Well, first of all it would be nice to know how the question was phrased. As written in the article ("asked the same whites if MOST of the people they knew would vote for a black candidate" - emphasis mine), and if the respondents actually meant MOST when they answered the question, it could mean anything from HUGE numbers of whites who wouldn't vote for a black ("most" could mean anywhere from 50.01% to 100% .. and "NOT most" could mean anywhere from 0% to 49.99%). Of course questions like this aren't designed to probe real numbers (because they CAN'T), they're designed to look for the effect you're talking about. A typical example is that polls show that people think poorly of those in Congress EXCEPT those that represent them.
Anyway, with the understanding that this poll tell us little about any real underlying numbers, let's continue. I think it's clear that neither party has a lock on racism (there are racists in every party), so we can't assume that the people who admit (or are too conflicted to admit) that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate are Democrats. Many of them are showing up in the polls already as people who will not vote for Obama.
We can look at the evidence from the primary, but I maintain that this can't be extrapolated to the November election. There were differences between Clinton and Obama, but they were small compared to the differences between McCain and Obama. I may turn out to be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), but I'm more optimistic. I don't know who will win, but I don't think that there will be a huge swing from what the polls tell us as we approach election day.
Bill, thanks for that link. It ought to put the issue to rest.
Brooks Garrett
· 1 year ago
And here comes the race card ;-)
Honestly it is simply not a matter of Black v White, but a matter of the noble Prince is not all he was cracked up to be. The Immortal Obama image has worn thin and people are coming to realize he is what he is; another politician.
I must be blatant racist, I will not vote for the "First Black President". I'll be voting for the "Really Old White Guy", Ron Paul.
TIMM
· 1 year ago
The first thing that makes me wonder about underlying reasons for the depiction of the "bradley effect" is to see whether the polling is as representative as possible to make a proper conclusion.
There is a probability that there is one or more whole voting demographic(s) that isn't approached by the pollsters, and possibly for no strategic reason on the part of the pollsters. If you have a specific percentage of people unapproached by the data collectors, it doesn't stand to reason that SAME percentage would be calculable on both sides of the vote. Also, it doesn't necessarilly mean that white voters are lying, or any other single particular reason. It just happens that the dynamic of the unaccounted for demographic pool was not used in the calculations.
Perhaps a greater percentage of conservatives, put off by a long standing association with the new "liberal fascist" sect in the democrat party, would put off the voters to Obama, but also that that single group on average is older, and isn't as likely to have their opinions recorded by street pollsters because they don't leave their house so often.
There are large caches of voters who aren't being represented by these polls. They will never be precise, no matter how many variables are accounted for, and they are completely subject to the interpretation of the party contaminating the polls since it is in the purview of their discretion to use the data as politically profitable as possibility allows.
Essentially, it turns the "Bradley/Wilder Effect" into a set of imperfections in data collection, calculation, and/or conclusion. And an excuse must be made for why the polls were so right before the vote, but not after.
However, it will appease many people to say, "Well, the numbers did add up, but the voters were wrong."
You be the judge.
-=T=-
TIMM
· 1 year ago
One more thing;
Does this statement, "Why McCain Will Be the Next President", neglect the importance of your belief that the voting populace will not choose Obama as the next president, in deference to a better option in that of McCain?
-=T=-
http://gdfisk.blogspot.com/
· 1 year ago
I don't think that you can make a strong prediction about this election based on the Bradley Effect. There is evidence of a reverse Bradley Effect in this year's Democratic presidential primaries from Southern states. Obama has done better than poll predictions in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. If Obama can win even a few southern states it might be enough to help him win the election.
I grew up in Mississippi around a BUNCH of racist people, including my father, uncles, aunts, and very close friends to the family. I was raised to hate black people. I went to school with a lot of black people, and I had a couple of close black friends (hope that didn't sound cliche'), so I was blessed to have that so I didn't become a complete racist, though it still went pretty deep. When I got out of that world and went into the military, I saw even more of what people were really like and who they were, and it drove more of those feelings out of me.
But you know what? I still struggle with it. I fight against it. I make sure my kids know that everyone is equal (truth be told, we don't even make an issue out of skin color or whatever, so they really don't know anything about different races - everyone is a person to them). And I have gone so far to try to get this crap out of my system that I have supported Alan Keyes for President. I agreed with most of his policies and beliefs (though I have seen him go a little bit nutter in the last few years), but the biggest reason I wanted to vote for him was to prove to myself that I could vote for a black man, and because I wanted the world to see that the USA could have a black man as president.
And you know what? I actually thought about supporting Obama because of those same reason, even though he is about as far to the left as you can get without being an out-and-out pinko communist. That is the depth of my guilt about the feelings I fight back all the time. But then I woke up.
Obama is going to ruin this country if he becomes president. He is going to raise taxes. He is going to socialize medicine. He is going to kowtow to the whim of every other country that thinks we are too big and too powerful and aren't doing our part for the "global community", even though we do more than anyone else (another debate). And I will be damned before I vote for someone like that because I feel guilty. That is an improper motivation, and I will not do it.
It is a shame that people will not vote for someone because of race. It sucks. But putting out crappy polls like this is done because the liberal media and other idiots out there want to have the race card ready to draw when Obama loses the election. Plain and simple. And you fell for it.
Daniel Miessler
· 1 year ago
I don't think I fell for anything, Michael. I understand that you can vote against Obama for his policies without being a racist. This is not a difficult concept. We're not talking about a lack of Obama support; that's too complex an issue. You're missing the point.
What we're talking about is overwhelming Obama support in the polls, and then that support disappearing in the voting booth. That's all.
Daniel Miessler
· 1 year ago
By the way, I discount the polling results thus far, i.e. in primaries and caucuses, and I don't consider Obama doing well there in the "final" votes to be representative of the actual vote for him as president.
The Bradley Effect likely doesn't come into play until the actual impact of a Black president becomes an absolute reality. It's simply not the same in more indirect gestures of support like the primaries.
The only real test of the Bradley Effect will be when it comes down to putting a Black guy in the White house. If we don't see a major loss of the polling support among Whites in THAT vote then I'll concede that the Bradley Effect was indeed a non-issue.
Let's hope for it.
dale
· 1 year ago
I think there is a larger percentage voting for Obama just because he is half-black than voting against him because of the same reason.
Of course, if he doesn't win, leave it to his supports to claim racism as the reason.
TIMM
· 1 year ago
and then there's this, from today:
"August 15, 2008
Gallup Daily: McCain, Obama Tied at 44%Obama’s support down slightly
If the election were held today, registered voters would be equally likely to vote for John McCain (44%) or Barack Obama (44%), according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update."
Just a reality check ... the national vote totals are meaningless. We don't elect presidents by popular vote. A friend of mine (wanting to see if there was any meaningful change in the two months leading up to the election -- trying to prove for himself once and for all that the bombardment of campaign ads in these last two months are a waste of money and time) checked the state polls as of 10 days ago (2 months before the election). The site he used didn't have recent results for all 50 states, but he used older data in those cases (he was careful to specify in advance everything about his study). Anyway, at that time, Obama had a fairly comfortable lead in electoral votes (or what would be electoral votes if the election was held then and if the votes were true to the polls).
Long story short .. nationwide vote totals are meaningless.
Carl M
· 1 year ago
(In fact, I'm puzzled why such stress is put on these nationwide polls .. it's not as though we don't have a recent example of a president who didn't win the popular vote race.)
All Comments
Well, first of all it would be nice to know how the question was phrased. As written in the article ("asked the same whites if MOST of the people they knew would vote for a black candidate" - emphasis mine), and if the respondents actually meant MOST when they answered the question, it could mean anything from HUGE numbers of whites who wouldn't vote for a black ("most" could mean anywhere from 50.01% to 100% .. and "NOT most" could mean anywhere from 0% to 49.99%). Of course questions like this aren't designed to probe real numbers (because they CAN'T), they're designed to look for the effect you're talking about. A typical example is that polls show that people think poorly of those in Congress EXCEPT those that represent them.
Anyway, with the understanding that this poll tell us little about any real underlying numbers, let's continue. I think it's clear that neither party has a lock on racism (there are racists in every party), so we can't assume that the people who admit (or are too conflicted to admit) that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate are Democrats. Many of them are showing up in the polls already as people who will not vote for Obama.
We can look at the evidence from the primary, but I maintain that this can't be extrapolated to the November election. There were differences between Clinton and Obama, but they were small compared to the differences between McCain and Obama. I may turn out to be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), but I'm more optimistic. I don't know who will win, but I don't think that there will be a huge swing from what the polls tell us as we approach election day.
I'm not worried: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127606.html .
Bill, thanks for that link. It ought to put the issue to rest.
And here comes the race card ;-)
Honestly it is simply not a matter of Black v White, but a matter of the noble Prince is not all he was cracked up to be. The Immortal Obama image has worn thin and people are coming to realize he is what he is; another politician.
I must be blatant racist, I will not vote for the "First Black President". I'll be voting for the "Really Old White Guy", Ron Paul.
The first thing that makes me wonder about underlying reasons for the depiction of the "bradley effect" is to see whether the polling is as representative as possible to make a proper conclusion.
There is a probability that there is one or more whole voting demographic(s) that isn't approached by the pollsters, and possibly for no strategic reason on the part of the pollsters. If you have a specific percentage of people unapproached by the data collectors, it doesn't stand to reason that SAME percentage would be calculable on both sides of the vote. Also, it doesn't necessarilly mean that white voters are lying, or any other single particular reason. It just happens that the dynamic of the unaccounted for demographic pool was not used in the calculations.
Perhaps a greater percentage of conservatives, put off by a long standing association with the new "liberal fascist" sect in the democrat party, would put off the voters to Obama, but also that that single group on average is older, and isn't as likely to have their opinions recorded by street pollsters because they don't leave their house so often.
There are large caches of voters who aren't being represented by these polls. They will never be precise, no matter how many variables are accounted for, and they are completely subject to the interpretation of the party contaminating the polls since it is in the purview of their discretion to use the data as politically profitable as possibility allows.
Essentially, it turns the "Bradley/Wilder Effect" into a set of imperfections in data collection, calculation, and/or conclusion. And an excuse must be made for why the polls were so right before the vote, but not after.
However, it will appease many people to say, "Well, the numbers did add up, but the voters were wrong."
You be the judge.
-=T=-
One more thing;
Does this statement, "Why McCain Will Be the Next President", neglect the importance of your belief that the voting populace will not choose Obama as the next president, in deference to a better option in that of McCain?
-=T=-
I don't think that you can make a strong prediction about this election based on the Bradley Effect. There is evidence of a reverse Bradley Effect in this year's Democratic presidential primaries from Southern states. Obama has done better than poll predictions in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. If Obama can win even a few southern states it might be enough to help him win the election.
I have some links about this topic on a blog post.
http://gdfisk.blogspot.com/search?q=bradley+eff...>
Dan,
I grew up in Mississippi around a BUNCH of racist people, including my father, uncles, aunts, and very close friends to the family. I was raised to hate black people. I went to school with a lot of black people, and I had a couple of close black friends (hope that didn't sound cliche'), so I was blessed to have that so I didn't become a complete racist, though it still went pretty deep. When I got out of that world and went into the military, I saw even more of what people were really like and who they were, and it drove more of those feelings out of me.
But you know what? I still struggle with it. I fight against it. I make sure my kids know that everyone is equal (truth be told, we don't even make an issue out of skin color or whatever, so they really don't know anything about different races - everyone is a person to them). And I have gone so far to try to get this crap out of my system that I have supported Alan Keyes for President. I agreed with most of his policies and beliefs (though I have seen him go a little bit nutter in the last few years), but the biggest reason I wanted to vote for him was to prove to myself that I could vote for a black man, and because I wanted the world to see that the USA could have a black man as president.
And you know what? I actually thought about supporting Obama because of those same reason, even though he is about as far to the left as you can get without being an out-and-out pinko communist. That is the depth of my guilt about the feelings I fight back all the time. But then I woke up.
Obama is going to ruin this country if he becomes president. He is going to raise taxes. He is going to socialize medicine. He is going to kowtow to the whim of every other country that thinks we are too big and too powerful and aren't doing our part for the "global community", even though we do more than anyone else (another debate). And I will be damned before I vote for someone like that because I feel guilty. That is an improper motivation, and I will not do it.
It is a shame that people will not vote for someone because of race. It sucks. But putting out crappy polls like this is done because the liberal media and other idiots out there want to have the race card ready to draw when Obama loses the election. Plain and simple. And you fell for it.
I don't think I fell for anything, Michael. I understand that you can vote against Obama for his policies without being a racist. This is not a difficult concept. We're not talking about a lack of Obama support; that's too complex an issue. You're missing the point.
What we're talking about is overwhelming Obama support in the polls, and then that support disappearing in the voting booth. That's all.
By the way, I discount the polling results thus far, i.e. in primaries and caucuses, and I don't consider Obama doing well there in the "final" votes to be representative of the actual vote for him as president.
The Bradley Effect likely doesn't come into play until the actual impact of a Black president becomes an absolute reality. It's simply not the same in more indirect gestures of support like the primaries.
The only real test of the Bradley Effect will be when it comes down to putting a Black guy in the White house. If we don't see a major loss of the polling support among Whites in THAT vote then I'll concede that the Bradley Effect was indeed a non-issue.
Let's hope for it.
I think there is a larger percentage voting for Obama just because he is half-black than voting against him because of the same reason.
Of course, if he doesn't win, leave it to his supports to claim racism as the reason.
and then there's this, from today:
"August 15, 2008
Gallup Daily: McCain, Obama Tied at 44%Obama’s support down slightly
If the election were held today, registered voters would be equally likely to vote for John McCain (44%) or Barack Obama (44%), according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
do not discount, McCain is within reach.
-=T=-
Just a reality check ... the national vote totals are meaningless. We don't elect presidents by popular vote. A friend of mine (wanting to see if there was any meaningful change in the two months leading up to the election -- trying to prove for himself once and for all that the bombardment of campaign ads in these last two months are a waste of money and time) checked the state polls as of 10 days ago (2 months before the election). The site he used didn't have recent results for all 50 states, but he used older data in those cases (he was careful to specify in advance everything about his study). Anyway, at that time, Obama had a fairly comfortable lead in electoral votes (or what would be electoral votes if the election was held then and if the votes were true to the polls).
Long story short .. nationwide vote totals are meaningless.
(In fact, I'm puzzled why such stress is put on these nationwide polls .. it's not as though we don't have a recent example of a president who didn't win the popular vote race.)