Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper explores how race/ethnicity and perceptions of racial discrimination and inequality shape beliefs about the implications of an Obama presidency for U.S. race relations. Specifically, using data from a June/July 2008 Gallup/USA Todaysurvey, we examine how African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites differ in their perceptions of the importance of an Obama victory and in beliefs about the implications of such for race relations, racial progress, and opportunities for Blacks in their careers and in national politics. We also examine how perceptions of the extent and nature of racial discrimination and inequality shape these outcomes (overall and by race/ethnicity). Results show that African Americans, relative to Whites and Hispanics, are especially likely to see an Obama victory as important and meaningful in terms of relatively abstract notions of racial change. In contrast, Hispanics are more likely than African Americans and Whites to believe that an Obama win will translate into concrete societal changes, such as expanded opportunities for Blacks in work and politics. In addition, perceived discrimination and inequality positively shape all of the outcomes under study (more perceived discrimination equals more importance and optimism attached to an Obama win), though this association is especially strong amongWhites—a pattern possibly rooted in divergentmeaningsattached to perceived discrimination and inequality by race/ethnicity. Overall, our findings suggest that African Americans view an Obama victory as meaningful primarily because of its symbolic significance, rather than because they believe it will result in substantive racial progress. We conclude by offering some speculation and selected questions for future research on race and U.S. politics.

A special case of the big bad decision is identified. It is called decision overreach. Two separate elements constitute overreach, namely, disproportionality and irreversibility. Four conditions seem to dispose managers to take decisions that are disproportionate and irreversible. These are small size of firm, relatively short duration of decision process, a lack of foresight, and overfamiliarity with products and markets. The data are drawn from U.K. manufacturing organizations.

AbstractThis research examines the extent to which negative attitudes toward African Americans influence public reactions to restoring political rights to felons. We argue that race-neutral policies, such as felon disenfranchisement laws, are non-separable from racial considerations, as images of criminals and felons are typically associated with Blacks. Such attitudes produce collateral consequences for felons, hampering the restoration of their full political rights and, ultimately, their citizenship. Predispositions, such as racial attitudes and political ideology, provide both racial and nonracial justifications for supporting these laws, yet, there are no empirical accounts of their relational effects on opinion toward felons' rights. Using nationally representative survey data, we find that racialized resentment and ideology exert the most influence on the reactions to policies seeking political rights for felons as well as beliefs about the value of doing so. Consistent with much of the literature on attitudes toward ameliorative racial policies, higher levels of racial resentment strongly predict lower support for felons' political rights among both conservatives and liberals, yet, racial resentment is most influential among liberals. Conservatives exhibit the highest levels of racial resentment, but its impact is depressed more by agreement on both racial attitudes and opposition to political rights of felons.

The effect of voter-identification (voter-ID) laws on turnout is a
hot-button issue in contemporary American politics. In April of
2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Indiana's voter-ID law, the
nation's most rigorous, which requires voters to arrive at the polls
with a state-issued photo ID containing an expiration date
(Crawford v. Marion County 2008). In a famous
incident highlighting how Hoosiers were dealing with their state's
voter-ID law, representative Julia Carson (D-IN) was initially
blocked from voting during Indiana's 2006 primary election for
failing to comply with Indiana's voter-identification standard.
Carson identified herself with her congressional ID card; since that
card did not include an expiration date and therefore did not meet
Indiana's voter-identification law, she was turned away at the polls
before later being allowed to vote (Goldstein 2006). The rising wave of public, political,
and legal debate crested two years later in the wake of the Supreme
Court ruling and during the Indiana primaries, with reports of a
dozen nuns being denied ballots at the polls due to their lack of
appropriate identification (Urbina 2008).