From the you couldn't make this up department.
The Bradley effect, named after a black LA mayor who lost the race for governor of CA despite having a rather large lead in the polls, states that white people will claim to vote for a black man when asked, but vote for the white man in the privacy of the voting booth.
Now comes CNN with a poll that says 70% of Americans say that race will not be a factor......
Two thoughts.
First, how will we know? The posit of the Bradley effect says that people won't tell. So by definition the poll is meaningless.
Secondly, according to some polls Hussein is getting 97% of the black vote, up from a traditional 80% to 85% for the Democratic candidate. That is a 17% to 12% increase based on race.
Now, if the white vote was increased by a similar margin the election would be over.
Yet the latter would be claimed to be racist while the former is being ignored.
What does all this mean? I haven't the slightest beyond knowing that Hussein won the nomination because of the 95% plus of the black votes he received and the what I call the "willingly stupid," or college students.
I suspect the additional black votes won't be too large of an impact because McCain will carry the traditional red states and Hussein the traditional blue states and the Bradley effect will carry the swing states for McCain.
Only this time I think it won't be a "Bradley" effect but a "PC effect." People won't say they won't vote for Hussein because of race, after all Bradley is 30 years old, but because it would un-PC to do so, even though they are against his positions.
The results will be the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There have been studies made about this:
ReplyDeleteIn 2008, several political analysts[56][57][58][59] discussing the Bradley effect referred to a study authored by Daniel J. Hopkins, a post-doctoral fellow in Harvard University's Department of Government, which sought to determine whether the Bradley effect theory was valid, and whether an analogous phenomenon might be observed in races between a female candidate and a male candidate. Hopkins analyzed data from 133 elections between 1989 and 2006, compared the results of those elections to the corresponding pre-election poll numbers, and considered some of the alternate explanations which have been offered for any discrepancies therein. The study concluded finally that the Bradley effect was a real phenomenon, amounting to a median gap of 3.1 percentage points before 1996, but that it was likely not the sole factor in those discrepancies, and further that it had ceased to manifest itself at all by 1996. The study also suggested a connection between the Bradley effect and the level of racial rhetoric exhibited in the discussion of the political issues of the day. It asserted that the timing of the disappearance of the Bradley effect coincided with that of a decrease in such rhetoric in American politics over such potentially racially-charged issues as crime and welfare. The study found no evidence of a corresponding effect based upon gender - in fact, female Senate candidates received on average 1.2 percentage points more votes than polls had predicted.[9]
The real kicker is this:
Douglas Wilder has suggested that the 'reverse Bradley effect' is that some Republicans won't openly say they will vote for a black candidate, but then do so.[70]
While their cause continues to be debated—for example, many polls underpoll African-Americans and young voters[citation needed]—the pollsters' errors have raised expectations that as the presidential primary season progresses, Obama's polling numbers will be widely scrutinized as analysts try to definitively determine whether the Bradley effect has become a significant factor in the race.[71] An inspection of the discrepancy between pre-election polls and Obama's ultimate support[72] reveals significant bivariate support for the hypothesized "reverse Bradley effect." On average, Obama received three percentage points more support in the actual primaries and caucuses than he did during polling; however, he also had a strong ground campaign, and many polls do not question voters with only cell phones, who are predominantly young.
Myth.
Conservatives operating by this logic should revisit some recent races. Let's go back to the 2004 Democratic primaries. Remember the overwhelming support the Rev. Al Sharpton and Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun received from black voters? Catapulted to the front of the Democratic pack, they nearly upset frontrunner John Kerry. As I recall, they almost forced him to make racial reparations part of the Democratic platform.
And who can forget the millions of Negroes who hoisted Alan "Mad Dog" Keyes on their shoulders through two Republican presidential primaries? The former ambassador to United Nations fell a bit short of the nomination despite burgeoning support from black liberals who crossed over to vote Republican by the millions based on nothing more than skin color.
That's why Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney can look forward to picking up every black vote that Obama drops on Nov. 4.
When it comes to the power of melanin, African American voters love to chant Wesley Snipes' memorable line from "Passenger 57" -- "Always bet on black."
That's why the black vote for Barack Obama is intellectually meaningless as far as Limbaugh and Buchanan are concerned. It isn't a vote that results from an act of cognition. That's impossible for black voters who respond like Pavlov's dog to racial cues.
When white conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish endorses Mr. Obama, that's "principled." When conservative columnists like Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker hint they're leaning in that direction, too, no one accuses them of racism.
When Christopher Buckley breaks with National Review -- the conservative journal that his father founded -- to endorse the Democratic ticket, well, he must have his reasons.
But when Colin Powell endorses Mr. Obama, it's pure racial tribalism.
It might be black folks' fate to endure being reduced to cultural stereotypes by "bigots for the Right" to paraphrase Woody Allen, so that a McCain loss is easier to take in November.
In the meantime, conservatives should consider the possibility that it is the Republican brand that black folks are rejecting in unprecedented numbers -- not John McCain's race. Just a thought.
You blather well.
ReplyDeleteMcKinney, Keyes and Sharpton have next to zero political ability and your point means nothing.
As for the brand. Blacks have voted for for Democrats in the 80-85% range for years years. This year they are around 97%.
And you want to say that Hussein being half black has nothing to do with it?
ROFLMAO.
“You blather well.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I like to think I've
learned from the best in this field.”
I never said you were slow, just wrong headed.
“McKinney, Keyes and Sharpton have next to zero political ability and your point means nothing.
No, if you believe that black people vote for black candidates, then the lack or excess of political ability isn't at issue, looking at what should happen according to your 'theory' and what happens in reality is important.
As for the brand. Blacks have voted for for Democrats in the 80-85% range for years years. This year they are around 97%.
Or it could be they're voting for their pocketbooks. Nothing wrong with that in a democracy:
On all major economic indicators—income, wages, employment, and poverty—African Americans were worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000. Although the American economy has grown significantly since 2000, African Americans have not shared in America’s prosperity. The current economic downturn and the subprime mortgage crisis bode ill for the immediate future for African Americans.
The overall social well-being of African American communities depends upon strong job growth. The historical evidence shows clearly that strong job and wage growth are the keys to reducing black poverty. Without reductions in child poverty, we can expect continued lower educational achievement, higher rates of teen pregnancy, and a higher than average rate of crime in black communities.”
No. If that were true the black vote would have been split, or at least in the 60-40 range in the Primaries. Instead it was in the 95% range. Hillary has a strong history of pushing Democratic and black causes and Clinton was called “The First Black President.” She had a much stronger resume.
Blacks voted for Hussein because he is black and they are/were proud happy thrilled that he had a chance to be nominated. Now it is because he has a chance to be President.
Is that racist? Tough question. I would say by definition, yes. But I also understand that sometimes payback is needed to make things work better. And remember, the historical norm is in the 80%-85% range So where I would condemn it if done by a white, I understand the context of it in this election. If it happens a second time in the 90% range then it will be racist.
Since I give you the economic point your Demo commercial is deleted