelings, yet remain silent and uncounted - until entering the booth and pulling the lever.

If you doubt, Google it.

The more insidious issue for the immediate election isn't the bigotry that is in plain sight. Those votes have been have been counted and accounted for. It's the votes that will go to the Republicans from silent elements of the electorate who we might not recognize as "bigots" or biased. They may be our family, friends and neighbors. It is those who harbor a distinct resentment or merely a subtle reluctance to vote for "the other" as opposed to "their own". It has been reflected in comments such as that of John Sununnu in his response to Colin Powell's endorsement of the President, laying out the "reverse" paradigm.

For next Tuesday, it's a numbers game and it may capsize the President. For those who support the President's reelection, this is a perilous time for which there is only one response: VOTE!

October 31, 2012