Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[Vandervecken]

Not voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not racist now? k.

The Bradley Effect is not voting against someone on the basis of race.  It is saying to a pollster, *I'm undecided* or *I'm voting for Obama* when the voter really believes *I like McCain better, but I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist.*

It could also be "I'm racist, and I don't want the pollster to know."  They're completely indistinguishable.

That would still come under "I like McCain better."

But it would also very potentially come under "not voting for someone on the basis of race," which you said that the Bradley Effect cannot be.  That's untrue.

Actually, it isn't.  The effect describes the interaction between a voter and a pollster.  A voter that says **I'm voting for McCain because Obama is black,** is not part of the Bradley Effect.  Also not that I've indicated the possibility of black voters that are part of the Bradley Effect.

That's true, JJ, but that voter is still letting skin color determine his vote. It's not the Bradley effect, but it sure IS an effect, and most of these voters aren't talking.

As for what Al Sibboleth has written, that my hoping (as others posting here are hoping) for both effects to be impactful--and he should note that, since it's perfectly normal for Republicans to vote for the Republican, we're talking about Democrat/independent racists here--should cause me, for some reason, to lose sleep, I respond that, while I'd rather not win ugly, I still want to win. So, it appears that Obama being a socialist who would appease all our foreign enemies and let every evil SOB leftist radical he's known for his entire political career have access to the oval office is not enough to keep him out of the White House. It ought to be, but it's not. It won't be ME controlling those who vote on the basis of skin color; I'LL be voting on the basis of what I've just written, not that my vote means anything in NY. My hoping that they will have a big enough effect to save the country is nothing unusual; we all acknowledge that they WILL have an effect, so the question is merely about how great a magnitude that effect will be. Will you sleep less well because black voters will turn out in greater numbers for no other reason than to vote for a black man, which is racist? (And as was unequivocally proven in the Dem primary as a solid racist effect in our black population, not that that's anything new.) At least it's not the GOP that uses pure Stalinist tactics to undermine the system itself, via election fraud and false counting. So I'll sleep like a baby.

[Vandervecken]

Not voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not racist now? k.

The Bradley Effect is not voting against someone on the basis of race.  It is saying to a pollster, *I'm undecided* or *I'm voting for Obama* when the voter really believes *I like McCain better, but I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist.*

It could also be "I'm racist, and I don't want the pollster to know."  They're completely indistinguishable.

That would still come under "I like McCain better."

But it would also very potentially come under "not voting for someone on the basis of race," which you said that the Bradley Effect cannot be.  That's untrue.

Actually, it isn't.  The effect describes the interaction between a voter and a pollster.  A voter that says **I'm voting for McCain because Obama is black,** is not part of the Bradley Effect.  Also not that I've indicated the possibility of black voters that are part of the Bradley Effect.

That's true, JJ, but that voter is still letting skin color determine his vote. It's not the Bradley effect, but it sure IS an effect, and most of these voters aren't talking.

It is an effect, but a pollable one to an extent.  Some voters are telling posters that they won't for Obama due to race, just as some won't vote for McCain because of age or because he was in the military  (I have friends that were career military that won't vote for a military man).  

Some folks have non racial reasons for voting against Obama, but won't state it simply because the don't want to look racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously never heard of George McGovern.  

Obviously I have heard of George McGovern. What is it that you think that George McGovern's political fate has in it to correct me in this matter? Please be specific, rather than cryptic.

As for the first, the key part of your statement is "to some extent". I'd say it's an incredibly small extent. The majority of white people who will vote on the basis of skin color will rarely admit in any pollable way that they are going to do so.

-------------------
Edited to change: I believe I made a mistake. I thought you were making a snide comment of some sort. Now I think you were just reminding me that McGovern was all that I just described of Obama. I do know that, but what of it? Well, McGovern lost, and lost badly. But you'd have to admit that the electorate has changed since McGovern's day.

Or was this about NY? JJ, NY is solidly libdem in a Prexy race no matter what now. You weren't suggesting that my vote actually matters in NY, were you? I mean, that'd be lovely, but you can't really believe that.

[Vandervecken]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

Well, you and I are on the same political side, in any case, that much is clear. But surely you must have heard of Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election? THAT was as close to Stalinism as I've ever seen in this country in my lifetime, in a presidential campaign.

[Vandervecken]

Edited to change: I believe I made a mistake. I thought you were making a snide comment of some sort. Now I think you were just reminding me that McGovern was all that I just described of Obama. I do know that, but what of it? Well, McGovern lost, and lost badly. But you'd have to admit that the electorate has changed since McGovern's day.

Or was this about NY? JJ, NY is solidly libdem in a Prexy race no matter what now. You weren't suggesting that my vote actually matters in NY, were you? I mean, that'd be lovely, but you can't really believe that.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, JJ.

But I'm still not sure I get your point about McGovern. Is it that we can take some measure of hope in the fact that Obama is like McGovern, but without the latter's sense of minimum fair play? Or is it that you disagree with these characterizations? (The last seems unlikely, given what I've read of your posts.)

But Nixon had a monster lead in polls before the election. The outcome wasn't in any doubt. So how can we take hope from McGovern's loss?

It twists my stomach to have to write this, but it really does look like a majority of Americans are so spectacularly stupid and sheep-like that they're willing to do the equivalent of call a doctor who still uses leeches for the sick patient, in this case the patient being the economy.

I know a couple of people who own houses in Canada and, with some difficulty, but less than I would have, can relocate there. They''ve already said they're off if Obama's elected, and unlike all the Hollywood sh**theads who say they're going to Europe if [fill in name of Republican] wins, these people really will leave. I'm just not sure Canada's any better, although at least it wouldn't have a President Obama (I write those words and feel even more nauseated). Where's there left to run to if the US is being warped and wrecked by Carter II? Australia?

Fools, fools, the lot of them, all the damned ignorant fools who a month ago were voting for McCain and have now switched to Obama, because of current economic tribulations. Not a one of them, I'd bet, could tell you precisely WHY they think Obama would be better for the economy, not one, or at least not in any way that makes a rat's ass worth of sense.

Yes, I was reminding you that McGovern was described, more pointedly, in the terms you just said described Obama.  I think there are background things that strike at Obama's sincerity, but Ayers isn't one of them.  (And I think I actually would have liked Obama's stepfather.)

Nothing about NY, which I actually though Mondale would carry.  Since 1980, I have never predicted NY would go Republican.