[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[David Rudder]

Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Yeah, but he's also black.  And whether people want to admit it or not,
> that has a significant affect on this election.  In fact, I think
> because of racism, even a 6% isn't nearly enough to call it.  I don't
> think the polls know how to factor this in.
> 

The Bradley effect.  I dunno...even in the case of Bradley they found
the effect named after him was over-stated.  It turns out that the race
had actually tightened in the end, and that many people considered the
race a toss-up.

Besides, there's a lot of minor metrics out there that debunk this in
Obama's case.  Like, when they poll school kids.  Most school kids vote
the way their parents do, and parents will be more honest to their kids
than to pollsters.  Obama's ahead in all the school kid polls.

Also, more recent elections are showing a reduced Bradley effect.
Harold Ford lost Tennessee due to a racist campaign, but people were
honest about it to the pollsters.  No Bradley effect in that campaign,
even though there was blatant racism.  Are we less racist or just more
honest about it?

Another metric is new registrations, which are Democrat in about a 2-1
ratio.  Of course, that brings in another problem.  The young tend to
get excited about an election, but decide their bong needs babysitting
when it comes time to vote.

-Dave

> Angelo
> 
> 
> David Rudder wrote:
>> The last nationwide summary from electoral-vote.com (Andrew
>> Tannenbaum's site) shows Obama ahead by 6%.  President Bush won in
>> 2004 with about a 1% lead, which he called a "mandate".  6% is a
>> pretty good lead for a presidential campaign.
>>
>> But I'm still surprised by how low it is.
>>
>> Collins, you're right.  Obama has the lead in money, more positive
>> press coverage, a better built infrastructure, and a political
>> environment that heavily favors the Democrats.  80% of the population
>> thinks the country is going in the wrong direction.  The Republican
>> brand is at it's lowest point that I remember, and I remember as far
>> back as Carter.  So why isn't he doing better?  He should be ahead by
>> 20%, not 6!
>> Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your viewpoint), it's electoral
>> votes that matter. electoral-vote.com shows it as Obama 364/McCain 171
>> with ND's 3 votes tied.  That's a much wider spread.  Even giving
>> McCain Missori, Indiana, North Dakota, Florida and Ohio, it's still
>> O-306/M-232, a good solid win for the Dems.  Toss in North Carolina,
>> and it's 0-291/M-247, still a win for Obama.
>>
>> Hey, does anyone want to start a pool?  I'll put in $5 on Obama-312,
>> McCain-226.
>>
>> Not quite the reverse of Mondale...or Dukakis...or McGovern.  But, a
>> win is a win.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> Collins Richey wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:39 PM, David L. Willson
>>> <DLWillson at thegeek.nu> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-26-1.html
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Excellent summary of where we are and where we'll be depending on the
>>> outcome of the election.
>>>
>>> The ironic part of this all, to me, is this. The Messiah has a war
>>> chest of something like a half billion and the fawning support of
>>> every mainstream journalist and moslem extremist organization
>>> world-wide, but he can only manage to buy the support of barely half
>>> of the voters.
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clue-talk mailing list
>> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
>> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> 
>