The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Given the presidency, --why not do something with it?
Sigh. Perhaps I'm wrong to hope for real creative solutions. His latest economic ideas are very "safe". And rather empty. 90 more days in the old home, -eh? Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right
It was Tom Bradley's 1982 race for governor of California, in which he lost to George Deukmejian in spite of leading in the public polls, that gave the Bradley Effect its name. But now Lance Tarrance, the pollster for Bradley in that race, has an article up at RCP suggesting that the Bradley Effect was merely a case of bad polling -- and that his campaign's internals had shown a dead heat:The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.
It was Tom Bradley's 1982 race for governor of California, in which he lost to George Deukmejian in spite of leading in the public polls, that gave the Bradley Effect its name. But now Lance Tarrance, the pollster for Bradley in that race, has an article up at RCP suggesting that the Bradley Effect was merely a case of bad polling -- and that his campaign's internals had shown a dead heat:
The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.
and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.
What a silly thing to say. Boy, is he wrong about that. As any undergrad with a single course in institutional racism to his credit knows, As any person of color can tell you, -racism hides itself in your university on the tenure committee, in your bank next to the loan officer's desk, on the Colonel's desk who passes you over for promotion, in the personnel office when layoffs are decided--
Those whose perceptions of people--and thus votes-- are altered by race are certainly not limited to undecideds. Sometimes they themselves don't know who they are---they just "Didn't feel right about him/her,"-- when it came down to actually pulling the lever.
I think time will show there are many, many of them. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
These guys are all in the numbers above in the MCCain Column. The argument about the Bradley effect is whether (or why) some should pretend to be undecideds (or Obama voters). There simply is no recent evidence to support this, and as noted by Lance Tarrance (in the RCP article referenced by Nate) there never was a "a Bradley effect" in the first place - just bad polling methodology covered up by an excuse that voters were lying. Lance Tarrance was one of the original pollsters in the Bradley elections and his Polls never showed Bradley as having better than a "toss-up" chance - i.e. within the MOE.
The Bradley effect is one of the great Urban myths of modern US politics. Vote McCain for war without gain
Again you are confusing endemic, institutionalised, and unconscious racism with "the Bradley effect"
---difference between poll words and voter deeds.
I try hard to make my point in few words. Perhaps the above was too few. Racism is a socially unacceptable position on which to base a vote. Ergo, racists lie about their opinions to pollsters, and then pull the lever, in the privacy of the voting booth, based on something- perhaps something more base. Hence one type of polling inaccuracy. "Bradley effect?" Bah. This is in reality a subset of a problem universally faced by all social researchers who use interview data. What is it that people really think-- vs. what will they admit to an interviewer? What is the connection (if any) between their words in an interview, and their life actions?
Let's agree to disagree--or, you can assume senility or good drugs have simply addled my wits--but please stop patronizing me.
Now fire away. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
He has to have coattails. He has to win big. But he has to destroy the barrel heads who will do to him what they did to Clinton in his first two years...I remember it well when he couldn't get his budget through. It was heartbreaking. The reptiles had the media terms set, they got to play Waco against the Dems, they figured out how to destroy the health care proposal, they won, and continued it for the next six years, then this last 8.
Barry O'bama has to politically knee-cap the opposition, then when he is boss, sit down with them like the terrorists they are, and read the rules of behavior from here on out. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
A mandate for a program of change is do-able NOW. All available evidence suggests that popular support for real change is strong. The economic oligarchy will never support real change. They have the power and the dough, and any ethic of communal responsibility- compassion for the "lower orders"- has long died in the world of the board room and the trading floor. So he cannot lose them by taking a chance--he never had them.
--If he has the "audacity". How do you guys do that superscript TM thing?
As many have pointed out, it will be easy to attack, to blame a black president. It's swimming down an old, foul stream--far easier than attacking a youthful, charismatic, WHITE Clinton. -And, as you say,-look what happened there.
Obama's situation is similar in some ways to that faced by FDR, but Obama has a chance to begin his real race with a head start--and he will need it.
Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
Audacity™
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 12 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by gmoke - May 17 1 comment
by DoDo - May 12 10 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by Migeru - May 7 8 comments
by gmoke - May 171 comment
by ARGeezer - May 1612 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1210 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments
by In Wales - Apr 2136 comments