Posted on 10/06/2008 6:07:02 PM PDT by lasereye
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) - It's a question that comes up whenever anyone of African-American descent is a candidate for office, and this year is no exception: is the so-called "Bradley effect" going to play a role in the 2008 presidential race?
Many pollsters doubt it, and think there's an even more fundamental question to be asked - whether there ever was such a phenomenon. If there was, they seriously doubt that with all the time that has passed since the late Tom Bradley lost a close gubernatorial race in California 26 years ago - despite being ahead in late polls - that it will play a significant role when the time comes to pull the lever for Barack Obama or John
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
I will vote for that..
THE ODINGA EFFECT!!!
NEED TO COME OUT SOON ON VIDEO SEAN HANNITY!
And calling his grandmother —a typical white person sure didn’t help
I think there are a lot of white senior citizens who will not vote for a black man. Sad, yes, but not in this case.
I believe that THEY believe it and are just trying to talk themselves out of believing it. They are so schizo, you just can’t have it both ways. They are saying “oh wow, it exists”, all these racists saying this and that, and then, “naw, we have evolved and are a tolerant people now”
Can’t have it both ways, it either is or it isn’t.
As I have been telling my friends and family members for the last couple of months. At least since it was obvious that Obama was going to be the nominee for the democrats. Obama is going to lose in a landslide to McCain, and his choice for VP has given that landslide coattails, or maybe more appropriately petticoat-tails. This is going to happen because of the famous Bradley Effect.
For those who do not know what the Bradley Effect is, let me explain.
The Bradley Effect is when white liberals lie about voting for a black candidate, because they are afraid of being called a racist.
Let me give a couple of examples. I’ll start with the 1982 California Governors election race between the then Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley and his republican opponent George Deukmejian.
Throughout the campaign, the polls had Bradley favored to win by as much as 15% at one time. The last poll before the election had Bradley comfortably winning. Every one figured it was over, and major newspapers around the country had their headlines already to print.
Then, the exit polls started to come in, and sure enough Bradley was the projected winner. A couple of early edition papers even had the headlines, "Bradley Wins! First black Governor in US history!"
Only problem was, people were lying to the exit pollsters. When the actual votes were counted, he lost in a narrow defeat to Deukmejian.
Then there was the 1993 New York Mayor's race between the incumbent David Dinkins and New York attorney General Rudy Giuliani. This was a rematch of their 1989 race where Dinkins held a 14 point lead over Giuliani the night before the election, only to win by a narrow 1% margin, that was the closest race in New York’s history.
Now, back to 1993. David Dinkins was again expected by the polls to win, but this time Giuliani won by a large margin. Upsetting the headlines of the papers like Deukmejian did in “82”.
Then we have all the evidence from this year’s primary race between Hillary and Obama. In some pre-election and exit polls, voters said they would or did, vote for Obama. Then when the votes were actually counted, Hillary either won when she was supposed to lose, or won bigger then the polls suggested.
It is well known that Obama became the democrat nominee because Hillary ignored the caucuses where people voted by raising their hands.
Hillary however won most of the states where voters went behind a curtain and voted in private.
Unfortunately for Hillary, but luckily for America, the democrat primaries apportion an equal % of delegates for the % of vote you get. Obama kicked butt in the primaries that had caucuses, and held on narrowly to get the democrat nod.
So, the "Bradley Effect" is white people unwilling to admit they would not, and did not, vote for the black candidate. The result is false poll numbers. No one wants to be called a racist, so when the votes are actually counted, guess what?
You got it!
The white candidate usually wins.
And everyone is left scratching their collective skulls, and asking,"What happened?"
This by the way, only happens in major elections when the black candidate is a democrat. Every time the black candidate was a republican the polls were almost spot on. In my conclusion, I give you two things to think about when considering this election.
1.) Obama is farther behind in the polls then we really know, he will probably loose in a landslide equal to Reagen's over Mondale. Maybe even bigger because, thanks to the "Pit Bull with Lips", white women are starting to break for McCain BIG!
2.) The real racist's are white democrat's who will not vote for a black candidate, but they also will not admit it publicly. Republicans will always be called a racist, so we don't mind admitting we will not, and did not vote for the liberal black candidate.
2-A) The exception conclusion # 2 is as follows....
If both candidates are black, then the liberals will vote for the black candidate, i.e Illinois 2006 race between Obama & Alan Keys. In this scenario, the white democrat will vote for the black democrat over the black republican.
So sit back and enjoy the show, this is going to get good! I haven’t even considered the Clintoon Effect. You know? The one that says Bill & Hillary are not going to allow this guy to win. Thus they will do what they did for Gore and Kerry, just enough to make it look good, but not enough to help him win. I will be enjoying the look on the media’s face when McCain wins in a landslide and we get the House back.
It may be tougher for the Senate, but hey I still have some hope for the Senate. All that's left is for the fat lady to sing.
, And I do believe she is warming up!
How about the Odinga effect?
____________________________
Yes, how about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ
How about Obama openly campaigning for his communist cousin Odinga who signed a pact with Muslims to enact Sharia Law if elected and started riots when he lost. Obama campaigned for an openly Anti-American candidate in a foreign country in 2006 at taxpayer expense.
with any luck, yes
How does GOTV affect pre-election polls?
If Obama were simply a mainstream Democrat, or even a centrist Democrat with none of his current negatives in play, there would still be some measure of the Bradley Effect in this election.
I lived in LA throughout Tom Bradley’s mayoral administration, and he was everything that Obama pretends to be, but in the end, there were still some white voters who just couldn’t make the leap to trust him as their governor.
Like Obama, Bradley wasn’t all that well known outside his immediate political territory before the election. Many voters across California only got to know him during the gubernatorial race, and had to rely on the media’s portrayals of him to make up their minds. Same with Obama.
The difference, of course, is that Obama has negatives the like of which have have never been seen in a presidential candidate. These negatives powerfully amplify the so-called Bradley Effect, in my opinion.
There are states voting right now - I live in one - Georgia. You can early vote here, Ohio, and 2 others that I can’t remember... Fellow Freepers?
I don’t think it is right, but I’ve been saying it WOULD come into play since Obama declared.
Personally I always thought Deukmejian benefited from the “Governor Gatling” effect. He looked a lot like the Governor on the TV show “Benson”.
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.