Posted on 09/01/2012 3:42:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
At time of writing, polls show the race for the presidency to be tight. General consensus seems to be that whoever wins, the 2012 election will be won by a bat squeak.
Yet to many, especially those of us on the right, it seems peculiar that Obama is still remotely in the race. With highunemployment, minimal GDP growth, a 100% increase in food stamp costs, and out-of-control spending, many conservatives are asking how just under half of the American population can possibly want more of the same.
While it is not possible now to get into the many reasons certain people will vote Democrat in November, I propose that all polls, not just left-leaning polls, may be being strongly misled by their data, and Romney/Ryan may actually have a huge lead not seen in polls.
It is my contention that this is due to a mix of the infamous Bradley effect and what is known in Britain as "the Shy Tory Factor," with both coming together to exaggerate just how popular Obama is in America.
The Bradley effect is a much-debated polling distortion that is easy to demonstrate but difficult to prove. The idea that when a black or minority candidate is on the ticket against a white candidate, certain voters may lie under pressure from a pollster, worried about being seen as a racist for choosing the white candidate over the minority, sounds highly plausible. The consequence, should the Bradley effect be in play, would be a skewed poll indicating that the minority candidate is in better political shape than his or her opponent...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Wouldn’t a smart pollster be able to approximate the effect and allow for it in his sample size?
The top pollsters, like say Rasmussen or Gallop, would probably be the best at dealing with it.
Dunno about you guys, but when a pollster called me I told him I thought 0bama was the greatest president ever, and of course I’m voting for him.
Anything to screw with their numbers....and I’m positive I ain’t the only one out there doing this......
The Bradley Effect has morphed into the personal popularity of Obama in spite of his being a failed president. Or, as Ryan put it, he’s not a bad man, just a bad president.
Or just to have fun with ‘em......
The Bradley Effect was NOT in play at all in the last election- in fact it might have gone the opposite way
Even though I knew better than to vote for him I was hoping finally electing a black man might end the racist talk about not having equality
A cood chunk of people who did vote for him realize this was wrong too, and will not vote for him again
I remember that.
Ol’ Frank looked like he was gonna puke.....
I fear what’s happening with Obama is more the Bell Curve than the Bradley Effect.
There was no Bradley effect in 2008. Its a myth.
We have had 4 years to evaluate the ‘messiah’ so I do think that the numbers are not accurate for Obama. I think people will vote what they really think in November.
The Badley Effect was in play over 40 years ago.....that was a different political demographic. This is a lazy column & dead wrong.
That action distorts the results and hides serious disaffection from both candidates.
Here’s a few factors that come to mind:
1) We’ve elected a minority president. Been there, done that, it’s in the books and can’t help Obama any more (and his lack of performance may serve to hinder qualified minorities in the future).
2) Obama is not the hip, slick candidate he was four years ago. The college vote was heavy 4 years ago because it was cool to vote for the dashing young black guy that was going to give you stuff. Those kids have now graduated into a jobless world and are probably a little less idealistic than they once were. Note how less-than-enthused the college kids are today vs. 4 years ago.
3) The press is not worshiping Obama like they did 4 years ago. Newsweek is a good example of the press then and the press now—Messiah 4 years ago, time to go today.
4) Style is not king in this election. People are going to vote with their wallets this time around. Ideology voting is a rich man’s sport. When your bank account is low or you have no job you set ideology aside and vote for the guy that’s going to get the job done regardless of style.
I was polled one time and have to admit that I felt guilty about my honest answers, so I would totally understand how a person could respond in a way to try to give the pollster the answer they seem to be looking for. And most polls have loaded questions to drop hints as to what their perceived ‘right answers’ should be. That, and Dem oversampling tends to indicate that results coming from the privacy of the voting booth will not match the polls that have come out thus far.
Or maybe it was offset by the ‘white guilt’ vote?
It's much harder than you would guess.
Good point.
The Bradley Effect is a crock. I lived in CA back then. Bradley endorsed Prop 15 which would have stopped the sale of any more handguns in CA. As a result, tons more conservatives turned out to vote than the pollsters had planned on. They voted against Bradley because of Bradley’s endorsement of the gun control proposition, not because he was black
Yes this is the dumbest reason ever for a Romney win. It was touted for days and weeks here on Free Republic. Never happened. If we have to beat Obama using the Bradley Effect, we don’t deserve to win. Yep it is that bad that millions of other reasons to vote for Romney can be used.
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.