Skip to comments.The Dinkins Effect in the Presidential Race
Posted on 08/01/2012 2:23:25 AM PDT by neverdem
Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily has an interesting column on whether those who are telling pollsters they intend to vote for the president really are going to do so. The vast majority of them surely will, of course. But politics, like baseball, is a game of inches. If only two percent of those saying they will vote for Obama go into the voting booth and vote for Romney instead, thats a four-percent shift, turning a comfortable 52-48 win into a 48-52 loss. If they simply stay home, that turns 52-48 into 50-50.
There are numerous signs the Obama campaign is very, very worried. His fundraising has not been the money machine it was in 2008, despite Obamas burning out the engines of Air Force One going, hat in hand, from one group of fat cats to another. He is running through the money he does raise at a furious pace, mostly running negative ads in toss-up states. He is trying to shore up his base rather than reaching out to the center as he would if his base were secure. That doesnt bear much resemblance to Ronald Reagans Its Morning in America campaign of 1984, does it? There are even those who say Wall Streets recent climb, despite very gloomy economic news, is due to a growing conviction on the Street that Obama is toast.
And yet pollsters all have the race tight as a tick, as Karl Rove terms it. Whats going on?
I think what I call the Dinkins effect is in operation. David Dinkins was the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York in 1989, having defeated three-term incumbent Ed Koch in the primary. His Republican opponent was Rudy Giuliani. The polls all showed Dinkins well ahead, but he won the race only narrowly...
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Dinkins, the washroom attendant, was absolutely the worst mayor NY has ever seen.
The incompetence effect.
The Dinkins race was known for another issue; since his last race they no longer project winners earlier on election day because of the reaction as the day went on that he might win. Voters jammed the polls later in the day, and his loss was attributed to the projections throughout the day motivating his opposition.
He really was a horrible mayor; the city lost a large number of whites (especially Jews) during his tenure. I don’t think the city has ever recovered.
...SAY they are going to vote for Obama—being black on the outside but going for the “white inside” the voting booth.
I work and know many black folks and they ain't all controlled by racial politics I can tell you...only they have to keep their true opinions about Obama—like OJ’s guilt—to themselves or suffer ostracism in the black community. Obama is counting on that over 90% and even a 5% drop could sink him.
...without the “with” the sentence has an ominous meaning;)
But, but, but the New York Times and Washington Post love him....
Five percent of 12% is 0.6%—less than a sixth of his margin in ‘08.
I like Gordon but his grasp of numbers here is shaky. If 2% of voters say they are voting for candidate A but vote for candidate B, it would change a 52-48 victory for Candidate A to a 50-50 tie. It won’t make an eight point swing (52-48 to 48-52).
This isn’t ‘08 - Romney has already shown 10X more fight than McCain.
There are reasons to hope this year, but the fantasy of a “Bradley Effect” isn`t one of them. Remember in 2008, right here on FR, when so many were confident the factoring in of the “Bradley Effect” would deliver a win for McCain?
The “Bradley Effect” is a mirage.
It's even worse than that. His statement was "If only two percent of those saying they will vote for Obama . . ." which means one percent of voters, or a shift from 52-48 to 51-49.
NYC was an absolute cesspool under Dinkins.
Giuliani had a hell of a time cleaning up that mess.
The writer (and the article) could still be right in principle, but still, you have to wonder, how could someone who presumably passed the 5th grade make such a horrendous mistake in arithmetic.
Zer0 is Americas David Dinkins.
2 posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:06:33 PM by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
It's a sublte play of the race card to explain why a black candidate lost.
-—— tight as a tick, as Karl Rove terms it———
but, to wrap up his piece he says the polls in the important swing states are very old and meaningless but since they are the only polls available they were used. In some states there are no polls and they are counted as leaning. The results re thereby skewed in Obama’s favor.
I see his pieces on Fox and am convinced he is sandbagging Obama and will pull the rug from under him eventually
Dinkins behavior during the Crown Heights Riots, where he allowed rioters to rampage through an Orthodox Jewish section of Brooklyn for three days, was reprehensible. He convinced white voters that a black mayor would never protect them from black crime.
New Yorkers realized that having a black democrat mayor for another term would likely irrevocably send NYC into the same decline that Detroit experienced.
Final score: Pollsters 1 - Deluded Freepers, 0.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.