The VP Gaffe Over & Under

[bad hammy]

I said something nice about you up there a few posts ago - don't push it . . .

[Marlow]

I said something nice about you up there a few posts ago - don't push it . . .

Sorry

[paulthefan]

I've heard people on both the right and left say that the Bradley effect is alive and well. Rush Limbaugh recently said that he believes that if Obama is not ahead by more than 10% in the polls on the day before the election, he's in trouble. Kathleen Sebelius has also said that she's suspicious of the polls showing Obama ahead and Ed Rendell has said that race will cost Obama 5%. Here's a pretty good article from the L.A. Times about how race is playing out in southwestern Virginia.

except that SW VA is neither representative of the US demographically (rural, independent minded and not a great deal of wealth) nor ideologically; not many liberals. Chances are that folks wont be voting for Obama in SW VA for countless reasons that have nothing to do with race, though some might argue that as shibboleths go it does the trick.

Id be surprized if race costs Obama 5%. There are far more whites that are very eager to vote for Obama based on race with the college aged folks very much in that fold. All the present talk of race costing Obama is smart leverage to ensure that it actually helps him. Obama's black percentage may well go from 90% (garden variety dems get that) to 95% with as much as a 10% increase in turnout. On the whole Obama may get a net +. The truth is that he is running a rock solid campaign and seems to know how to avoid mistakes, he is now more than free to reach out to the middle while McCain makes whopper after whopper (postponing ones campaign to help bring dems and repubs together to bail out wall street?... only a quintessential washington insider could have dreamed that one up!)

[DrJay]

Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/

[malmo]

Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/

Where are you going on your vacation, Dr Jay?

[jazzcyclist]

Id be surprized if race costs Obama 5%. There are far more whites that are very eager to vote for Obama based on race with the college aged folks very much in that fold. All the present talk of race costing Obama is smart leverage to ensure that it actually helps him. Obama's black percentage may well go from 90% (garden variety dems get that) to 95% with as much as a 10% increase in turnout. On the whole Obama may get a net +. The truth is that he is running a rock solid campaign and seems to know how to avoid mistakes, he is now more than free to reach out to the middle while McCain makes whopper after whopper (postponing ones campaign to help bring dems and repubs together to bail out wall street?... only a quintessential washington insider could have dreamed that one up!)

You make a good point about the Black vote. Assuming Blacks are 12% of the electorate, Obama can count on Blacks to boost his overall percentage by an extra 1.5 to 2 points over what John Kerry got. However, I still find it hard to believe that young Whites who voted for Bush in 2004, will vote for Obama in 2008 because he's Black. I would think that the young White folks who are voting for Obama, voted for John Kerry in 2004 or stayed home.

[Marlow]

The only thing I can see with the race issue is that it may get a higher turnout than normal, with both for and against as the cause.

[DrJay]

Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/

Where are you going on your vacation, Dr Jay?

Wasilla.

[bad hammy]

The only thing I can see with the race issue is that it may get a higher turnout than normal, with both for and against as the cause.

The important thing about the Bradley effect is not that race does or does not play a part in elective politics in the US, it is that you cannot believe the results of pre-election polls because some folks consciously or unconsciously lie to pollsters because they cannot or will not admit that their vote is based on race. The only poll that these folks will be honest in takes place Nov. 4th.

[trig]

http://mandatemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/03/palindebateflowchart.jpg

[bijanc]

There are a few "unknowns" in play:

http://bijanc.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/ ... dercounts/

I somewhat disagree that those polled are withholding their genuine feelings regarding race, as a survey answer in favor of McCain-Palin does not define one as a racist. It's not as if Obama's running against David Duke (nor was Tom Bradley, for that matter).

One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

BCB

[jazzcyclist]

There are a few "unknowns" in play:

http://bijanc.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/ ... dercounts/

I somewhat disagree that those polled are withholding their genuine feelings regarding race, as a survey answer in favor of McCain-Palin does not define one as a racist. It's not as if Obama's running against David Duke (nor was Tom Bradley, for that matter).

One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

BCB

The Bradley effect doesn't require that the Black candidate be running against a racist. And it has nothing to do with flawed polling methods. It only requires a significant number of White voters to mislead the polsters.

[bijanc]

True, but in all previous presidential races, the two major party candidates were white, so supporting a white person does not automatically imply racism. And since Obama is running vs. an opponent one could back for any # of reasons, it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.

[bad hammy]

. . . it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.

It will be much easier to quantify this on Nov. 5th . . .

[jazzcyclist]

True, but in all previous presidential races, the two major party candidates were white, so supporting a white person does not automatically imply racism. And since Obama is running vs. an opponent one could back for any # of reasons, it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.

Of course supporting a White candidate doesn't mean you are a racist and I don't think anyone on this board has said otherwise. As for the Bradley effect, we won't know if it was a factor until the day after the election when the vote tally is compared to the polls. If the polls have overestimated Obama's performance by an amount out outside the margin of era and more than has been the case for any previous Presidential candidate, most people will attribute it to the Bradley effect.

[bijanc]

You're right jazzy.

[Marlow]

One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

It's not a black/white thing as much as a lib/con thing. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the union.

[bijanc]

True, and liberal Boston experienced some of the worst anti-busing violence, political invective, and threats during public school integration in the mid-1970's. I'm a Bostonian.

[paulthefan]

True, and liberal Boston experienced some of the worst anti-busing violence, political invective, and threats during public school integration in the mid-1970's. I'm a Bostonian.

many a laugh and cry came in Massachusetts when those with kids due to be bussed across town to mix the races up alittle found out the judges almost invariably had their kids in lilly white private (not subject to their draconian decrees) schools.

[bijanc]

see:

http://bijanc.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/ ... -at-fault/

and Okrent in HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ok ... 32987.html

[tandfman]

More on the Bradley effect:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/weeki ... rnike.html

[Jack Slocombe]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

[Pego]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

At its worst, Jack? Worse than "ethnic cleansing", gas chambers, slavery, lynchings, ghettos, cohabitation laws.....?
Mind you, I am not questioning your premise, only the degree you applied.

[bad hammy]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

Hyperbole alert . . .

[Mennisco]

The media piranha are working themselves into a feeding frenzy thinking they smell blood in the water tonight.

Speaking of Serrasalmus, a particular genius of fish.....when was the last time a vicious fish ran for Vice-ious Presidenti?

If I don't get axed...

Many people underestimate Palin: she is inexperienced (what is it, 5 weeks, now?), true, but she is shrewd and ambitious, and a quick learner.

Well, Brian, I would say Marlow DID ask you, by initiating the thread.......as for taming the shrewd, ambitious, "quick" learner, my cat learned where to shit rather rapidly after having her nose rubbed in it....

[jazzcyclist]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

If that actually happened anywhere, I would agree with you that racism was on display. I wouldn't call that the worst form of racism, but I would definitely call that racism of a very subtle form, though I prefer to call it racial pride. Do you know of anywhere that 90% of Blacks have ever voted for a candidate because he/she was Black? I've never heard of that happening anywhere, although I do know that 90% of American Blacks regularly vote for Whites because they are Democrats. However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.

[SQUACKEE]

[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.

This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

[jazzcyclist]

[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.

This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

SQUACKEE, you're one of my favorite posters, but I don't find your juvenile form of humor to be funny. However, if you disagree with something I've written, please weigh in. I believe that religion definitely hurt Mitt Romney this year and may have cost him the nomination. I believe race cost Bobby Jindal, the 2003 Louisiana governor's race and it cost Tom Bradley the 1982 California governor's race. I believe that religion almost cost John Kennedy the Presidency in 1960. I believe that the reason that Obama has been the victim of so many Muslim rumors, is because the people who are spreading the smears know that if they can get these rumors to take root, it will cost Obama votes due to religious bigotry, and it's for the same reason that I believe that George Allen was outed as being half-Jewish in the 2006 Virginia Senate race. By the way, Ted Koppel was on Meet The Press today, and he cited a study that says that race will cost Obama 6% on election day.

[paulthefan]

This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

You are not serious, I have talked to countless middle america small town folks that are voting for Obama because they want a change and have no hope of anyone but him delivering a change. The color of a mans skin is not important to them only a desire to change the course the country is on. There are countless white voters like that, their views of race are no different than 99% of those that will vote for McCain. The idea that race is going to cost Obama even one vote is text book propaganda from the Democrat/Obama machine. It is genius and shows that Obama is as talented as Lee Atwater.. well almost.

[TrakFan]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

Kerry received 88% in 2004. 2 more percantage points and it would have been BIGTIME racism...uh, I think.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Gore received 90% in 2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

Please do your research before you start making assupmtions of RACISM due to voting trends.

[jazzcyclist]

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

Kerry received 88% in 2004. 2 more percantage points and it would have been BIGTIME racism...uh, I think.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Gore received 90% in 2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

Please do your research before you start making assupmtions of RACISM due to voting trends.

I think Paulthefan probably summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Obama will probably get 95% instead of 90% of the Black vote and he may be able to increase the black turnout by an extra 10%. That's a total of 1.5-2% of the total electorate. If you subtract 5-6% of the votes he'll lose because of race, then he ends up with a net loss of 3-4.5%.

[paulthefan]

I think Paulthefan probably summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Obama will probably get 95% instead of 90% of the Black vote and he may be able to increase the black turnout by an extra 10%. That's a total of 1.5-2% of the total electorate. If you subtract 5-6% of the votes he'll lose because of race, then he ends up with a net loss of 3-4.5%.

except paulthefan does not think that there are a net 5% of americans out there that would otherwise vote for Obama if he were white. More simply, paulthefan does not think that Obama's race is going to cost him a single net vote in the white demographic. For every white voter out there that is going to vote for McCain soley because he is white there are 2 that are going to vote for Obama solely because he is black. It is a net plus for Obama. The suggestion/campaign-propaganda from the dems that Obama is disadvantaged because of his race is actually an insurance policy to make sure that he retains this basic advantage. It is a great strategy and is working. McCain has gone from being a sure win (GOP convention week) to being a near sure loser. Wall Street has weighed in and it does not look good for the GOP.


I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of colleagues as each of you probably have. My sphere of friends are fairly affluent to middle class, they contain a large number of former military folks. These people are demographically the heart and soul of the GOP. They are Reagan democrats and traditionally core GOP voters.. A larger than expected proportion of them are not pleased with the Bush administration and the course the country is on. They have listened to the president as a salesman herd folks into home ownership as an act of near-patriotism, and then they have heard him tell them how strong american financial institutions are. If it were fiction it would be funny. Obama is riding a tide, it will take a brilliant final 3 weeks by McCain to stop it.

[lonewolf]

Fellers, if it gives you satisfaction you can prognosticate and pontificate all you like but the truth is, nobody really knows what demographics will or did vote for or against which candidate or for what reason.
All we know is what we are told by a possibly biased source how an uncertain demographic, not under oath and with no penalty for lying, may have answered a loaded question in an indetermiinate setting from a possibly/probably biased pollster with an agenda.
I repeat my mantra: The only poll that counts is coming November 4.

[Daisy]

except paulthefan does not think that there are a net 5% of americans out there that would otherwise vote for Obama if he were white. More simply, paulthefan does not think that Obama's race is going to cost him a single net vote in the white demographic.

My gut feeling tells me this is not true. If he gains 5% of the black vote because he is black that is not that many extra votes. I could easily see democrats going with McCain as the better bet, although maybe less so with Palin on the ticket, because they are uncomfortabe with his looks. If he wins by a landslide it just shows there are many disgruntled republicans re: the economy. I guess we'll never know as what ever the gallup polls (or similar) show, can we trust those answers?

[Marlow]

If BO goes in to Election Day 5 pts up and emerges as the loser, we'll have our answer. Till then it's idle speculation.