"The Bradley Effect" -- watch out for this one (re: election fraud against Obama)

[Sparkly]

(Sorry to link to Politico, but I clicked through to this while wondering why the HELL Politico is now featured on Yahoo News next to AP, Reuters and AFP...)

Why poll numbers skewed: Race effect?

Daniel Libit Fri May 16, 5:55 AM ET

As the nation's pollsters convene this weekend in New Orleans at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, one topic will be the subject of lively debate -- the so-called "Bradley effect."

The Bradley effect, which refers to the propensity of white poll respondents to overstate their support for a black candidate, isn't the only issue that pollsters, statisticians and academics will discuss and dispute. But it may be one of the most consequential since it stands to significantly skew pre-election poll results in an election where it seems increasingly likely that Barack Obama will emerge as the Democratic party's presidential nominee.

"We know that biracial elections have been difficult for pollsters," says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "Race continues to be an issue for Obama, and to the extent race is an issue, race will be an issue in polling."

The phenomenon, known in the trade as "social desirability bias," draws its name from Tom Bradley, the former black mayor of Los Angeles who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite leading in final day pre-election polls. It resurfaced in the 1989 Virginia governor's election when L. Douglas Wilder, an African-American, barely squeaked by his Republican opponent despite polling that reflected a commanding double-digit lead for Wilder heading into Election Day.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080516/pl_politico/10397;

I'm just sayin'... I'm afraid THIS is what they'll use to explain away inexplicable conflicts between polls -- including exit polls -- and the counted "results" in this general election.

There's no time to change the flawed voting processes by November. The only solution is to get behind Obama in numbers that the "Bradley effect" can't come close to explaining. If they go this route, the anomaly will have to be HUGE. We need numbers too big to ignore -- and yes, I think we can get them!

(Time will tell whether they'll do it this time -- I think Republicans run the country into the ground until it's so far gone only PAIN will bring it back; then they hand it over to Democrats to repair and to take the hits for raising taxes to pay off their messes, etc. And they've run it into the ground in a major way now. But time will tell.)

(Edit: All the more reason to take nothing for granted, including "safe states." But I don't think anybody wants to think of this right now, so I'll just stick it in my journal for future reference!)

[JerseygirlCT]

1. Well, I've been thinking about it, too

And I agree with you. We have to overwhelm their ability to cheat. We have to put numbers out there so huge that they cannot be buried.

[dailykoff]

2. You are so right.

I remember the Bradley-Deukmejian race and while I believed the story at the time, I recently read that it was another "gee the exit polls were wrong and the puke won a miracle victory" deal in post-Reagan California.

Also, Bradley was hugely popular and nationally known and Deukmejian was just another GOP hack.

[MarjorieG]

3. Voting ID, electronic database purgings, secret vote counting and no audits, and more.

And the standard disenfranchisement that always happens. Like in NH, PA, and elswhere these primaries.

[Sparkly]

4. For the record, I am making no such accusation about the primaries. nt

[dailykoff]

9. Also Ohio, California, and New York.

Funny business in Nevada too.

[tritsofme]

5. Is this part of the preface Obama supporters will use in the case of a loss?

There are many here that would reflexively claim vote fraud, no matter what the pre-election polls say.

[PM7nj]

7. In case you haven't noticed...

voter fraud is very real and has played a huge part in the last two elections.

[tritsofme]

11. Voter fraud on a massive scale in 2002 and 2004 is a delusion of those who cannot accept defeat.

We all know 2000 was stinky, but that was due to a corrupt SCOTUS more than anything else.

2006 showed, as 2008 most likely will as well, that there is no massive vote fraud network, sometimes your candidate just loses elections.

[KittyWampus]

13. it's ELECTION fraud not voter fraud. Important distinction.Thanks

[Sparkly]

10. No, this is about pre-election polls and exit polls not matching the actual tallies.

It's not "no matter what the pre-election polls say," it's about the pattern of polls getting turned upside down, in astonishing ways, in key locations.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Maybe there would be a "Bradlette" effect as well......With Hillary

hard to tell, hey? :shrug:

[OzarkDem]

8. Obama is in bed with corporate America and their news media

too late to protect himself from these kinds of dirty tricks. He apparently thinks if he makes enough promises and accepts enough bribes, they'll go easy on him.

No where to run, no where to hide when you're in bed with the devil himself.

[Sparkly]

12. All politicians with a chance at the presidency could be accused of that.

(And at some point or another, they probably have been!)

This kind of explaining away discrepancies is something that could be used against any Democrat. In 2000, people suddenly wanted a change from 8 years of peace and prosperity (and minority and Jewish voters went for Buchanan in a big way). In 2004, "security moms" suddenly voted for the Chimp and supposedly lied when polled, afraid to admit they were such scared little women they were willing to vote for a total idiot.

These are the kinds of fictions they can come up with, against anybody. That's why this article set my radar off.