Search

A number of political commentators and social scientists have speculated about the implications of the election of Barack Obama for race relations. Some of the more optimistic have suggested that the 2008 election demonstrated that Whites’ racial attitudes have undergone a fundamental transformation. In this article, I seek to determine whether the putative transformation of Whites’ racial attitudes has extended to levels of support for policies designed to alleviate racial inequality, the role of racial prejudice in shaping these policy preferences and whether or not prejudice influenced the presidential vote choice in 2008. Much of the analyses in this article rely upon comparisons between the 1988 election, the last time an African American candidate achieved some success in the Democratic presidential primaries, and the 2008 election utilizing survey data from the American National Election Studies (ANES). In general, I find scant evidence of a decline in the racial divide. Blacks and Whites remain as far apart on racial policy matters in 2008 as in 1988. Second, younger cohorts of Whites are no more racially liberal in 2008 than they were in 1988. Third, the racial divide is only partially mitigated among Obama supporters. Fourth, in analysis of Whites’ racial policy preferences in 2008, I find that anti-Black stereotypes and indifference to Black suffering are among the strongest correlates of these opinions. Finally, I find that these same factors also contribute substantially to opposition to Obama in the 2008 election. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent studies have shown that social "compassion" issues, and not those directly linked to women's interests, seem to drive the gender gap in presidential vote choice. Some of these compassion issues are associated with the plight of racial minorities in the media and in the minds of average citizens. Drawing on theories of gender role socialization, we predict that traditional partisan stands on racial issues may help to explain the gender gap. Specifically, we hypothesize that the gap emerges because men and women react differently to cues about how compassionate candidates are toward vulnerable social groups. In one experiment, we manipulate news information regarding George W. Bush' s commitment to blacks versus women. The gender gap is maximized when Bush takes the traditional Republican stance, while it is reduced significantly when Bush espouses a more moderate position. The gender gap is unaffected by variation in the position that Bush takes on women's issues. In another experiment, we also find that the gender gap emerges when traditional partisan appeals are racialized. Finally, exposure to the 2000 Republican National Convention, with its message of racial inclusion, boosted evaluations of Bush among women but not men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has suggested that exposure to political advertising is generally informative and may even reduce information gaps between the most and least aware in society, but does not produce large shifts in candidate preference. Drawing on extant models of opinion change, we predicted that the informational benefits of political ads would vary by level of awareness, such that the most aware would experience the largest gains, especially when they are asked to make inferences about issues not explicitly discussed in the ad. Further, we predicted that the most aware would use information in advertisements as a substitute for other kinds of information seeking, while the least aware would be relatively unmotivated to seek out new information, regardless of exposure. Finally, the least aware would be more susceptible to persuasion via ads than the most aware would be. Experimental evidence confirmed these predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]