Is the "Bradley-Wilder" Effect Holding Down Barack Obama in the Polls?

Live Poll

Will the "Bradley-Wilder Effect" Play a Significant Role in This Year's Election?

Yes. Definitely.
25%
Yes but not as much as before.
38%
No. The country's pretty well beyond that now.
38%

Total Votes: 16

Will the "Wilder Effect" play a role in this year's election?

Photo: Politico.com

I want to start this short treatise with a caveat that in writing this I do not want the attendant commentary on it to turn into a mud-slinging match pitting supposedly enlightened Americans against their alleged polar opposites. Rather, this essay is intended merely to limn a historical first by looking at some antecedents as to one potential reason Sen. Barack Obama, at this stage of the race, is not polling as far ahead as a challenger from the opposition party in an open election where the incumbent party's officeholder is held in low regard during a time of economic uncertainty should be.

According to the latest national polling composite, Obama has about a six point lead over John McCain. And I think the "likely voter" analysis by Gallup which flips the tables and shows McCain with a small edge among that cohort is probably flawed and not representative especially this far out as revealed in an excellent piece by Mark Blumenthal on Pollster.com. So let's for the sake of argument agree that in the national polling (the state by state electoral vote map looks a bit different) that Obama does have this small edge. But shouldn't that edge be larger than it is?

At this point in the 1976 campaign for president Jimmy Carter, then a virtual national unknown not completely dissimilar to Sen. Obama, led President Gerald Ford (weighted down with the Nixon legacy of Watergate and a struggling economy) by as much as 20 points as pointed out in a good article by Michael Barone, one of our shrewdest political commentators. Carter's lead that bicentennial summer continued to shrink as the campaign turned past Labor Day, and notwithstanding Ford's gaffe on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe at the one presidential debate most agree that had the election been held a week to two weeks later Ford would have won. Similarly, in the summer of 1988 Gov. Michael Dukakis was leading Vice President George H.W. Bush by 17 points before going on to lose badly in the fall.

Now any number of reasons have been offered as to why Sen. Obama, with a big money advantage and the factors alluded to above, is not out to more of a lead then he currently seems to hold. Those range from his newness on the national stage and slim Senate voting record to his historical candidacy as the nation's first American of mixed-race parentage to be the nominee of one of the major parties. And that brings us to the subject of this piece, the "Bradley-Wilder" Effect and here we turn again to Mark Blumenthal writing on the subject:

The best known study of this phenomenon -- a 1989 Public Opinion Quarterly article [PDF] based on surveys of the Virginia governor's race -- closed with an "unambiguous recommendation: survey organizations must record the race of interviewers and check for these effects whenever they conduct polls in black-white electoral contests." Smart pollsters -- like those at the Pew Center and CBS News -- will be following that advice this fall.

Third, according to Keeter, Pew will keep an eye on the respondents who are hardest to interview. In 1997, a Pew study found that hard-to-interview respondents were less sympathetic to blacks on questions about race -- suggesting that the Bradley-Wilder effect may have been partly due to those who refused to participate in surveys. They could not replicate the same results in a comparable study in 2003 but will be watching hard-to-interview respondents again this fall.

So what's the bottom line? Speculation about Bradley-Wilder is inevitable in the coming months, but the most worthy approach will be based on evidence, not hunches.

Today it may not be as easy to detect this as in the past as for the analogy to work as stated the final result in the polls would have to suggest that with Obama now leading by six points he would in fact end up losing or winning only by the barest of margins so we don't exactly know at this point what, if any, influence the "Bradley-Wilder Effect" is now having. Now my own personal hunch is that this "effect" while diminished in the twenty years since Governor Wilder won election in my home Commonwealth of Virginia is still not insignificant. Governor Wilder, who I supported that year in his run against Republican Marshall Coleman, the week of the election held a ten point lead in the polls. And on election night exit polling suggested that he would win handily as well. Governor Wilder ended up winning by 0.50%. So keep your eye on this factor that "dares not speak its name" as we move toward election day. To my knowledge none of the current polling is currently norming for this possible effect. If someone is aware of a poll that is, please let us know below in the commentary.

21 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Bill Harrison's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Historical Vine, Newsvine Election Coverage, NYTimes Forums Refugees, Open Mic, Political Analysis, Political Polls, rationalists, rightwingers, The Big 2008 Election, The Bigger 2008 Election , Utopia, Virginians on the Vine, Washington DC Metro Living, Worldviews
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

107

{"commentId":2318721,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

This is the "fly in the punch bowl" that has so far not been much talked about among the chattering classes.

{"commentId":2318721,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:33 AM EDT

{"commentId":2319168,"authorDomain":"waynester"}

I'm a little confused Bill. The Wilder effect would artificially increase Obama's polling numbers. Do you mean to say he would be some number of points down in an "accurate" poll? This would appear to be the opposite of your headline. The Wilder effect wouldn't hold him down (I'm not crazy about the word choice there, not a good mental image) but pump him up, would it not?

{"commentId":2319168,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"waynester"}

3 votes

#2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:35 AM EDT

{"commentId":2319522,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

You're right. Perhaps I should have rephrased the proposition to suggest that if respondents are saying they will not vote for him, they're not being truthful in stating their reasons for doing so. Thus, I've made a small edit to make this more clear.

{"commentId":2319522,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:15 AM EDT

{"commentId":2319555,"authorDomain":"sheep"}

evano

@Waynester: I think what Bill is saying -- and I have no fear he'll correct me if I'm wrong :) -- is that Obama's lead right now is very slim before the "Wilder effect" begins to kick in throughout the fall. So, if it is a factor in the election and it drags him down, he has a much smaller buffer to begin with.

The question I have is: does Virginia, the state in which Wilder ran, serve as a US in miniature, so that we can extrapolate that effect to a national electorate? Virginia is a Southern state, with much of that historical baggage. But in its northernmost counties, home of the largest part of its population, it is a suburb of Washington, DC, with all of that historical baggage. How would pollsters measure the effects of a phenomenon like this, applying it to a different population, accounting for 20 years of (supposed) progress in racial relations, and with the knowledge that the beliefs which lead to the Wilder effect are often a person's most deeply-held secrets?

{"commentId":2319555,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"sheep"}

4 votes

#2.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:19 AM EDT

{"commentId":2319648,"authorDomain":"SVForbes"}

ShaunV

How would pollsters measure the effects of a phenomenon like this, applying it to a different population,

Good question.

There are so many variables that it may be impossible to routinely factor them all into poll results.

In addition, non registered voters may voice an opinion in a poll, but not vote. People may voice an opinion they feel in the moment. People may voice an opinion they feel is politically correct but bears no relation to their actually choice.

Personally, at this point, IMO, people will not be swayed by poll results.

{"commentId":2319648,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"SVForbes"}

4 votes

#2.3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:29 AM EDT

{"commentId":2323261,"authorDomain":"ratigan"}

Ratigan

Perhaps this is pointed out later, but the Wilder effect is only something that one sees on election night. It's the idea that people say they'll vote for a Black person, but when the time comes, their racism gets the better of them. So, you can't see the Wilder effect, if it will exist at all, until November. Also, the polls are the effect, the effect doesn't effect the polls (which is to say, it affects them, not effects them).

So, really the question is, why isn't Obama kicking McCain's butt? Is it racism? I doubt it.

{"commentId":2323261,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"ratigan"}

#2.4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323884,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

"So keep your eye on this factor that "dares not speak its name" as we move toward election day."

Jimmy Carter not only had a great academic background but he had been captain on a nuclear submarine. So Carter had some "executive" experience. But he doesn't hold a candle to Obama's magnetic personality. I live in the West so I don't have the same "baggage" that has accumulated in the East and South East. Where I live there are now and there have been many mixed race people around. Tiger Woods comes to mind. I think inexperience trumps the dares not speak its name card. (I'm sure you are not outing anyone) In the West I think Obama has been accepted. There are however 14% undecided. I would think there would be a large number of older Americans in this group. Some may indeed be racist but I doubt they are in the majority. Obama is a shooting star they are waiting for him to gain some gravitas. When given the opportunity of voting for a vigorous young man or a septuagenarian crank, I think they'll take a chance. Let the elderly hear this out and consider things in the balance. Sooner or later they will make their best choice and that's what this is all about.

{"commentId":2323884,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

#2.5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323896,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Actually, it is the fear of being called racist that stimulates those polled to say that the minority candidate is the voter's choice, not racism when the voter votes.

{"commentId":2323896,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

4 votes

#2.6 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324032,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Ratigan

I agree that normally this doesn't show up until election night as it did (or didn't) in New Hampshire in the primary but according to Mark Blumenthal in the second piece of his I linked to the major polling organizations are going to try and get a handle on this "hidden hand" in their polling come this fall:

Also, this year's primary results did not systematically understate support for Hillary Rodham Clinton. If anything, polls tended to underestimate support for the winner in each state, a trend that worked in Obama's favor as often as Clinton's.

But will the general election polling this year be different?

I wondered what pollsters are doing to answer that question, so I e-mailed a handful to ask. The most interesting comments came from Scott Keeter.

I give extra weight to the "evidence based" approach the Pew Research Center uses to allocate undecided voters because it proved accurate four years ago. That approach, as Pew President Andrew Kohut put it in an interview with me in 2006, relies on "measures" of the attitudes of undecided voters, not "upon 'you know I think,' 'I got this feeling,' 'history tells us,' or any of this other stuff where you can let judgments get in your way."

So in addition to repeating their assessment of undecided voters, what steps will the Pew Center take to monitor for a recurrence of the Bradley-Wilder effect?

First, says Keeter, they will continue to "measure the impact of racial issues on voter judgments," as they did in this March report. If they find that racial attitudes correlate with vote preference among decided voters, they may incorporate those attitudes into the model they use to allocate the undecided.

Second, they will watch for "race of interviewer effects." Pollsters concluded that racial attitudes were at work in the Bradley-Wilder effect when they observed that white respondents tended to report different vote preferences depending on whether the interviewer was black or white.

The best known study of this phenomenon -- a 1989 Public Opinion Quarterly article [PDF] based on surveys of the Virginia governor's race -- closed with an "unambiguous recommendation: survey organizations must record the race of interviewers and check for these effects whenever they conduct polls in black-white electoral contests." Smart pollsters -- like those at the Pew Center and CBS News -- will be following that advice this fall.

Third, according to Keeter, Pew will keep an eye on the respondents who are hardest to interview. In 1997, a Pew study found that hard-to-interview respondents were less sympathetic to blacks on questions about race -- suggesting that the Bradley-Wilder effect may have been partly due to those who refused to participate in surveys. They could not replicate the same results in a comparable study in 2003 but will be watching hard-to-interview respondents again this fall.

I'm still having a hard time buying Obama's small lead being due solely to his lack of national exposure and experience. If he were say Barry O'Brown instead of Barack Obama I think we might see him, even with a similar legislative background, much farther ahead in the polls.

{"commentId":2324032,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#2.7 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325268,"authorDomain":"waynester"}

I'm still having a hard time buying Obama's small lead being due solely to his lack of national exposure and experience. If he were say Barry O'Brown instead of Barack Obama I think we might see him, even with a similar legislative background, much farther ahead in the polls.

I think part of it is blowback from all the media adulation. Someone said on a talk show the other day "Americans don't like to led around by the nose"

{"commentId":2325268,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"waynester"}

3 votes

#2.8 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326138,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

"If he were say Barry O'Brown instead of Barack Obama I think we might see him, even with a similar legislative background, much farther ahead in the polls."

If by Barry O'Brown you mean a white guy, "even with a similar legislative background,"
I can't believe O'Brown would even be the nominee. To some people experience is a factor to others Obama is exotic and privileged. Given time, if Axelrod doesn't blow it, the voters will become more comfortable with him. This is a big change the first minority candidate, let folks work through this.

{"commentId":2326138,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

1 vote

#2.9 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326264,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Jimmy Carter, a one-term GA governor, was probably considerably less well-known nationally than Barack Obama who had considerable national exposure as a result of his address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. In '76 I was 22 and voting in my second election and I had very little idea who Carter was and I followed politics closely even at that age. He was far more obscure than Bill Clinton who first came on my political radar screen in the early '80s as governor of Arkansas.

{"commentId":2326264,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#2.10 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:31 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326806,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

Well I suppose you're right, grudgingly. The main vehicle in that race was Watergate and Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon. I guess they just chose anyone not Republican.

{"commentId":2326806,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

#2.11 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:38 PM EDT

{"commentId":2331376,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

If he were say Barry O'Brown instead of Barack Obama I think we might see him, even with a similar legislative background, much farther ahead in the polls.

Bill 2.7---so I take it from this then that you do not subscribe the Geraldine Ferraro philosophy re: obama which is kinda the exact opposite of this statement.

{"commentId":2331376,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#2.12 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:33 AM EDT

{"commentId":2319967,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

evano

Thank you. You're exactly right. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the reason Obama isn't more ahead in the polls right now is the racial factor and people are not being honest with pollsters in responses to queries about why they're not backing him. And as I said, I'm not aware of any polling outfit at this time who's asking that very blunt question.

As to your larger point, Virginia has indeed changed dramatically over the past twenty years. Here in NoVA, always a transient area, Fairfax County has become home to more people of Democratic leaning as it has gotten both younger in some areas and older in others. It used to be solidly GOP although not far-right GOP. In the Richmond/Williamsburg area, a large influx of retirees from northern states drawn by the climate and the still cheap by comparison property values have also purpled its political coloration.

Still, the Old Dominion hasn't fully swung from purple to red just yet. Jim Webb still barely eked out a victory over George Allen after the "macaca meltdown" and McCain has a much stronger connection with our large military (both active and retired) community than did Allen. Obama, if he is to win, has to register a lot of new voters and get them to the polls. And he's doing this by opening campaign offices all over the state. He also needs to get out and about with the people of Virginia and not just here in NoVA but in the rural southside and southwest. Wilder did this and it paid off for him. Dave "Mudcat" Saunders tells a story that is pointed in this regard:

They were striking at Pittston Coal. State police had been sent down 'cause it was getting rowdy. So Wilder comes around this corner--he was a tough guy, that came across. He walks up to these two big-ass United Mine Workers, who wore camouflage and had muscles on their turds, rednecks with chaws of tobacco, and he says, "Y'all from Wise County?" They nodded their heads. And he said, "I understand there ain't no black folks in Wise County." And they nodded their heads again. And he said, "I understand that's why y'all call it Wiiiiiiise County." And then they got to smiling. He said to them, "I also heard you boys at the UMW said you would vote for a N-- before you'd vote for a Republican, and I'm here to tell you that this November, you're gonna get your chance."

I was active in Wilder's campaign in '89 and Wilder, to the consternation of many of his old pals in the General Assembly like Henry Marsh, ran a very centrist to right campaign and governed that way too for the most part. Obama can win Virginia but I still think he's got his work cut out for him.

{"commentId":2319967,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:01 AM EDT

{"commentId":2324085,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

Thanks for the "Mudcat" story. I wish Obama could have that common spark. Some of those Scot-Irish (my ancestors) just want to be reassured that Obama doesn't look down his nose at them. They are uncomfortable with his social grace. I sure think that they would be glad to have a visit. Some of them may follow sports, watch movies or TV. Some of them may admire some of the blacks seen in these venues.

{"commentId":2324085,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

1 vote

#3.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325926,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

I don't know. Saunders and Steve Jardine managed to convice enough of these folks in Mark Warner and Tim Kaine's bona fides in this regard but both were running against very flawed GOP candidates in my old W&M classmate Mark Earley and Jerry Kilgore respectively. They've got a tougher row to hoe with Obama against McCain and it's a row that I suspect the plow's gonna get stuck in.

{"commentId":2325926,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

2 votes

#3.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:53 PM EDT

{"commentId":2331688,"authorDomain":"SVForbes"}

ShaunV

...but alas they have put Michele under lock and key---and I have to wonder why?

Good question.

The presidents wife has always been an integral part of the presidential political endeavors... both during campaigning and when finally taking office.

I can't believe that the press has ignored Michelle Obama's absence by Obama's side.

{"commentId":2331688,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"SVForbes"}

2 votes

#3.3 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":2333312,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Shaun - 3.3---well you know the official word is "she's spending more time with the children"---like that ever stopped her ubiquitousness on the campaign trail before. She has low approval ratings is more like it.....one of things that most annoys me about obama (other than his policy positions of course) is that he is entirely too carefully staged ---it comes off as he is just trying too hard to the point of pushing his wife off of the campaign trail. What's he so afraid of I wonder?

{"commentId":2333312,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

1 vote

#3.4 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320158,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Bill - I voted this article up, as I do most if not all of your articles.

Where to start.

To begin with, note that the view of likely voters in Poltico.com is that it is a better predictor of what the situation is right now than registered voters.

If the election were being held today, past evidence would argue for placing more trust in the Gallup "likely voter" model than in the preferences of registered voters. But the election is not today, and I am not convinced that any pollster has a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to predicting turnout 100 days out.

Second, the likely voters category could include more rather than fewer Obama voters. This is because they are more likely to say they will vote, and are arguably far more up on the current debate than those voting for McCain.

Third, I do not agree that the polling results thus far indicate an Obama lead. Indeed, it was a likely result of the Bradley effect that voters were saying that they were voting for him ended up voting for his opponent. That has never been disproven to my knowledge. It was only suggested that some potential voters could have stayed home.

Fourth, I agree with the conclusion, which is inevitable in this election. Whatever reasoning might be applied, the Bradley effect will occur. But it seems far more likely that this effect will result in a different effect than the ones suggested. In the end, the unknown quantity and qualities of Obama, and the known issues of massive ego and little substance and experience, will result in a massive move to McCain. Part of this is already happening. More will occur. And this move will not change back. Indeed, if anything is likely, it is that the Obama support is far more volatile than ever in the past. The unusual absence of substance is driving weakness for Obama, and will continue to drive this election as long as the demographics of voters do not change dramatically from where they are now.

Finally, we will find when all is over that our country continues to be at the center of the world politically, if not leaning much farther right than some of the most liberal countries. We are no more ready for someone who is almost certainly Marxist than the man in the moon.

{"commentId":2320158,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

4 votes

#4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:19 AM EDT

{"commentId":2320751,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Hmm. A kind of reverse "Bradley-Wilder Effect" playing into Obama's supposed lead right now? That's an interesting supposition. What we are beginning to see, I think, is a kind of media backlash, at least in print, against some of the more over the top Obamadoration that has been reflected on the cable yack shows especially on MSNBC. Dana Milbank, always a reliably snarky liberal mouthpiece a la Frank Rich, hints at this in his column today-- President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour:

. . .As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.

Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.

. . .In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.

If the media starts doing its job and starts zeroing in on the slick marketing campaign that is the Obama run for the presidency things could get rough even for a practiced Waterwalker like Barack.

{"commentId":2320751,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

5 votes

#4.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":2321011,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Bill - The gloss and truth of Obama are beginning to clash, like two badly matched patterns. On the one hand we have the Great Uniter gloss. On the other, this gloss is almost completely gone. And the Great Divider is being seen for what he is. A press manipulater of unmatched vitriol and anger, whose idea of the free press is that anyone who writes or says or draws anything adverse is thrown off of the bus, and faces attribution from Obama's supporters. That the New Yorker article was as usual favorable to Obama in the extreme is of no moment. Do not include anything that can even be interpreted as anti-Obama.

How dangerous can such a "candidate" not yet even nominated be to our Nation? How imaginative is your imagination? I bet not sufficiently imaginative in order to undersand and properly foresee what Obama could bring with him to our country. Not by a long shot.

{"commentId":2321011,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

2 votes

#4.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:44 PM EDT

{"commentId":2321598,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

pc-4.2--but haven't you heard how he is the hope that the WORLD has been waiting for? Haven't you heard he already believes he'll win the presidency? Haven't you heard that he has already united our country from what I've heard from some of his supporters anyway....hubris is never very appealing.

{"commentId":2321598,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#4.3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:41 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322098,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Obama's handlers penchant for secrecy and wrapping a bubble around the candidate by strictly limiting access doesn't surprise me. Many politicians do this. Hillary Clinton's people have done it for years and Bush's have too although Bush has always (at least as a candidate) made himself more available to the press. What does surprise me (well not really surprised given the ideological bent of most of the guys and gals on the plane) is the level to which the media has let them get away with it hitherto.

{"commentId":2322098,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#4.4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322209,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

level to which the media has let them get away with it hitherto.

Bill--4.4---when one is "in the can" for a given candidate it is remarkable at just how much one is willing to look the other way. Whether or not we start seeing more 'backlash' a la Dana Milbanks remains to be seen.

{"commentId":2322209,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#4.5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323977,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Bill and lisaed - I believe that the level of propaganda is unsurpassed in US history, but I was born after WW II and did not see FDR in action. Also, the way in which the propaganda has been processed and submitted seems unprecedented for any era or any but the most totalitarian countries. Why are the media so compliant? And what is the real message here?

{"commentId":2323977,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

3 votes

#4.6 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324052,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

I think it's pretty simple. The media's in love with the idea of this country electing a mixed-race president and that that president would be a Democrat is even more icing on the cake for them.

{"commentId":2324052,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#4.7 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324320,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

lisaed,...By taking up the mantle before the election shows guts but it also runs the risk of prematurely ending the press "honeymoon." I expect the press, MSNBC excluded, will begin to take a closer look at Obama and may actually catch him in an unguarded moment. I think him as a dad as he is in the TV interview with Michelle and the kids is the kind of regular guy so many want to see.

{"commentId":2324320,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

2 votes

#4.8 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:43 PM EDT

{"commentId":2331588,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

I think him as a dad as he is in the TV interview with Michelle and the kids is the kind of regular guy so many want to see.

jade-log-4.8-firstly, I can only hope that the obama's honeymoon with the press finally comes to an end some day...but I'm certainly not holding my breath--there may be backlash of the excessive obama adulation during the world tour in some pockets of the media which is indeed refreshing. As for Michele---you may be right ---any hope of a new Camelot will require a new Jackie with 2 kids in tow....but alas they have put Michele under lock and key---and I have to wonder why?

{"commentId":2331588,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#4.9 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:51 AM EDT

{"commentId":2320633,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

Eric Albert

I concur with this analysis, Bill. Race definitely is a hidden, wild card factor. However, there is another crosscurrent here, which over time will keep growing. So many people are going to the voting polls, holding their noses, especially after the primaries, when candidates shed their false populism, and antagonize their base.

This gray matter, corrupt, false social center, class center, represents the consolidation of corporate hacks, that becomes obvious especially to Libertarians, and Social acitivists. The loss of support from your base reflects already this not so hidden problem, that more and more people are beginning to realize that two corporate and imperial parties cannot reflect the social masses, but only the privileged few.

That raises an interesting juxtaposition, namely that in critical times, like we are in, that those that are tired of the same old corporate parties, will finally bolt to third parties to bring about real change.

If there is a war against IRAN, coupled with the collapse of the economy, before the elections, you will see this wild card become normalized to take on the failures of the system.

{"commentId":2320633,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

4 votes

#5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320778,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

You are, of course, correct Eric in the disdain many on the left of the Democratic Party have shown for Obama's seeming move to the center/right with his now seeming endorsement of the Bush/Petraeus strategy in Iraq (which may now coincide by mere coincidence with his arbitrary timetable for withdrawal) and for his vote on the new FISA law. Are they pissed enough to vote for Nader though this fall or simply stay home? That's another factor to consider but so far I haven't seen any indication that they are because as you say they're more inclined simply to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

{"commentId":2320778,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#5.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320676,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

This is the first time I have heard of the Bradley Wilder phenomenon.

One thing I would say is if polling was inaccurate in the past, it seems even more so these days. I have no scientific data to back it up, but the numbers I'm seeing versus the behavior and opinions of my peers do not add up. I don't believe the polling data reflects well enough on young people.

{"commentId":2320676,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"martinez"}

2 votes

#6 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320791,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

It was mentioned, briefly, by some commentators after the NH primary when what looked like a very solid Obama lead on the eve of the primary suddenly flipped to an Obama loss. Since then it's been cruising along mostly under the media radar screen.

{"commentId":2320791,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#6.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:20 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324384,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

I think N H had more to do with Hillary being seen as a human for the first time in the campaign. The Bradley effect was most likely a factor not the factor.

{"commentId":2324384,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

#6.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325324,"authorDomain":"waynester"}

Part of the problem is that many don't even have hard line phones anymore and those that do don't answer them after 5 (me) or caller id screen them (and me). The pollsters are finding it more and more difficult to get a good sample, so you see these games they play with sample weighting which often leads to skewed results.

{"commentId":2325324,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"waynester"}

2 votes

#6.3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:29 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325956,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Another highly salient point that pollster's are still finding difficulty with. I get called all the time and refuse to participate although why anyone would poll Arlington, VA is beyond me. Hell would have to ice over simultaneously with Al Gore taking on the silhouette of Amy Winehouse for a Republican to poll over 45% here.

{"commentId":2325956,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

2 votes

#6.4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326239,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

The whole demographic shift is fascinating. Our mobility has changed the political landscape. Even places like Montana are feeling the influx of the Hollywood diaspora.

{"commentId":2326239,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

1 vote

#6.5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:29 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320705,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

I believe race is one factor for why obama is not doing better in the polls ---but extremely thin resume/lack of substance (so staged so photo-op oriented he is beginning to play more and more like a phoney in my book) also is playing a part---as is I think more and more the obama hubris factor. I took great comfort in the fact that Obama's world tour does not seem to be giving him much of a boost at all in the polls ---with approx 65% viewing the trip negatively or indifferently.

{"commentId":2320705,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

4 votes

#7 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320800,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

How could anyone say it was a bad thing to watch our closest allies rally around a potential American leader?

I don't get it. Everyone is saying the speech he gave in Germany was "to Presidential" for just a candidate... Well, if he weren't a candidate, everyone would just be talking about the 200,000 people that wouldn't have shown up because, if he weren't a candidate he wouldn't be popular. The point is, the trip proves what just electing Barack Obama will do to the American image over seas, people like him. McCain and Hillary both couldn't bring in a crowd like that. Nor could they deliver a speech like that, even if it was fluffy.

The damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios are getting pretty old. Ragging on his inexperience and how he must be out of touch because he didn't make it to Iraq in over two years is one thing, but making an issue of his trip after demanding he is hypocrisy at it's ripest.

One thing can be said, McCain is basically being ridiculed my the media, which is what he deserves at this point. His campaign is weak, his ideas weaker. After the fruit is ripe, they begin to become soft, mushy, and begin to decay.

{"commentId":2320800,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"martinez"}

2 votes

#7.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320813,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

I never really thought the trip would give him all that much of a bump Lisa and I don't think the campaign will make much use of the photos from it in the ads they're likely to run this fall. I view it as pretty much of a wash politically. Obama will be judged as a potential CINC not by how he plays with Euro lefties but how he stacks up on stage in the debates against John McCain.

{"commentId":2320813,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#7.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":2320828,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

How could anyone say it was a bad thing to watch our closest allies rally around a potential American leader?

MartinEz 7.1---the poll numbers which are less than enthusiastic re: Obama's world tour speak for themselves. And what would you rather eat ---a piece of fruit that is slightly over ripe or one that is not ripened yet at all?

{"commentId":2320828,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#7.3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":2321031,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Sorry, but our closest allies include Japan and many other countries not included in Obama's "world" given his nomenclature of "World Tour." Some world.

{"commentId":2321031,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

3 votes

#7.4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323294,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

Leave it to PC to make arbitrary contradictions on rhetorical points.

{"commentId":2323294,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"martinez"}

2 votes

#7.5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324468,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

Martin EZ,...Some people still feel doubts about Obama. They don't do this because they are being contrary. They just see things differently. The response to any doubt or criticism is an avalanche of outrage. As some don't think him perfect, there are those who see him as flawless. He most likely some where in between.

{"commentId":2324468,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

1 vote

#7.6 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:54 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325337,"authorDomain":"waynester"}

How could anyone say it was a bad thing to watch our closest allies rally around a potential American leader?

That would be fine if these "closest allies" didn't want very much to see a weaker America.

{"commentId":2325337,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"waynester"}

3 votes

#7.7 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:32 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326122,"authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

That would be fine if these "closest allies" didn't want very much to see a weaker America.

You must be thinking of China, which this administration has happily bent over for time a time again, no matter if they've poisoned out pets or our children.

{"commentId":2326122,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

2 votes

#7.8 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":2329777,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

That would be fine if these "closest allies" didn't want very much to see a weaker America.

Jade, it's because most of the comments are like the one above. A "weaker" America? What does that even mean? Can we really get much weaker than we are? It's a point that is there not to make a point, but simply attack a candidate without even evidence of thought. I'm sick of it. The McCain campaign and many Republicans are running a disgusting, knee jerk campaign, and it's working... Only because Obama will "leave America in the hands of Muslims". It's frightening how racist and scared this country still is. (If it weren't for race the Muslim card wouldn't stick, period. These are racist attacks)

99% of the Obama attacks are baseless. Not to mention how rational criticism is completely skewed by irrational accusations of being a Muslim, the anti-Christ, or (insert bull@!$%# here) remarks.

{"commentId":2329777,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"martinez"}

#7.9 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:11 AM EDT

{"commentId":2320911,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

Bill:

So let's for the sake of argument agree that in the national polling (the state by state electoral vote map looks a bit different) that Obama does have this small edge. But shouldn't that edge be larger than it is?

Nope. If either 1960 or 1980 are controlling analogies, then it's amazing Obama is ahead at all. Attractive, charismatic candidate with little or no national political experience against a solid if stolid safe choice. Nixon and Carter both led at this stage of the campaign until the public finally decided, "Aw, heck, give the riskier choice a chance."

I'm agnostic as to the Bradley effect. I guess it will operate in some Southern states but will also be offset by larger-than-average Black turnout.

{"commentId":2320911,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#8 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:35 PM EDT

{"commentId":2321670,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack 8.0--I can't recall for sure who it was but some commentator on msnbc in the last few days said the Bradley effect is indeed a more regional phenomenon and seems to be more a factor in the rust belt....dunno

{"commentId":2321670,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#8.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":2321713,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

PS--we'll just have to wait and see if Obama is truly as JFK or Reagan like as his supporters all say he is.

{"commentId":2321713,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#8.2 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322118,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

I'd settle for either one. And for McCain to be like Bob Dole.

I guess your best analogy is 1952 with McCain as Eisenhower and Obama as Stevenson. That, actually, is the very scenario I fear most.

{"commentId":2322118,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#8.3 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322230,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Jack, Where's the outrage? I agree that the Bradley-Wilder Effect is hard to quantify and norm for in the polling. Obama should also benefit from higher than normal turnout of Democrats and new voters. He better hope and pray though that it's a nice day here in VA and in IN on 11/4 though as bad weather and long lines at the polling places could eat into that enthusiasm which is the reason I shall be voting, in the People's Republic of Arlington, via my normal route of absentee ballot.

Lisa, I've already written one piece on why I sure hope Obama's not another JFK as the latter was vastly overrated (especially as a newcomer in office).

{"commentId":2322230,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#8.4 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322237,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack--yes I'm concerned about 1996 scenario---and I asked Chuck Todd about that very thing---He assured me (at least at that time) that he'd rather be McCain in 08 than Dole in 96....made me feel a tad better----but yes, I like the 1952 analogy. Thanks for that.

{"commentId":2322237,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#8.5 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:38 PM EDT

{"commentId":2322410,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Lisa, another not so hidden secret as to why Obama's not polling better is that the public still doesn't trust the Democrats on national security matters even after the Bush administration's inept handling of the Iraq war. Ironically, the improved situation in Iraq is probably working to Obama's favor and against McCain as the more national security matters fade into the background the bigger advantage Obama has on the economy. When I look at Obama's nat def and foreign policy team I see Clinton Redux and that's very disturbing.

{"commentId":2322410,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#8.6 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323020,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Bill---yes, I agree with your assessment here---and it is a sad irony that it is Obama who seems to be benefitting the most from improvements in Iraq......and now we know also because of improvements in Iraq this election is more and more "it's the economy, stupid". Obama's redistribution plans and excessive concern for things like "economic justice" are indeed worrisome to me. McCann has an opportunity here (also in the area of energy independence) but I don't have a lot of confidence that he'll take it.

{"commentId":2323020,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#8.7 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:49 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323374,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

Bill:

To clarify what I meant to say, if the Bradley effect exists, it does so in places where it's unlikely to effect the outcome anyway or where it's likely to be counteracted. Rough calculation, a 7% Bradley effect in most cases would be offset by about a 20% boost in Black turnout. Both seem reasonably feasible.

lisa:

and it is a sad irony that it is Obama who seems to be benefitting the most from improvements in Iraq

Why is that a sad irony? Seriously? Basically, the public is saying "You screwed up this war. But if circumstances have improved enough that we can dis-engage without the shame of outright defeat, Obama is more likely to do that than McCain is."

And here's tip for you that a lot of righties don't get. People LIKE redistribution when they get the wealth. Not so much when they give it.

{"commentId":2323374,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#8.8 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323520,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

People LIKE redistribution

Jack - AMERICAN people? And on the other matter - it's sad to me because Obama who stood up against the surge should not benefit from it.

{"commentId":2323520,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#8.9 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":2323858,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

AMERICAN people?

Yeah. Two words: Medicare Part D. Okay, two words and a letter.

Conversely, why should McCain benefit from the original mistake in the first place?

{"commentId":2323858,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#8.10 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324108,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

You might be right about the black turnout Jack but I don't think that's going to be decisive for Obama anywhere. Right now he's not doing so well with the 40+ woman's vote. That will be far more determinative of the final outcome than the black vote.

{"commentId":2324108,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

2 votes

#8.11 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324374,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

Bill:

You might be right about the black turnout Jack but I don't think that's going to be decisive for Obama anywhere.

Funny. I had almost this exact argument with a pretty-high-up-the-ladder Hillary person a couple of months ago. I got contacts, too.

:^{)>

Anyway, I can answer that in one word: MI. Okay, that's an abbreviation, but you get the idea.

{"commentId":2324374,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#8.12 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":2324682,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

"...a more regional phenomenon and seems to be more a factor in the rust belt..."

I am a little defensive when people are characterizing my Scot-Irish ancestors as racists. The "working class undereducated whites living on less than $50,000/year" AKA "poor, dumb, honky, rednecks," frequently admire sport heroes, stars and musicians of color. When Obama shows his more human side they'll come around.

{"commentId":2324682,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

1 vote

#8.13 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":2325382,"authorDomain":"waynester"}

Lisa:

PS--we'll just have to wait and see if Obama is truly as JFK or Reagan like as his supporters all say he is.

Girl, you could get kicked off of DU or DailyKos for saying that (the Reagan part, anyway) lol

{"commentId":2325382,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"waynester"}

3 votes

#8.14 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:38 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326123,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Kicked off? Heck, you'd probably have to go into the federal witness protection program. ;>0

{"commentId":2326123,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

4 votes

#8.15 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326142,"authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

we'll just have to wait and see if Obama is truly as JFK or Reagan like as his supporters all say he is.

Apparently you're not above such blanket statements.

{"commentId":2326142,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

1 vote

#8.16 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326198,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Jack

I'm not sure I'm following you on the "MI" reference. The composite polling shows it pretty tight and oddly one poll has the third party candidates hurting Obama more than McCain.

There are also whispers that Kwame Kilpatrick's travails are hurting Obama -- badly.

{"commentId":2326198,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

2 votes

#8.17 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326383,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

This is not the Bradley effect it is something more sinister. Since this is so novel to Americans all sorts of strange things are in play. If Obama becomes linked to Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick's attributes accrue to Obama. Then it becomes possible to tie Obama into identification with the more aggressive hiphop lyrics. It's not fair and I know it is a gut response at an unconscious level.

{"commentId":2326383,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

#8.18 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326625,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

Bill:

Michigan's the state where an enhanced Black turnout will tip the state to Obama.

I'll believe the Kilpatrick effect when I see it. People don't vote for President of the United States based on a municipal official boinking an aide. It's possible, I guess, I just don't see it yet.

{"commentId":2326625,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#8.19 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:16 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326817,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Thank's for the clarification Jack. Do you have any kind of idea how many new voters the Obama people are looking to register in MI? Here in VA it's upwards of 100K which is a big, big number.

{"commentId":2326817,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#8.20 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:39 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326851,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

jade

Of course it's unfair. The entire "Bradley-Wilder Effect" is unfair just as the so-called anti-Vatican vote was unfair to Al Smith and Jack Kennedy.

{"commentId":2326851,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#8.21 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:44 PM EDT

{"commentId":2327135,"authorDomain":"jade-log"}

OK then I understand the B-W E differently. I thought it was more overt. Since it is an unconscious reaction the perpetrators are unaware of their participation. Is that close?

{"commentId":2327135,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jade-log"}

#8.22 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":2327432,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

I'm not a psychologist nor would I trust anyone who claims to understand this phenomenon with any degree of certainty. I will say, however, that I still think the whole Rev. Wright dealio is nowhere near as forgotten as most of the MSM think it is. That left an indelible impression on a lot of voters and I thought at the time, and still do, that it will haunt Obama throughout this campaign. Had that situation broken say in September of this year instead of April, he'd have been doomed irredeemably from a political standpoint.

{"commentId":2327432,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#8.23 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:13 AM EDT

{"commentId":2331660,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Michigan's the state where an enhanced Black turnout will tip the state to Obama.

Jack 8.19---even against McCain-Romney?

{"commentId":2331660,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#8.24 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:58 AM EDT

{"commentId":2331678,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Girl, you could get kicked off of DU or DailyKos for saying that (the Reagan part, anyway) lol

Waynester -8.14---well with all the comparisons I keep hearing coming from Camp Obama re: 1980 it's kinda hard to keep Reagan out of the equation. Somehow in 80 Reagan was considered the new and "riskier" option--vs. Carter----how in the heck did that happen?

{"commentId":2331678,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#8.25 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:59 AM EDT

{"commentId":2331881,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

Oh sure.

I'm discussing probabilities not certainties. Omama's not going to surrender Michigan just because McCain picks Romney. MI is clearly competitive notwithstanding the potential effects of Romney or Kilpatrick or whoever.

{"commentId":2331881,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#8.26 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326218,"authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

Bill, the big problem with polls, in my view, is something called "selection bias." It is a specific term, and addresses some -- perhaps most -- of the things you mention (e.g. people refusing to answer).

{"commentId":2326218,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

1 vote

#9 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":2326559,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Read all of the links I have in the piece and the comments to Mark Blumenthal's articles on this very thing. Apparently, the major polling organizations are trying to come up with some controls for this sort of thing as we move into the meat of the campaign after the conventions. I've pretty much sworn off commenting on any of the seeds currently on the front page here from the partisan blogosphere day after day as none of this is going to mean much two and a half months hence. This is the political silly season.

{"commentId":2326559,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

2 votes

#9.1 - Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":2327963,"authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

I'll check them out. Yes, they must examine the methodologies, but it's of course always difficult, especially when you're dealing with opinions. I have some knowledge of some of this, as I'm currently finishing up an Epidemiology degree.

All in all, I think you bring up some interesting and valid questions. Can't say I agree with your points of views, but you seem like an honest broker a good deal of the time.

{"commentId":2327963,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

1 vote

#9.2 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:59 AM EDT

{"commentId":2331714,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Thanks. If you visit my political columns you will find that I'm not overly partisan and while I back John McCain and will be working for the campaign in its h.q. during the crucial months this fall as a volunteer on the weekends I can be very critical as well.

{"commentId":2331714,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

3 votes

#9.3 - Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":2394946,"authorDomain":"njb"}

njb

You raised some very valid questions and points Bill.

I think polls will continue to be misleading through about this election cycle because of the nature of this election. No matter what we think of either candidate--this is a historic election, if for no other reason than age and race. We really don't have an accurate precedent.

Personally, I watching for shifts in polls based on what might happen between now and election day, i.e., major national events--bombings, economy, scandals etc.

Of course other factors are in play also, voter excitement and/or frustration, demographic shifts, and ironically technology--never before have we had an election with this much of the nation wired.

Lets revisit this topic again in mid October.

{"commentId":2394946,"threadId":"322437","contentId":"1705163","authorDomain":"njb"}

1 vote

#10 - Thu Aug 7, 2008 7:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":2395873,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}