Ed Rollins, GOP strategist, is saying McCain needs "to restart his campaign." For the 4th time. 21 days out from election day. With early voting already underway.
Rollins also said Obama is "a young inexperienced outsider." Which says to me the GOP doesn't understand - at ALL - what is happening to them.
Good.
There is not enough AAs in America to guarantee a BHO win even allowing for B/D adjustment, new voter registration, and 100% voter turnout. Can you READ? +90% AA vote for BHO is already accounted.
If so, please perform an attitude adjustment in your comments to nag every other non-performing minority class and the undecided in the ethnic majority to transcent their racism. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
If you would like I'll zip over there and grab the link.
In The Marketing Literature, explanations of lying revolve around survey design and repondent (dis)incentives, e.g. financial compensation. IIRC, lying's contribution to confidence intervals is neglible, when sampling protocols and design (e.g. questionnaire language, scalar inputs) are defensible.
The ethical dilemma for political scientists so far as I can see in the case of either Bradley, Obama or any other candidate, is how to explain resulting error or anticipated error as compared to actual returns. That is a discrepancy between prediction and reality of vote administration.
The presence of liars in any sample for political scientists is compounded not so much by opinion survey design, I think, as collection errors in the franchise, e.g. technical discards, abject fraud, reporting accuracy, all of which is controlled. One then might reasonably expect that political sciencists organize, agitate, and litigate secretaries of state to guarantee random (or "free") voters' rights. However such organization, if any, is apparently ineffective, for whatever reason(s). I'll not digress.
I don't remember the explanation(s), given by political scientists or legal authorities, of Bradley's "unexpected" defeat at that time. Let's assume I don't remember, because the predictions of political scientists didn't and don't interest me and at that time I was familiar with Jersey democratic practices and history.
Today I am equally unconcerned by predictions, given by political scientists with respect to Mr Obama's victory or defeat. And I am extremely skeptical of any explanation that depends on and anticipates a (racist) liar distortion of a statistical event which, incidentally, has not occurred. I will vote as I intend to, regardless of political scientists' predictions ... or the final disposition of my ballot for that matter.
Dog, tail, all that.
While I cannot be everywhere at once, I will be an election judge (LOL what a moniker!) to help assure any of my neighbors who want to vote during my watch is able to submit a ballot.
So, no, thank you. I personally am not interested in Nate over at FiveThirtyEight's exegesis on the "Bradley effect". Unless it includes a significant analysis comparing franchise administration, i.e. voting rights. Don't let that stop you though from posting them :) Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
