- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,152
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Location
- Pacific Northwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The B.E. keeps popping up in threads as one of the "unknowns" that could possibly alter the election.
The Bradley Effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent.
What about the possibilities of the Bradley Effect working in reverse? Is it possible that racist families have members in their ranks who will never say that they're going to vote for a black man but they will then go into the booth and pull the lever for Obama?
Let's start talking.......
:comp:
To say it is a myth is a liberal downplay as it is proven.bradley effect myth - Google Search
Apparently the Bradley Effect is considered a myth by many in the know. Here's a google search of "Bradley Effect Myth". Pick a source you like and read on.
Should Obama lose, it will definantley be the reason that is lampooned out there by the media(unless he does something incredibly stupid in the next 3+ weeks). I almost half want Obama to win, just so I don't have to hear about what a horrible racist country we are.
In actuality, I think there will be a small, but neglible effect. If McCain sweeps 49 out of 50 states(as long as Obama doesn't do something dumb), I will retract and consider that there is still widespread racism in America. But McCain would have to landslide Obama out of nowhere, for me to consider it.
I know what you mean ive watched bill maher's show and he seems to be of the opinion that the only possible reason someone could vote for McCain is because they are racist.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prompted a lot of talk about the "Bradley effect," a k a the "Wilder effect"--the supposed tendency of opinion polls to overestimate support for black candidates. The effect is named for Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder, the Democratic nominees for governor of California in 1982 and Virginia in 1989, respectively. Both men were black; their Republican opponents, George Deukmejian and Marshall Coleman, were white. Both seemed to be doing much better in opinion polls than they actually did at the ballot box.
Surveys a month before the election showed Bradley leading Deukmejian by a margin of between 9% and 22%. By late October, Bradley's lead had closed to 6%. Deukmejian won the election by a bit over 1%. (In mid-October Deukmejian had fired his campaign manager, Bill Roberts, for predicting Bradley's erosion of support and ascribing it to racial prejudice.) Wilder defeated Coleman, but by less than 0.4% after having led in the polls by 4% to 15%.
Podcast
One problem with the hypothesis of the Bradley effect is that it rests so heavily on these two examples, both a generation old. A new paper by Daniel Hopkins, a fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, addresses this objection. Hopkins looked at all races for governor and U.S. senator between 1989 and 2006 in which one party nominated a black candidate and the other a white one. He found that the Bradley effect does exist--or rather that it did until 1996.
"African Americans running for office before 1996 performed on average 2.7 percentage points worse than their polling numbers would indicate," Hopkins reports. "Yet this effect subsequently disappeared." As a control group of sorts, Hopkins also looked at elections that pitted a woman against a man. He found no similar effect.
If the Bradley effect is real, what accounts for it? The typical explanation is that voters lie to pollsters and say they support the black man, and then, alone with their prejudices in the voting booth, cast their ballots for the pol of pallor. Hopkins theorizes that the effect disappeared in 1996 because "racialized rhetoric about welfare and crime" had "receded from national prominence."
This could be true, but it is purely speculative. The Bradley-effect voter is not a creature whose behavior has been directly observed, merely a statistical artifact. There is convincing evidence that before 1996, a small but significant number of voters were inclined to tell pollsters they supported a black candidate but actually vote for a white one. As to why this would be the case, one can only guess.
It strikes us as tendentious to say that the Bradley-effect voters were "lying" to pollsters. A response to a poll question is not, after all, a binding commitment but an indication of the voter's mood at the moment, based on a false premise ("if the election were held today"). If you tell a pollster you're voting for X but actually vote for Y, under normal circumstances one would simply say you changed your mind. Presupposing that a voter is acting in bad faith, however, makes it easier to imagine that his motives are invidious.
The typical narrative tells a strange story about the Bradley-effect voter. Why would someone who is too prejudiced to vote for a black person tell a pollster he intends to do so? Because, it is said, he does not want to reveal his prejudices. But if someone is clever enough to engage in such deception, surely he also has the sophistication to realize that one can support a candidate like Deukmejian or Coleman without being, or appearing, racist. Those guys weren't exactly Theodore Bilbo or David Duke.
Here is an alternative explanation, also completely speculative but no less plausible. Maybe Bradley-effect voters initially tend to support the black candidate out of pro-black bias--whether arising from social pressure (they think supporting the black candidate makes them look better), or from their own inclinations (they like the idea of giving the black man a chance)--and then change their minds and opt for the white candidate on the merits, after taking a closer look at the individuals.
This suggests an alternative explanation for the decline of the Bradley effect. Douglas Wilder was the first elected black governor in U.S. history. Had Tom Bradley been elected, he would have been. In both these cases, the appeal of voting for the black candidate was amplified by his status as a prospective groundbreaker. As it became more common for blacks to be nominated for statewide office, the significance of any given candidate's fate to racial progress diminished.
All I can say is to win Obama better have a double digit lead in the polls on election day because if he doesn't he will lose.....It is sad but I would say that at least 10 to 15 percent of the people in this country would never vote for a black person for president............Most of them would not even vote for a black person for dog catcher.............
dOOd that's what I love about you...irrespective of reality you keep your chin up and your dream alive.
:mrgreen:
dOOd that's what I love about you...irrespective of reality you keep your chin up and your dream alive.
:mrgreen:
He's got, hiiiiigh hopes. He's got hiiiigh hopes. He's got, high apple pie in the skyyyyyy hopes.
Why do they have to get a room when we all have to tolerate watching your constant self-masterbatory bs?Get a ****ing room for you mutual left wing love making.......
Moderator's Warning: |
I think anti-black racism will have an influence on this election. I don't believe the Bradley Effect will have any influence on this election, because it is largely a myth. It's based entirely on a couple questionable examples, and ignores the many counterexamples.
Just curious what percent of the electorate do you think will not vote for Obama because he is black.........
I will break it down by region:
North 5 to 10 Percent
South 25 percent........
Average about 10 to 15 percent
Well, it would only really matter in a few states. I don't think racism is a huge problem outside of the South and the Midwest. If Obama loses Nevada by a point or two, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But if Obama loses Ohio by a point or two, it will undoubtedly be racism that did him in.
Regardless, I think that most of the racists in Ohio will flat-out tell you that they're voting for McCain...and more than a few of them will flat-out tell you why. The so-called Bradley Effect - where racists are ashamed of their racism and tell pollsters they'll vote for the black candidate - is largely a myth IMO.
Typical misconception about the South. There is far more racism in OH and PA than there is in the Carolinas. The North is far more segregated, and the racism is blatantly obvious in the privacy of people's living rooms - but it's is buried under the surface in public.
Panther said:What you are describing is certainly a myth because you defined it incorrectly. Of course most racists in OH, and everywhere else, will have no trouble saying they'll vote for McCain. It's not like it is a choice between President David Palmer (from "24") and David Duke - where a "Duke" response to a pollster would signal you as a racist. Here we're looking at a 50/50 race where a racist would have no problem "justifying" a McCain response - assuming he felt the need to try and justify it to hide his racism.
The real Bradley Effect has become much less of an issue in recent elections - however, the continued accusations of racism if you don't say you are voting for Obama have reached such ridiculous proportions from the left that it is almost certain that the Bradley Effect will be much more significant in this election.
We've seen the extremism in this thread, Bill Maher, etc. If you don't vote Obama, it is assumed you are a racist unless you can prove otherwise. Who wants to deal with that perception from some pollster.
Well, it would only really matter in a few states. I don't think racism is a huge problem outside of the South and the Midwest. If Obama loses Nevada by a point or two, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But if Obama loses Ohio by a point or two, it will undoubtedly be racism that did him in.
There's definitely a lot of racism here in Ohio. I would guess that upwards of 25% of Ohio voters will not vote for a black man. However, probably only about 15% of them would even consider voting for a Democrat in the first place. It also seems likely that enthusiasm in the black community and Obama's overall strength may be enough to overcome these problems in Ohio.
Regardless, I think that most of the racists in Ohio will flat-out tell you that they're voting for McCain...and more than a few of them will flat-out tell you why. The so-called Bradley Effect - where racists are ashamed of their racism and tell pollsters they'll vote for the black candidate - is largely a myth IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?