PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone worried about the Bradley effect?


SJ Bronco
10-06-2008, 09:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

I've heard a lot of talk about the Tom Bradley effect on the radio lately. The recent flooding of republicans telling us that the race is effectively over, is starting to sound like an effort to reduce voter turnout by classically lazy voters. I think its a legit tactic if a high percent of people are not going to vote for Obama like they say they are.

I apologize if this topic has already been discussed.

alkemical
10-06-2008, 11:01 AM
Not really.

I honestly don't know that many people that use "race/age/etc*" in making any sort of a decision.

If there are...indeed that many people that still use {variable*} in determining whom to vote for - then indeed we are ****ed. It would show how very few adults we have living in society.

Rohirrim
10-06-2008, 11:03 AM
I think it will be age determinant, but still a problem. I think it could hurt Obama in those areas where his lead is the small or he is even with McNasty.

TailgateNut
10-06-2008, 11:30 AM
I don't think it will affect the voting public as much as it would have/ has in past elections. People are pissed about the stolen election of 04. People are pissed about the current economic situation. People are pissed about the war and the costs associated with that war.

In three words, or less: People are Pissed!

alkemical
10-06-2008, 11:31 AM
I don't think it will affect the voting public as much as it would have/ has in past elections. People are pissed about the stolen election of 04. People are pissed about the current economic situation. People are pissed about the war and the costs associated with that war.

In three words, or less: People are Pissed!

and i want them to poop on DC!

TailgateNut
10-06-2008, 11:33 AM
and i want them to poop on DC!

especially after the heaping portion of the **** sandwich they serve us last week.
I still cannot fathom that so many supported that BS bill.
****ing daytime robbery sponsered by our goverment.

Dudeskey
10-06-2008, 11:39 AM
and i want them to poop on DC!

LOL... At least allow a very large convoy of cattle trucks drive around the "Mall" & do trailer washouts there for a week...™

alkemical
10-06-2008, 11:53 AM
especially after the heaping portion of the **** sandwich they serve us last week.
I still cannot fathom that so many supported that BS bill.
****ing daytime robbery sponsered by our goverment.


LOL... At least allow a very large convoy of cattle trucks drive around the "Mall" & do trailer washouts there for a week...™



I don't care, catapults, **** spreaders, IDGaF!

Bronco X
10-06-2008, 12:11 PM
Bradley ran for governor in 1982, and racial perceptions have changed to some degree. I think it will be something of an effect but there are many other factors at play in this election.

Good point about "landslide" talk potentially creating lower voter turnout. The Obama campaign has been working hard to register voters, especially young voters... traditionally an apathetic demographic. If they turn out it should boost Obama's numbers compared to the polls, while the Bradley Effect is said to lower voter numbers compared to the polls. If the voters show up this could cancel or surpass this Bradley Effect.

The McCain camp is up against a wall. I have no doubt they will try to generate a Bradley effect without explicitly making themselves look racist.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-06-2008, 01:17 PM
I don't think it will affect the voting public as much as it would have/ has in past elections. People are pissed about the stolen election of 04. People are pissed about the current economic situation. People are pissed about the war and the costs associated with that war.

In three words, or less: People are Pissed!

+1

At this stage of the game, I'm inclined to believe that the Bradley effect will only be a significant factor in those cracker belt states that vote rethug no matter what anyway.

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-at-gitmo.jpg

DomCasual
10-06-2008, 01:46 PM
I guess that would be about as good an option as any, at this point.

TailgateNut
10-06-2008, 02:20 PM
+1

At this stage of the game, I'm inclined to believe that the Bradley effect will only be a significant factor in those cracker belt states that vote rethug no matter what anyway.

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-at-gitmo.jpg

Speaking of "crackers", I ran into a few of them yesterday at the tailgater before the game. These ****wads were broadcasting McCains' lies on their PA/ stereo system. That and some redneck music to get their crowd all warm and fuzzy.
They didn't think it was funny when I told them that McCain was an asshole who lied everytime he opened his mouth. Typical McCain supporter. Dumb, racist redneck cracker with a GED at best!

Paladin
10-06-2008, 02:30 PM
Do not underestimate the power of stupidity! There are some people who believe that crazy broad. McCain has called Obama a liar, now.

Go to Rillinstone.com and get a whiff of the McCain stories of heroism and related BS. Read his book Faith of my Father and find true stupidity. I hope he pops with his red face when confronted.

Today, CNN reported that the "don't like Palin" choice is now above 40 %, up from 25% two weeks ago. Polls are swinging against McNasty still.....

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Do not underestimate the power of stupidity! There are some people who believe that crazy broad. McCain has called Obama a liar, now.

Go to Rillinstone.com and get a whiff of the McCain stories of heroism and related BS. Read his book Faith of my Father and find true stupidity. I hope he pops with his red face when confronted.

Today, CNN reported that the "don't like Palin" choice is now above 40 %, up from 25% two weeks ago. Polls are swinging against McNasty still.....

The only people who believe Dominionist Barbie's lies and bullsh*t are the mouth-breathers on the far right who always vote GOP no matter what anyway.

Old Dude
10-10-2008, 11:21 AM
"Reverse" Bradley effect?


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/09/will-race-matter.aspx

http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/10/the-reverse-bradley-effect-001216.php

Taco John
10-10-2008, 11:24 AM
I don't believe the Bradley effect exists. I think it's some nonsense that bullsh*t academics theorize about, and pat themselves on the back over how smart they are. But ultimately, I think the theory is garbage.

Paladin
10-10-2008, 11:40 AM
Who'da thunk it, eh?

Rohirrim
10-13-2008, 05:48 AM
Here's a dismantling of the "Bradley Effect" by a GOP pollster.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html

enjolras
10-13-2008, 08:34 AM
I do think it exists, but it's much more localized than is being bantered about. I went to college in Arkansas, and still keep up with some old fraternity brothers. In private, some of them are coming up with wild rationalizations as to why they can't vote for Obama (including the secret muslim theory). In private there is a deep-seated racist tone to the conversation. Race relations have come a long ways in that state, but even among the college graduates it still exists right below the surface. So even traditional democrats who (in public) say they support Obama, their private conversations are a bit different.

Contrast that with Colorado, where I haven't perceived that. Folks here seem to be in some cases overtly racist. But in real western fashion, I think people put their cards out on the table.

I can see a Bradley effect in California...There is tremendous pressure in that state to tow a politically correct line. Even if private thoughts betray that.

Paladin
10-13-2008, 08:52 AM
The McNasty motto should be: " Activate your Amygdalae!"

Drek
10-13-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't believe the Bradley effect exists. I think it's some nonsense that bullsh*t academics theorize about, and pat themselves on the back over how smart they are. But ultimately, I think the theory is garbage.

There is pretty clear evidence from the namesake case that racial fears can play a roll in making polling data for a bi-racial elections less accurate. At least it did then.

I think we've come a long way, some of it in attitudes and public perception, but at least an equal amount of it with improved polling techniques, that makes the data much more valid.

The only "Bradley effect" I'm personally expecting is the one Diebold has already programmed in.

SoCalBronco
10-13-2008, 10:41 AM
Obama has done somewhat worse in primaries as opposed to caucuses (in terms of pre event polling), so I think its still a factor, albeit not a huge one. His level of support is probably about 2% below what he's polling (that is not 2% of his share, but 2% on the whole). If he maintains a lead of 5+, it won't hurt him at all, but if Obama is ahead by 2 or 3 going into election day, I wouldn't be surprised at all if its a dead heat from a popular vote perspective.

frerottenextelway
10-13-2008, 10:59 AM
The ''Bradley Effect'' during the primaries.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2753226020_77840e5146_o.png

Crushaholic
10-13-2008, 11:04 AM
Republicans are saying the race is over because McCain has apparently failed to energize the base. That's all there is to it. If the Republicans had a decent candidate in which to select, it might be different...

cutthemdown
10-13-2008, 11:07 AM
+1

At this stage of the game, I'm inclined to believe that the Bradley effect will only be a significant factor in those cracker belt states that vote rethug no matter what anyway.

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-at-gitmo.jpg

Racist

Paladin
10-13-2008, 01:19 PM
Republicans are saying the race is over because McCain has apparently failed to energize the base. That's all there is to it. If the Republicans had a decent candidate in which to select, it might be different...

But it isn't is it?

Wouldas, couldas and shouldas all lead to mights, maybes and perhaps, nothing ever certain. One thing that would not be different is that Bush screwed this country over by his policies, his war in Iraq and his culture of criminality and incompetence. He and his cronies nearly guarantee that many people would not be convinced that the Repugs as a whole are not cuplable for the loss of economic, military, social and diplomatic status the country used to enjoy.

I think you oversimplify and underestimate the depth of contempt people have for that stooge and his party.....

Crushaholic
10-13-2008, 04:56 PM
But it isn't is it?

Wouldas, couldas and shouldas all lead to mights, maybes and perhaps, nothing ever certain. One thing that would not be different is that Bush screwed this country over by his policies, his war in Iraq and his culture of criminality and incompetence. He and his cronies nearly guarantee that many people would not be convinced that the Repugs as a whole are not cuplable for the loss of economic, military, social and diplomatic status the country used to enjoy.

I think you oversimplify and underestimate the depth of contempt people have for that stooge and his party.....

I honestly believe that if the Republicans had nominated a candidate that wasn't so easily tied to Bush and is vibrant enough to energize a crowd, the Republicans would have a very serious chance of returning to the White House. I believe the majority of people in this country still hold on to conservative values and would not tolerate too much "change". Having said that, Bush has spent his presidency like a sorority girl on daddy's credit card. That angers people, including Republicans who believe in fiscal responsibility. McCain's record in the Senate suggests that he's going to follow the same path, which doesn't make Republicans feel very good about the candidate.

So...yes, I stand by my statement that the Republicans needed to pick a different candidate in order to keep the White House. They didn't, and Obama will probably win because of it...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2008, 05:04 PM
I believe the majority of people in this country still hold on to conservative values and would not tolerate too much "change".

:rofl:

Righties always like to claim that Obama is "the most liberal member of the Senate," etc., but a clear majority of Americans agree with his positions on every issue.

How does this jibe with your "belief?"

Bronco Bob
10-13-2008, 10:28 PM
I honestly believe that if the Republicans had nominated a candidate that wasn't so easily tied to Bush and is vibrant enough to energize a crowd, the Republicans would have a very serious chance of returning to the White House. I believe the majority of people in this country still hold on to conservative values and would not tolerate too much "change". Having said that, Bush has spent his presidency like a sorority girl on daddy's credit card. That angers people, including Republicans who believe in fiscal responsibility. McCain's record in the Senate suggests that he's going to follow the same path, which doesn't make Republicans feel very good about the candidate.

So...yes, I stand by my statement that the Republicans needed to pick a different candidate in order to keep the White House. They didn't, and Obama will probably win because of it...

I think Huckabee would be doing a lot better than McCain is.
He was a governor, he has a folksy charm and humor, he's
a lot younger, he had ideas.
The main problem with Huckabee is no one had heard of him
before, and he didn't have the money or the backing that
McCain had. And the winner take all rules in the GOP
primary also gave McCain a huge advantage.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2008, 10:30 PM
I think Huckabee would be doing a lot better than McCain is.
He was a governor, he has a folksy charm and humor, he's
a lot younger, he had ideas.
The main problem with Huckabee is no one had heard of him
before, and he didn't have the money or the backing that
McCain had. And the winner take all rules in the GOP
primary also gave McCain a huge advantage.

It's almost like the rethugs didn't want to win this one.

Bronco Bob
10-13-2008, 10:39 PM
It's almost like the rethugs didn't want to win this one.

I'm thinking Romney was too slick by one, and Huckabee was too hick.
Giuliani was just another New Yorker who's already been beat by
Hillary (whom everyone was running against at the time).
So McCain seemed like the only honest, sophisticated one at the time.
I think the wheels fell off when McCain picked Palin. As soon as she
opened her mouth people saw it as a political stunt and McCain's
credibility went out the window.

cutthemdown
10-14-2008, 12:40 AM
I think Huckabee would be doing a lot better than McCain is.
He was a governor, he has a folksy charm and humor, he's
a lot younger, he had ideas.
The main problem with Huckabee is no one had heard of him
before, and he didn't have the money or the backing that
McCain had. And the winner take all rules in the GOP
primary also gave McCain a huge advantage.

That and Huckabee is one of those guys who thinks the earth is only like 5000 yrs old.