Tweet
Some boner-nosed kike compared the number of votes that Opongid got in 08, state by state, with how often people in each state search Google for "nigger." I don't know any white people who say "nigger." On the other hand, blacks say it all the time—it seems to be every other word out of their bootlips—however much it supposedly demeans and dehumanizes them. It's therefore logical to assume that most of the folks doing these searches are black, and that the most "nigger"-happy states actually have, well, the most niggers. So to speak.
What did Soapawitz find? Turns out that the more niggery a state's Google searches, the fewer votes the Kenyan got there. That seems to give the lie to claims that 97% of groids voted for their conspecific. Considering how much he's Obungled the economy and everything else, I'd say that support is going to dry up even further come this November.
Now, it's possible I'm being overly optimistic. Not voting for Obama doesn't necessarily mean these chimps were casting Republican ballots. Like as not, most of them were just too lazy to even bother showing up at the polls. And of course Barry still won. Why did he win? Scumbag white liberals, fresh out of Kollege and freshly indoctrinated with sick liberal guilt, wanted to prove how not racist they were by electing a Jackie Robinson President. They were afraid that if they didn't, feral street blacks would somehow sense this and rape and beat them to death. These people are sick.
Anyway, here is the story.
There's more, but I couldn't stomach the liberal spin. How can we get blacks to start voting Republican?
What did Soapawitz find? Turns out that the more niggery a state's Google searches, the fewer votes the Kenyan got there. That seems to give the lie to claims that 97% of groids voted for their conspecific. Considering how much he's Obungled the economy and everything else, I'd say that support is going to dry up even further come this November.
Now, it's possible I'm being overly optimistic. Not voting for Obama doesn't necessarily mean these chimps were casting Republican ballots. Like as not, most of them were just too lazy to even bother showing up at the polls. And of course Barry still won. Why did he win? Scumbag white liberals, fresh out of Kollege and freshly indoctrinated with sick liberal guilt, wanted to prove how not racist they were by electing a Jackie Robinson President. They were afraid that if they didn't, feral street blacks would somehow sense this and rape and beat them to death. These people are sick.
Anyway, here is the story.
June 9, 2012, 5:46 pm
How Racist Are We? Ask Google
By SETH STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ
Barack Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote in 2008 and 365 electoral votes, 95 more than he needed. 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.
Quantifying the effects of racial prejudice on voting is notoriously problematic. Few people admit bias in surveys. So I used a new tool, Google Insights, 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.”
A huge proportion of the searches I looked at were for jokes about African-Americans. (I did not include searches that included the word “nigga” because these searches were mostly for rap lyrics.) I used data from 2004 to 2007 because I wanted a measure not directly influenced by feelings toward Mr. Obama. From 2008 onward, “Obama” is a prevalent term in racially charged searches.
The state with the highest racially charged search rate in the country was West Virginia. Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi.
Once I figured out which parts of the country had the highest racially charged search rates, I could test whether Mr. Obama underperformed in these areas. I predicted how many votes Mr. Obama should have received based on how many votes John Kerry received in 2004 plus the average gain achieved by other 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates. The results were striking: The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did.
How Racist Are We? Ask Google
By SETH STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ
Barack Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote in 2008 and 365 electoral votes, 95 more than he needed. 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.
Quantifying the effects of racial prejudice on voting is notoriously problematic. Few people admit bias in surveys. So I used a new tool, Google Insights, 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.”
A huge proportion of the searches I looked at were for jokes about African-Americans. (I did not include searches that included the word “nigga” because these searches were mostly for rap lyrics.) I used data from 2004 to 2007 because I wanted a measure not directly influenced by feelings toward Mr. Obama. From 2008 onward, “Obama” is a prevalent term in racially charged searches.
The state with the highest racially charged search rate in the country was West Virginia. Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi.
Once I figured out which parts of the country had the highest racially charged search rates, I could test whether Mr. Obama underperformed in these areas. I predicted how many votes Mr. Obama should have received based on how many votes John Kerry received in 2004 plus the average gain achieved by other 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates. The results were striking: The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did.
Comment