"Celebrity" ads and responses

[ari1013]

It's not. In most polls, doesn't he trail by somewhere around 2 points?

Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

I'm glad you do these numbers so I don't have to.

This cracks me up. Do you bring up stuff like this when you 're having a drink at happy hour?

[ari1013]

I'm glad you do these numbers so I don't have to.

This cracks me up. Do you bring up stuff like this when you 're having a drink at happy hour?

Actually back in grad school we did have a whole lot of discussions on politics. One of my best friends is a proud neocon and we'd have some good debates. It's one of the reasons I sat down and read Rossiter. True conservatism makes sense in some cases, just as liberalism makes sense in others.

[gcoll]

Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout

Possibly. Though a lot of times polls can be skewed by people telling the pollster, what they think he wants to hear.

Although I have thought that the number of black voters inspired to vote for Obama, may make polling difficult. Especially when Obama also has strong support from young people, who are (from what I've heard) notoriously unreliable when it comes to getting out to the polls.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

Who says he's worried? Because he aired some ad that is a bit silly? Come on.

[ari1013]

Possibly. Though a lot of times polls can be skewed by people telling the pollster, what they think he wants to hear.

Although I have thought that the number of black voters inspired to vote for Obama, may make polling difficult. Especially when Obama also has strong support from young people, who are (from what I've heard) notoriously unreliable when it comes to getting out to the polls.


Who says he's worried? Because he aired some ad that is a bit silly? Come on.

It's not just this ad. McCain's burning through money. He's spending more each week than he's raising. And the RNC is following suit. Again, that's something we saw Kerry do -- and then Kerry was broke in September and couldn't respond to the Swiftboaters until the Federal Funds kicked in.

Ironically, the RNC put out an ad here talking about how Obama's spending on his campaign is out of control -- and that's what we should expect when he takes office next year as well, even as Obama has spent a fraction of what McCain's spent since the final primary.

[Devils05]

Here's a clip of a segment on the Daily Show about it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...he-week-mccain

[BG7]

Watch this ad again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEsAi5n3fM

Can you spot all 3 penises? (not counting McCain).

[b1e9a8r5s]

Maybe he knows something we don't. I've read that a lot of the polls are understating Black turnout. For instance, in NC, McCain has consistently polled 3 points ahead in every single polling outfit the last 2 months. But they've had Black turnout between 15 and 20% when Blacks make up 26% of the electorate. They're basing the numbers on previous years. So if Obama really can bring more voters to the booth in November, we could see big changes.

6% more Black voters * 88% average Black support for Democrats = 5.28% more for Obama

6% more Black voters * 11% average Black support for Republicans = 0.66% more for McCain

Net result: 4.62% for Obama --- giving Obama the state.

In other words, if McCain's not up by 5 or more in a Southern state, he's got to be worried.

But as you said, it's really just 2 points. So he shouldn't be this worried.

What about the theory of the ******** (i can't think of his name) effect? The theory that white respondents to surveys are more likely to say they will vote for an African American candidate then they are to vote for them, because they don't want to seem bias. I don't know how factual that is, but I've heard it brought up on several occasions. I can't think of the guys name, who it's named after.

[DenButsu]

What about the theory of the ******** (i can't think of his name) effect? The theory that white respondents to surveys are more likely to say they will vote for an African American candidate then they are to vote for them, because they don't want to seem bias. I don't know how factual that is, but I've heard it brought up on several occasions. I can't think of the guys name, who it's named after.

I don't know the name, but the phenomenon you're describing is definitely real. People have a hard time acknowledging their inner racist tendencies sometimes, and they don't honestly consider themselves racist, so when the question is put to them directly, the answer is "Sure, I'd vote for a black person"... but then somehow their vote never quite manages to go that way. (And before anybody starts crying about this, no, I'm not suggesting that not voting for the black candidate automatically makes someone a racist).

The problem is that it's practically impossible to quantify this hypothesis. You can't poll people about it, because the entire premise is based on people (consciously or unconsciously) lying when they're polled. So all you can do is compare polls to actual results, and since polling is a very imperfect science to begin with, those comparisons aren't exactly reliable.

In this election, the place to watch will be Appalachia, where some white Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries may tell pollsters they'll vote for Obama based on party affiliation, but then pull the lever for McCain when they actually get to the booth.

But there also are reasons to believe that this might not be a huge factor in this election, since Obama's appeal clearly slices through racial lines. Granted, Iowa preceded Rev. Wright, but that went a long way towards dispelling the myth that Obama will have a hard time attracting white rural/working class voters. And then just yesterday this report from the Washington Post suggests that even white working class voters favor Obama by a significant margin:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

Still, one in six of the white workers polled remains uncommitted to either candidate. And a majority of those polled, both white and minority, are ambivalent about the impact of the election, saying that no matter who wins, their personal finances are unlikely to change.

So when it's all said and done, my guess is that we'll probably see, overall, a white voter turnout for Obama that's just slightly less that what the polls were indicating going in. And that will fuel speculation and debate about whether some white voters lied in the polls and if so how many, but since there's no way to accurately measure that, we'll really never know.

[b1e9a8r5s]

I don't know the name, but the phenomenon you're describing is definitely real. People have a hard time acknowledging their inner racist tendencies sometimes, and they don't honestly consider themselves racist, so when the question is put to them directly, the answer is "Sure, I'd vote for a black person"... but then somehow their vote never quite manages to go that way. (And before anybody starts crying about this, no, I'm not suggesting that not voting for the black candidate automatically makes someone a racist).

The problem is that it's practically impossible to quantify this hypothesis. You can't poll people about it, because the entire premise is based on people (consciously or unconsciously) lying when they're polled. So all you can do is compare polls to actual results, and since polling is a very imperfect science to begin with, those comparisons aren't exactly reliable.

In this election, the place to watch will be Appalachia, where some white Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries may tell pollsters they'll vote for Obama based on party affiliation, but then pull the lever for McCain when they actually get to the booth.

But there also are reasons to believe that this might not be a huge factor in this election, since Obama's appeal clearly slices through racial lines. Granted, Iowa preceded Rev. Wright, but that went a long way towards dispelling the myth that Obama will have a hard time attracting white rural/working class voters. And then just yesterday this report from the Washington Post suggests that even white working class voters favor Obama by a significant margin:






So when it's all said and done, my guess is that we'll probably see, overall, a white voter turnout for Obama that's just slightly less that what the polls were indicating going in. And that will fuel speculation and debate about whether some white voters lied in the polls and if so how many, but since there's no way to accurately measure that, we'll really never know.

Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.

[ari1013]

It's the Bradley Effect named after the mid-Atlantic politician.

[DenButsu]

Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.

That could very well be. But I think the bottom line is that we just can't know to what extent and in what kind of numbers.

[ari1013]

Right, so perhaps the polls are underestimating the black vote, but overestimating the white vote for Obama.

It's quite possible. But then again, his white vote in Appalachia is meaningless since McCain will clean his clock out there. And down South, Obama's probably only going to get about 20-30% of the white vote anyway since that's roughly what Kerry and Gore got.

Basically, if you look at the map, there are very few states that Obama needs to win out of all of the close ones. And in the states that Obama's ahead, he's really ahead. So as long as 2-3 of those 10 or 12 close states come out Blue in November, the Bradley effect won't make a difference.

[DenButsu]

the Bradley effect

There it is.

And "Appalachia" includes significant parts of Ohio, PA, and Virginia, all of which are in play, right?

[BG7]

Obama did so poorly in Appalachia because the guy did a half assed campaign there.