Posted on 09/02/2012 6:48:04 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Bradley effect
Tom Bradley speaking at AIDS Walk LA at the Paramount Studios lot in 1988
The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6]
Good call.
You also have people invested in OBAMA who may change at the last minute...
This is similar to 1980....the press told us Carter was Great and Reagan was just an actor....I think the RATS are hoping for a big Mittens mistake...
Different polling uses different metrics.
I’m still trying to figure out how he got elected.
Lies, cover-ups, more lies, daily media props, lies.
Connecticut is a very “socially Liberal” state, and Ms McMahan, though a fiscal Conservative and a Conservative in many other ways is not seen as a “right-to-life” Conservative; so many Liberals (who are also, many of them “wall-streeters”) are not turned-off by Linda. While, they may not be as comfortable with Mister Romney as they are with her. By election day they may change their mind, but it would be more likely about the Presidential race than the Senate race. I imagine this election will see “split tickets” in many instances, including some Democrats who will vote for Romney and vote for their Democrat for Congress at the same time.
I could see it in someplace like Mass, where Brown is the incumbent.
But you are right, it doesn’t make too much sense in open-seat races.
But, are we sure these are the same polls? I mean is the same polls asking: who are you voting for for pres, who are you voting for for senate?
Or are they taking results from 2 different polls? If that’s the case I’m not sure we can fairly compare the results.
Yes they need Proctor and Gamble to buy air-time to sell various soaps, no one likes a run-away horse race, and they wonder why we turn them off..
Especially if you are a UNION household... Caller ID is a beautiful thing, I hardly pick up the phone anymore...
I say it again, I think 60 is a possibility in the Senate, Obama will have no coat-tails, negative ones in fact, I see a vote against him and people possibly pulling the "R" ticket for the 1st time swinging the Senate like we could only dream about....
From the tone and tenor of the campaigns, I would wager the internals are far different than the public pablum we are being fed.
***
Why feed us pablum?
No coattails? One would think that Obama would be a drag on the ticket. The real test is how many of these Dem candidates downticket want Obama to campaign for them or to appear with them on the campaign trail or vice-versa.
Now there's a lot of reasons for that and intensely bad press coverage on McCain versus a fawning, bootlicking Obama-loving press corps had a lot to do with it, 2008 was a reverse-Bradley. People voted for the black guy to look cool and non-racist.
Of course this year, that dog won't hunt, so maybe your Bradley effect will apply. Personally I think the media just outright lies and the REAL polls are looking real good for R&R but they're just not telling us.
A candidate of a party running in a state that, in national elections, tends to vote for the other party, can try to tailor his or her positions on some issues to the inclinations of the state. For example, in the South, a Democrat would tend to characterize himself as conservative on social issues; and, in the North, a Republican would tend to characterize himself as liberal on social issues.
Among other reasons:
1.A particular candidate may be a better politician than his opponent.
2.A particular candidate may be an entrenched incumbent, who has endeared himself to many individuals over the years, e.g., by fixing a problem with Social Security benefits.
3.(House races only) The district may be gerrymandered so as to be a blue district within a red state, or visa versa.
IMO, zero has been blaming congress for so long that some people disassociate the President from Congress.
As I recall, they showed about 51-48 Obama at that point - within a percentage point or so of the final tally.
I’m not buying that theory this time around. Fool me once and all that.
I agree with you. I also remember similar comments towards the polls in 2008, and the election showed the polls were, in fact, accurate.
MSM poll lies + Bradley effect = R squared win.
The biggest difference this time is that in 2008, Obama was an unknown quantity, so a vote for him was a novel thing to do, and many voters said to themselves, "it can't be any worse than what we have now."
In 2012, we know him all too well, and it is MUCH worse than it was before he was elected. So some of those folks who may be SAYING they'll vote for him again, have no intention of actually doing so.
Very astute analysis!
2012 is not going to be like 2008! I’ve been mulling over the idea that 2012 will be like the elections of 1996 or 2004, where in both cases the incmbent won; but neither year had such horrific economic issues.
No, I see 1980 all over again.
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.