The "Bradley effect" and the "Pumas" were supposed to beat Zero, and all the polls were wrong...
There was a "Bradley effect" in 2008, just not big enough to make any difference at all in the ultimate outcome (1.37 points)! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2126751/posts
Otherwise, Scott Rasmussen called 2008 fairly accurately, so I need to believe Scott this time.
“Yep, you beat me to the post. This article is totally reminiscent of the last few days before the 2008 election here on FR.
“The “Bradley effect” and the “Pumas” were supposed to beat Zero, and all the polls were wrong...”
Nice try, but much of this was accurate and did occur. The big thing in 2008 was the economy which ultimately gave the election to Obama. When Palin was added to the ticket, McCain suddenly was even and in some ahead. There wasn’t any data on record showing an economic slide a month or two right before the election which put many people off.
If you reread what you were referring to, you will also find that it was said that the American people would never accept Obama’s direction. Obama’s fall in popularity is faster than any president ever in modern history. Ultimately, what was written, that you are referring to, was correct.
And you don’t get what Nate Silver is doing (because you aren’t that smart). Nate Silver is a joke of an analyst, but this column of his is just a mirror one where he talked about how Republicans could do better than expected.