Jim Stillman
Nevar
The “Bradley Effect”, the “Reverse Bradley Effect”: what it means.
October 22nd 2008 10:21
There has been from the very beginning the hope that Americans were beyond denying the presidency to Barack Obama because of his race. In a previous article, I discussed this as the 800 pound gorilla in Senator Obama’s camp. Add to the race issue the continuing, and unfounded belief that the Illinois Senator is Muslim, and, thereby, patently a traitor and untrustworthy, there were huge opportunities for the vile and ignorant to show their positions.
Finally, the Republicans’ strategy has been, to their shame, one of exacerbating the problem. While John McCain seemed to out of his way to correct and declaim shouted hate from his audiences, Sarah Palin, like a good arrack dog, encouraged the divisiveness.
Kathleen Parker writing in The Washington Post,
As of this morning, all of the polls predict a Democrat victory, by a substantial margin. The GOP has repeatedly shot itself in the foot, Governor Palin, with every remark, establishes further her inability to be vice-president, still unable to state the positions basic duties. In spite of all of this, there remains the unspoken issue.
But polls only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think. We have both an election and a shadow election in progress. The latter, in which unconscious motivations come into play and buried prejudices surface in the privacy of the voting booth, is the one that counts more and it’s anyone’s guess how that one will come out.
The 2008 election may be a high stakes game of Liar's Poker.
Consider, if you will, the Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor's race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead. It also explains in the primaries why Barack Obama had higher exit polling figures that those reflected in the actual vote.
There is, somewhat paradoxically, a Reverse-Bradley Effect: whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. I also have close family members, Republicans and conservatives, who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal, but who are dismayed at the Sarah Palin choice and the state of the economy.
How will it come out? Who knows?
(Material in this article has been previously published in EXAMINER.COM)
Finally, the Republicans’ strategy has been, to their shame, one of exacerbating the problem. While John McCain seemed to out of his way to correct and declaim shouted hate from his audiences, Sarah Palin, like a good arrack dog, encouraged the divisiveness.
Kathleen Parker writing in The Washington Post,
To McCain's credit, he has tried to correct his audience -- when, for example, a woman said she couldn't trust Obama because he's an Arab. Gosh, wonder where she ever got that idea? But the McCain-Palin bad cop-good cop routine is what it is. The hot babe lathers the crowd; the noble soldier hoses them down. This isn't a campaign; it's a sideshow.
As of this morning, all of the polls predict a Democrat victory, by a substantial margin. The GOP has repeatedly shot itself in the foot, Governor Palin, with every remark, establishes further her inability to be vice-president, still unable to state the positions basic duties. In spite of all of this, there remains the unspoken issue.
But polls only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think. We have both an election and a shadow election in progress. The latter, in which unconscious motivations come into play and buried prejudices surface in the privacy of the voting booth, is the one that counts more and it’s anyone’s guess how that one will come out.
The 2008 election may be a high stakes game of Liar's Poker.
Consider, if you will, the Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor's race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead. It also explains in the primaries why Barack Obama had higher exit polling figures that those reflected in the actual vote.
There is, somewhat paradoxically, a Reverse-Bradley Effect: whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. I also have close family members, Republicans and conservatives, who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal, but who are dismayed at the Sarah Palin choice and the state of the economy.
How will it come out? Who knows?
(Material in this article has been previously published in EXAMINER.COM)
| 61 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Comment by jimstillman
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
I have no problem saying I voted for a democrat.
I voted for Bill Clinton once and I recently voted Democrat in North Carolina's Governor's election.
Anybody for votes for OR against somebody because of race, is a moron and does not deserve the vote they toss away.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Comment by Jeff Musall