By SONYA ROSS and JENNIFER AGIESTA
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.
Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans' more favorable views of blacks.
Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.
Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an AP survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.
The AP surveys were conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago.
Experts on race said they were not surprised by the findings.
"We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked," said Jelani Cobb, professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut. "When we've seen progress, we've also seen backlash."
Obama himself has tread cautiously on the subject of race, but many African-Americans have talked openly about perceived antagonism toward them since Obama took office. As evidence, they point to events involving police brutality or cite bumper stickers, cartoons and protest posters that mock the president as a lion or a monkey, or lynch him in effigy.
"Part of it is growing polarization within American society," said Fredrick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University. "The last Democrat in the White House said we had to have a national discussion about race. There's been total silence around issues of race with this president. But, as you see, whether there is silence, or an elevation of the discussion of race, you still have polarization. It will take more generations, I suspect, before we eliminate these deep feelings."
Overall, the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, Obama could lose 5 percentage points off his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. However, Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to pro-black sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti-black attitudes.
The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).
Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found.
The Associated Press developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly," "hardworking," "violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
Results from those questions were analyzed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either Obama or Romney. Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.
All the surveys were conducted online. Other research has shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer rather than speaking with an interviewer. Respondents were randomly selected from a nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research.
Overall results from each survey have a margin of sampling error of approximately plus or minus 4 percentage points. The most recent poll, measuring anti-black views, was conducted Aug. 30 to Sept. 11.
Andra Gillespie, an Emory University political scientist who studies race-neutrality among black politicians, contrasted the situation to that faced by the first black mayors elected in major U.S. cities, the closest parallel to Obama's first-black situation. Those mayors, she said, typically won about 20 percent of the white vote in their first races, but when seeking reelection they enjoyed greater white support presumably because "the whites who stayed in the cities ... became more comfortable with a black executive."
"President Obama's election clearly didn't change those who appear to be sort of hard-wired folks with racial resentment," she said.
Negative racial attitudes can manifest in policy, noted Alan Jenkins, an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration and now executive director of the Opportunity Agenda think tank.
"That has very real circumstances in the way people are treated by police, the way kids are treated by teachers, the way home seekers are treated by landlords and real estate agents," Jenkins said.
Hakeem Jeffries, a New York state assemblyman and candidate for a congressional seat being vacated by a fellow black Democrat, called it troubling that more progress on racial attitudes had not been made. Jeffries has fought a New York City police program of "stop and frisk" that has affected mostly blacks and Latinos but which supporters contend is not racially focused.
"I do remain cautiously optimistic that the future of America bends toward the side of increased racial tolerance," Jeffries said. "We've come a long way, but clearly these results demonstrate there's a long way to go."
---
AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
---
Most internet polls are skewed in different ways. A good example is the poll taken here this week at daddydater that asks: “…Who do you think will actually win this election?" I voted in this poll, but I could also vote on this poll using my smart phone and the computer from my work. So could a person from Germany, Japan, Mali, etc. The result of this poll would not predict how AMERICANS that CAN and WILL vote--will eventually vote. That's one example; in the past, political campaigns, when they would see these internet polls, would have computer programs written that allows a computer to vote multiple times (multiple times in some cases would be hundreds of thousands of votes!).
Credible polling agencies work hard at making sure that the resulting polls reflect the makeup of target group. If Gallup or Rasmussen calls your home, it's random, but the polling agencies do know the demographics of the house (e.g., Spanish/Latino/PR, income, and other factors), so while you may not respond or be there to respond, the polling agency will find a household to respond that falls within your demographic parameters. Depending on the amount of the sample (people who respond), when the aggregate of the data is assembled, the polling agency can say within +/- X the accuracy of a given poll ( X = margin of error, the larger the sample size the smaller the margin of error).
While I agree with everysooften (ESO) that an internet poll is likely skewed, and that it might start with a premise and tailor questions that will deliver the desired outcome, I disagree with him on this one. I was suspect too, I thought, "an internet poll, really?" The wording in the AP article that Rae posted is not very artful, and does not reflect how the results were derived. In this case, a random sample was chosen "via mail and telephone to complete questionnaires regularly via the Internet. Noninternet households were equipped with laptops or netbooks and free internet service". The quote was taken from the Stanford study that can be read here: http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/20 … acism.pdf. The study represents a valid sample, but I don't agree with the AP authors’ interpretations or ESO's views on the article and study.
The study that the AP article covered was the impact of anti-black racism on the approval of President Obama's job performance and its impact on voting in the 2012 election. The AP authors failed representing the nuance of the study--the study was solely focused on anti-black racism, but the study did not discuss other factors that lead to voter outcomes. The authors’ failings were not to recognize that 1) a sizable portion of those in the study that harbored anti-black racism in the study voted for Obama in 2008, and 2) even with the increase in racism, the same people who stated their racist feelings will vote for Obama in 2012. The AP article inflamed only in that it infers the racism is the criterion in determining voter outcome. We know that's not true.
ESO's comments that studies like this only serve to inflame an already polarized society. That's not the purpose of the study, the increase in racism was surprising, but it only looked at its outcome at specific factors pertaining to President Obama. Its purpose was not to provoke. In terms of "trotting out", when is it appropriate to publish an academic study? I think the study is a good service and needed; I think the AP's interpretation of the study is a disservice. That said, if we're going to have a discussion about racism, then it's important for these studies to be published and talked about. Election or not. ESO’s poopooing a study because it’s difficult to work though both in content and outcomes, and because it falls on the cusp of an election, is doing exactly what he argues against.
* I know there are those that will quibble with the two factors I stated for determining a valid poll, but for the sake of brevity and simplicity (a writing skill I lack) I left it at those two.
Let's face it - racism does exist. It always has existed and it isn't likely to change. No matter how much we wish it were not so the fact is that racism does exist and it will play a part in American political scenes for a long time to come. That is no different than many other western democracies as well, however. We might like to assume that people in our country are "more sophisticated" and "more knowing" than earlier generations but that is wishful thinking. We are not. We are as susceptible to bias as any people at any time throughout history.
Any "ism" can be assumed to be a factor in any political contest - sexism and ageism among them.
Trotting out a supposed academic report to support a situation facing us with the current political scene in this country does not help to understand racism, the impact any supposed racist attitudes might have on the election, or quite literally anything else save inflame emotions and add to an already polarized situation in this country...
Of course, one must understand that abbreviated internet reports such as this one are just that - abbreviated. There may be more to the story. But in our culture "instant" and "perfect" information is not something anyone wants to acquire - after all, that would take time. Better to just read the highlights and trust that the writer was honest, truthful, unbiased and had no agenda.
If I put my mind to it I dare say that I could draft and present a report on my own on some facet of life in polarized America and present it as true. It does not take a lot of effort to present information and get people to buy into a situation. Making an informed decision about a candidate for office requires a whole lot more effort than selective reading from this or that source who has some assumed credibility. Read the fine print. Check resources. Double-check information and who is offering it. No different from handling a telephone solicitation to buy something. Perhaps all the more dangerous, for that matter!