I am convinced that the so-called "Bradley Effect," where polls show a black candidate polling better than his actual results, has less to do with supposed "hidden (white) racism" and, instead, is a function of blacks who want to support their race in public but then vote their values in the privacy of the booth.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Let's hope.
it spring eternal ya know
I googled around a little on Bradley Effect and couldn't find enough concrete data other than that votes for blacks do not accurately reflect their polls.
Well, that's all pretty vague. And it never happens to women or whites? And what, exactly, are the numbers. And what other variables are taken into account. Is this effect for local, state or fed elections?
So, when I hear about the Bradley Effect as if it's a done deal. That it's an actual real thing. I wonder if it isn't the herd mentality of the press/pols. Someone comes up with Bradley Effect as an explanation and it becomes annointed as true.
So...color me skeptical. I have no data that shows there is such a thing as the Bradley Effect.
That said. The blacks I have known would not vote differently than they polled.
One of the things that occurs to me is that if polls show your guy is WAAAAY ahead, then why bother go and vote. Let the others do it, it's guaranteed.
By the way, I'm wildly against polls. I consider them manipulative and misleading and will not participate. I also know people that will deliberately lie on a poll.
Also consider the fact that a poll is a dialogue (with a pollster) versus voting which is essentially anonymous.
Here in Hollywood, it's "cool" support Obama. He's the hip, black guy. We have have a herd mentality. (Especially those of us who work in the entertainment industry which is an awful lot like high school). When your phone rings, you might give the answer that let's you sit at the cool lunch table.
But when you get in that voting booth, away from peer pressure, polls, and the pontifications of the media -- it's just you and a lever. Lots of folks who publicly supported Obama are going to privately vote McCain.
My $.02
hmmm...I was reading some comments on AmericanThinker about people feeling threatened in blue communities. And they didn't just feel disliked, they felt their physical safety and that of their possessions was threatened.
So, who knows, with a phone "poll" call, who's really calling. So maybe it is an effect. And in that case it would affect blacks at least as much if not more than whites.
I'd still love to see some hard numbers.
re: the AmericanThinker comments...people were afraid to put conservative bumper stickers on their cars if they were in liberal neighborhoods. When they did, they reported car being keyed, threating gestures, etc. It was a fear for their physical safety rather than a fear of being thought a racist.
Would you put a McCain bumper sticker on your car and park it in a liberal neighborhood? Would the racial characteristics of that neighborhood make a difference? And what about the economic class of that neighborhood? What about the age characteristic? Interesting test if you've got a bunch of cars to be sacrificed.
So maybe fearing harmful reprisal rather than fearing being called a racist or an oreo is what's behind the 'Bradley Effect'.
I still think, until formal study is done, the most you might say about the Bradley Effect is that polls of black candidates don't accurately reflect voting results.
For that to be a meaningful statement, the statistics would have to be presented, plus all the variables (such as racial % of voting communities, is it an incumbent running, etc.)
So, on a gut level Evan, I think you're on to something here. I know where I wouldn't dare park my sign w/ a conservative bumper sticker. And it has nothing to do with my worrying about being called a racist.
The Forked Tongue Express:
McCain Campaign Experiencing Backlash from Fusillade of Lies That It Shot Off 9/14
WP: "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood."
"Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy." The Alaskan Governor is a Neo-Con, Religious Right Trojan Horse. They are Electing Her, Not John McCain, Hoping that McCain Dies in Office. Let's be Honest Here. 9/15
NYT: Palin Personally Sought To Ban Book From Library 9/15
Initial Lies on Foreign Travel Debunked. "Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America."
John McCain is Running a Campaign Run by Lobbyists 9/14
Frank Rich: "The more voters see that McCain will be the figurehead for a Palin presidency, the more they are likely to demand stepped-up vetting of the rigidly scripted heir apparent." 9/14
NYT: U.S. Arms Sales Rising Rapidly 9/14
You-Tube Took Down as Inappropriate Documentary Footage on Sarah Palin's End-Times Church. Why? 9/14
Anchorage Daily News Update on TrooperGate: "Investigator wants to know if a workers' compensation employee was pressured." 9/14
Bob Geiger: So Much Deception in a Single 30-Second McCain Ad 9/14
Greenspan Says That We Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts! 9/14
Alaskan Women Swarm Anchorage Intersection to Protest Palin
Thomas Friedman: "In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences." 9/15
Anchorage Daily News Editorial: "With all due respect to the First Gentleman, he wasn't elected to anything and as far as we know, hasn't been appointed to anything. He's a private citizen. If he's on the e-mail list for state business, those e-mails become public information. The law protects some communications between government officials -- not communications between government officials and private citizens. The reason is simple. The executive branch shouldn't be able to use executive privilege to hide correspondence between government officials and private special interests, from corporate interests to spousal interests." 9/15
McCain Lied About Palin Earmarks on "The View." And Her Biggest Earmark Request was for The Bridge to Nowhere, Which She Didn't Get. Then She Decided if the Taxpayers from the Other 49 States Wouldn't Pay for the Boondoggle, She Didn't Want to
Waste the Money of Alaskans. That's the Real Story. She Tried to Fleece Us and Didn't Get Her Way. 9/14
Report: Palin Not too Keen on African-Americans 9/14
Eve Ensler on Sarah Palin 9/14
From the January Anchorage Daily News Archives: "The governor's appearance on KWHL's "The Bob and Mark Show" last week is plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I've ever seen from a politician. Anchorage DJ Bob Lester unleashed a vicious, mean-spirited, poisonous attack on Senate President Lyda Green last week while our governor was live on the air with him. When we played the tape on my show the day after it happened, we received 130 calls. Even some Palinbots were disgusted." 9/14
Alaska Spending Soared Under Palin 9/14
GOP Family Values Racism: "Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap." 9/14
Chicago Sun-Times Editorial: "Palin lacks interest in foreign policy, telling the truth " 9/15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes." More Bush-Style Cronyism, Vindictiveness, And Incompetence. "Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records." Bush and Palin: Separated at Birth. 9/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Petersburg Times, FL, Editorial: "McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him."
Prediction: "Bailouts Will Push US into Depression" 9/15
UKGuardian: "The fundamental question raised by the choice of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republicans is not whether she is fit for that position. It is whether John McCain himself is fit for the presidency. The answer must be that in picking for his running mate a woman who is clearly incapable of taking charge of the country if he should die or become seriously ill, Mr McCain has revealed the essential recklessness of his character." 9/14
Mary Mitchell: Sarah Palin Should be a Laughingstock 9/15
While Palin Rattles A Saber She Should Not Have Been Given; Aung San Suu Kyi Quietly, Peacefully Delivers Another Blow to the Burmese Thugocracy 9/15
Washington Post Gives Four Pinnochios to McCain for Lying about Palin and Her Earmarks: "Alaska still leads the nation in terms of per capita spending on earmarks, according to Citizens Against Government Waste." 9/14
"A series of ads — including accusations that Barack Obama backed teaching sex education to Illinois kindergartners and charges that Obama called Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig — have provoked a cascade of criticism of McCain’s tactics." 9/14
MSNBC: Are the Wheels Coming Off the Straight Talk Express? 9/14
James Fallows of the Atlantic: Palin Interview Reveals That She's the Incurious, Go by the Gut, Lacking in Knowledge George W. Bush in a Skirt. They Both Feel Empowered by God to Ignore the Facts and "be Decisive" Based on Nothing More Than Instinct and Bias.
The Economist: John McCain's choice of running-mate raises serious questions about his judgment 9/13
Robert Parry: "Despite all the chatter about how “historic” Campaign 2008 has been, it is the McCain-Palin ticket that it is truly testing the limits, not of race or gender politics, but whether the United States is ready to enter into a new dimension of political lying."
McCain Campaign May be Grossly Exaggerating Crowd Sizes 9/14
Are you sure it isn't the "Barack Effect"... 90% of Blacks seem to vote for blacks... if polling can be believed.
hahhahahaha...unbelievable ...
Rove, though, made some news of his own when he conceded that McCain, in his attack ads, had "gone one step too far, and [is] sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test.”
Confused says: Are you sure it isn't the "Barack Effect"... 90% of Blacks seem to vote for blacks... if polling can be believed.
No...OVER 90% vote for DEMOCRATS rather than for the racist party...they would not vote for a black Republican in anything like those numbers.
If 90% of whites voted Republican, you might have a case... but that isn't happening. So, the only logical conclusion one can arrive at is that Democrats are black racists.
And given the current anointed one's dalliances with one Jeremiah Wright...
Q.E.D.
Jeremiah? Nah, he's a freedom fighter!
Of course Democrats are racists. They're also sexists and Jew-haters.
This is what "identity politics" is all about. If someone's thinking and behavior is defined by their skin color (for example) then race defines that person. That IS racism. Every time you hear a leftist say that someone like Colin Powell "isn't really black" because he doesn't think and act the way black people are supposed to, that is proof of their racism.
If 90% of whites voted Republican, you might have a case... but that isn't happening. So, the only logical conclusion one can arrive at is that Democrats are black racists.
So why would blacks vote 90%+ for WHITE Democrats too, FJ?
Of course Democrats are racists. They're also sexists and Jew-haters.
And yet women vote more for Dems, Dems have more women in power (senators, reps, governors), have the first female secretary of state, first female speaker of the house, first female VP candidate, first female Presidential candidate, support equal pay legislation, supported the ERA, etc. etc. etc.
And the Jews! They vote for Dems like 80%+. Most of the Jewish reps and Senators are Dems also.
Why, oh why, are the blacks, Jews and women voting Dem, if they Dems are racist, sexist anti-Semites?
Well...uh...it's pretty clear them nigrahs, wimmin and joos should never had the vote in the fus place...then they wouldnt been able to vote like that...
Allow us to take you back to the storied past, and we'll show you just what we mean at the inaugural lynching party and pogrom where the wimminfolks serve up...uh, you know...home made stuff and keeps they yaps shet while we has our fun with them upstarts.
Post a Comment