http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html:
article wrote:Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.
That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.
***
For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.
The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.
***
Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said the results matched his own findings in a study he conducted ahead of the 2000 presidential election: Volunteers shown visual images of blacks in contexts that implied they were getting welfare benefits were far more receptive to Republican political ads decrying government waste than volunteers shown ads with the same message but without images of black people.
***
"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," [another professor] said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."
That doesn't mean that even one individual's racism will swamp his/her other opinions and prejudices, and it obviously doesn't mean that there aren't enough non-racist Republicans to nominate a black man.
That's why Cain's current standing doesn't disprove that a Rep is more likely to be racist. If you think that, like the man said, you're just in denial.
British odds makers give only 7-to-1 against Cain right now, so I think it's a great time to bet against him. Don't think you can do that online, though.