Posted on 08/20/2008 9:59:56 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
I can't. But I do know there was the handgun ban turnout of old geezers and gunners and rednecks who usually don't vote who were furious at the notion that their handguns were about to be taken away, and that Bradley supported it.
As for the racist so-called Bradley effect, I see no evidence of it. I don't believe there are as many racists as this notion implies. And to be honest, especially in California. I've lived here nearly all my life and I've traveled the country. There are a lot of jerks and idiots here, but not racists. Sure there are some everywhere, but not enough in California for this to work.
I've shown you real evidence to account for his loss. You show me some real evidence other than suppositions based on vague polling numbers to account for this so-called effect and I'll consider it. But there is none and I've never seen any.
Zogby reports McCain by 46% to 41% in a poll of likely voters, taken through 8-16-08.
(I believe the poll was taken before the Saddleback event.)
This poll is a BIG shift because in July, Obama led 47% to 40%.
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1541
Sorry but you haven’t shown me any evidence at all that would make a difference as to the Bradley Effect. The gun issue was on the ballot from the get go and the polling throughout the race would have reflected this. If this were the only race in which this happened I would blow it off as well but there are many others and the Bradley Effect is supported in the exit polling as well.
You may want to believe there are few racists in California, possibly because it is a heavily Democrat State and you believe Democrats are far less likely to be racist. You would be wrong. Simply ask yourself which Party it is that ALWAYS brings up race and which party is the very first to accuse others of racism? here’s a hint, it isn’t the Republicans.
It is often said that the Democrats object loudest to those things they are themselves guilty of doing. I find this to be true in my experience of closely following politics for some 40 years.
Those mean-spirited Republicans assumed that when Obama said he’d meet with Castro he meant Fidel Castro. He was really talking about Ramon Castro of the NY Mets.
No. You don't understand how it works. They only poll likely voters. The people who came out at the end were from the universe of very low propensity voters. That is not just a big distinction, it is the major reason for this effect.
You may want to believe there are few racists in California, possibly because it is a heavily Democrat State and you believe Democrats are far less likely to be racist.
Don't be an idiot. I believe it becasue I live here and I've seen it. I've been all over the country and been surprised how the reverse is true in so many places. Besides in 1982 California was a heavily REPUBLICAN state.
The other carefully selected races you cite demonstrate a come-from-behind white guy winning over a previously leading black guy. But you aren't looking at any other races. If it was uncommon for someone to come from behind and surprise all the pollsters you would have a case. But its actually quite common - regardless of race.
Suit yourself, after all I’m just an idiot, as you said. The studies done are all meaningless and people have no reason to be less then truthful because the PC frenzy in America really hasn’t had any chilling effect on what people are likely to say when asked a question about race especialyy when it comes to voting for a black.
You have convinced me that the people that did all the studies in races all over the Nation are as stupid as I am. Pity they didn’t just call you and save themselves all that time and money.
Your tantrums aside, all I did was point out that Tom Bradley didn't lose because of racism. He lost because of liberalism. Why is that so hard to believe? It happens all the time.
It could appear that only die hard Marxist promoters and their recipients and stupid students will end up voting for the clown from Indonesia. I am pleasantly surprised to see more people not willing to vote for him. The Pelosi and Reid freeks just may have put a knife into his back with the refusals to allow for more drilling. And as the voters see the increased aggressions coming out of Russia, they just may realize it is no time for this empty suit to take the joy stick.
I think the facts are you do not KNOW all the reasons why Bradley lost. What is odd is that you hold yourself out as an expert in this particular area and yet you cite no qualifications. Nor is your theory mentioned anywhere I can find. Perhaps you can point me to this treasure trove of secret knowledge that allows you to claim expertise in this election?
Actually this truth is common knowledge among political consultants in California. I don't have the time but I could probably dig up editorials from then discussing it. I work in the state capitol now, having sworn off campaigns five years ago. My wife and I have been part of the management and communications teams for three California gubernatorial campaigns, many regional elections, and managed a successful statewide initiative for the Northern half of the state. So since you asked, campaigns, elections and politics in California is in fact my life.
Compare this to the 1982 race for governor of California between George Deukmajian and Tom Bradley. It was a complicated election, because conservative turnout was surging ahead of what polls projected as people came out to beat the anti-handgun Proposition 15.
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/127606.html
Many political analysts attribute former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s 1982 defeat in his race for governor to the existence of a gun control initiative–Proposition 15, calling for a halt in the sale of handguns in California–on the same ballot. The NRA and its supporters pumped huge sums of money and political manpower into rural and suburban areas, leading to Bradley’s narrow defeat by Republican George Deukmejian.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/24/news/mn-3053
Bradley lost the election in California in 1982 but not primarily due to racism. I was very involved in the campaign and I remember well when ABC news declared Bradley the winner at 9PM PST. By 10 PM ABC had retracted their declaration for Bradley, and by 11PM George Deukmejian was the new governor of California. There was a ballot issue that year that was also leading in the polls. I think it was called Proposition 15 and its purpose was to not only ban the sale of all handguns in California, but also would have confiscated any handgun that had been purchased in the preceding 12 months by anyone except 'peace officers'.
http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/report.php?1,124452
On November 2, 1982, Prop 15 was overwhelmingly rejected 63 percent to 37 percent. Addressing a victory celebration in Los Angeles, Carter promised that the loss would set back gun control across the nation. "We haven't talked them out of it, but if they try we'll beat them. This is a message, the kind of message that legislators all over the United States will understand, because the people have spoken."18 One of those who received the message was losing democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley. For Prop 15 the NRA had registered more than 300,000 new voters through California gun stores. Few of them were Bradley fans. Bradley lost by little more than 93,000 votes to his opponent, George Deukmejian. Bradley learned his lesson. On a subsequent failed campaign for governor in 1986 he abandoned his anti-handgun stance.
http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/chapter2.htm
Rasmussen has McCain down 3% and with some slippage in recent days.
Remember... Demo Fat floats, Dave!!! (and it allows one to swim in much colder water with the other cold blooded animals)
“Good Grief, Grampa, where’s the bottom half of that industrial strength black bikini?”
Probably keeping the Dumbo Oreo’s ears warm!
Ha! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
The gun measure may have had a part in Bradley’s defeat and may in fcat had a good deal to do with it but that doesn’t explain the exit poll results nor does it explain the many other traces in other parts of the country in which similar things have happened to black candidates.
With the PC craze in this nation I am convinced there are plenty of people who are simply intimidated into saying they have no problem voting for a black and when they get into the booth will do the opposite.
I wouldn't hold my breath wating for a Saddleback bounce. Rasmussen polls every day and I haven't seen any big movement in these daily polls. Saddleback will have an effect but I don't think it is going to yield a "bounce".
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.