There has been a lot of mention on these boards of the Bradley Effect--mostly by McCain supporters who are hoping and praying for race to be the reason for Obama's "inflated" poll lead. The Bradley Effect suggests that "statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but that those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots."
However, there has been something new brewing: The Reverse Bradley Effect.
Quote:
On average, Obama received three percentage points more support in the actual primaries and caucuses than he did during polling; however, he also had a strong ground campaign, and many polls do not question voters with cellphones, who are predominantly young.
Bradley effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Quote:
For one thing, the phenomenon has been absent in other recent high-profile races in which black and white candidates competed. In Harold Ford's unsuccessful 2006 bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Tennessee, for example, most of the polls actually underestimated his vote -- and overestimated the vote for Ford's white opponent, Bob Corker, who won by just three percentage points. Ford was hurt by a racist television ad, to be sure, but my point is that at least the polls were close to the mark.
Eugene Robinson - Echoes Of Tom Bradley - washingtonpost.com
|
So keep hoping for race to have something to do with Obama's polling lead, conserva-bots. But you will be crying into your hoods November 5!
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
