Poll on race and Obama

Much of the conversation about Barack Obama and race centers on the Bradley effect. From Wikipedia:

The term Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.

Some have suggested that Obama’s historic candidacy shows no effects of the Bradley effect; in fact, some have argued that there has been a reverse Bradley effect leading up to the nomination. From the same article:

The researchers noted that to that point in the election season, opinion polls taken just prior to an election tended to overestimate Obama in states with a black population below eight percent, to track him within the polls’ margins of error in states with a black population between ten and twenty percent, and to underestimate him in states with a black population exceeding twenty-five percent. The first finding suggested the possibility of the Bradley effect, while the last finding suggested the possibility of a “reverse” Bradley effect in which black voters might have been reluctant to declare to pollsters their support for Obama or are underpolled.

I doubt much reverse Bradley effect exists now that we are in the general election cycle. The underpolling of blacks remains an issue, though, as evidenced by the CNU poll released last week. But a new poll released Saturday may shed some light on why the race remains close. And if true, it doesn’t bode well for Obama.

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles.

Obama may be a post-racial candidate but the poll (pdf) indicates that we don’t live in a post-racial society.

More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that “if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn’t.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks “intelligent” or “smart,” more than one third latched on the adjective “complaining” and 24 percent said blacks were “violent.”

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they “try harder.”

Without white racial prejudice, the article says Obama would be polling 6 points higher, presumably from white Democrats and Independents.

The one poll question that stood out for me was this one:

RAC13. Some people say that black leaders have been trying to push too fast. Others feel that they haven’t pushed fast enough. What do you think?

All Respondents
Trying to push too fast 18
Haven’t pushed fast enough 21
Pushing at about the right speed 57
Refused / Not Answered 4

Whites Only
Trying to push too fast 21
Haven’t pushed fast enough 12
Pushing at about the right speed 62
Refused / Not Answered 5

Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman, who helped analyze the survey, said it best:

There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean there’s only a few bigots.

Indeed.