Pajamas Media

145 Comments

1. god:

I agree with Stephen Green. People lie in polls.

White, black, brown, yellow, red or blue. Racism goes both ways. Forget about race. People discriminate by religion, social class, car ownership, looks, music, the list is unending.

Nobody gets to go to Heaven, even if you are Catholic (or whatever) and the priest “forgives” your sins, over and over and over . . .

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:12 am 2. vb:

I would be careful about attributing discrepancies between poll results and actual votes entirely to the Bradley effect. I think other factors related specifically to Obama could affect the final vote, particularly a feeling that what you thought you saw is not what you are going to get. The lifelong Democrat committed to civil rights may deny doubts about Obama until he is in the voting booth; after all, who willingly admits that he is deserting his party. For the young anti-war activist, any one of Obama’s moves to the center may be a move too far, and a feeling of betrayal could affect his vote at the last minute. This race is not all about whether a black man can be president. Lots of other things are on people’s minds.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:35 am 3. mik:

today I asked my folks who they were going to vote for. both have previously voted for bush (twice!). this year, my dad will vote for obama. he said he gave republicans 2 chances already and is disappointed. my mom, however, was going to vote for mccain. when asked why, she gave some vague answers. when pressed, she FINALLY said, although nothing personal, she’s just not ready for a black president.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:49 am 4. apex:

I seem to recall that there was a similar mismatch between polls and results four years ago, even though John Kerry didn’t look all that different from the people on those dollar bills. So would a Brady Effect be on top of that “closet republican voter” effect? Are there any counteracting factors which might swing results the other way?

apex

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:50 am 5. Cato:

I think the Bradley effect is real, and I agree that it will be most pronounced in the states in which it is ‘politically incorrect’ not to be enthusiastic for a black candidate. In my native California, for example, I know quite a few people who would never admit they weren’t supporting Obama, but who I would bet substantial sums will end up voting for McCain/Palin.

I think there is also an additional ‘closet Republican’ effect, that may work together with the Bradley effect, so that in a state like California you may see results as much as 7% or so off from the final polling.

If Obama is not up at least 7% in places like Pennsylvania and the midwest, do not be surprised if he loses.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:59 am 6. RE:

This is all speculation – very tedious speculation of value to only the most myopic.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:18 am 7. 888:

We all know 90% or more of blacks will vote for Obama (the groupthink effect based on race). But many whites will vote for Obama because they’re being pressured to by their conscience (the guilt effect). Both are wrong reasons to pick the next Commander-in-Chief.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:27 am 8. susan:

I would like to add a sentence i found on this site (PS: check out the whole thing because someone is taking real action to have a valid birth certificate from obama)

http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/berg-v-obama-update-friday-september-5.html

*During the constant arguments about race and merit, everyone could point to Mr. Obama and find justification for their views. He had acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, so those who supported it saw him as the happy product of their beliefs.

plus there is this eye opener on obama behaviour while in law school that confirms how slimy he is in never take a clear position pretending to agree with everybody on opposite positions and flip flopping

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?ei=5088&en=bed3e016d07394c2&ex=1327640400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:33 am 9. huxley:

Obama is such a bizarre candidate (lack of experience/accomplishments, plus caucus based victories, plus near cult-like appeal, plus radical background and solid relationships with wackos like Wright and Ayers, ) IMO it’s hard to reduce voters’ cold feet about him to just the Bradley Effect.

Furthermore, extending what apex said, Democrats have underperforming their polls since at least 1980.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:50 am 10. fredras:

I would like to ask Democrats to do something to help improve race relations in America. If in your state the polls show McCain ahead by less than 5% just before election day, please switch your vote to McCain. If enough Democrats switch that would give McCain a large enough margin of victory that his win would not be ascribed only to the Bradley Effect. This would improve race relations since black Americans would be able to say Obama would have lost anyway even if America was not an irredeemably racist society.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:58 am 11. ineedalife:

I also think that in the primaries we saw a variant on the Bradley Effect: black voters who refused to admit they voted for Hillary. The exit polls often biased to Obama over the actual results. Since we are doing gut analysis, in my gut I think there were several percent of black women who voted for Hillary in the privacy of the voting booth, but will take that secret to their grave. Will they vote for McCain/Palin over Obama? I doubt it. But McCain/Palin may retain, on the down low, some of the natural conservative black vote that are telling pollsters that they are voting for Obama. Once again they will never admit it outside of the voting booth.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:20 am 12. Ed Wallis:

Stupid article.

The author writes, “This, from a candidate who once threatened to force his opponent on the defensive in Republican strongholds.”
“Those days seem to be over — and the Bradley Effect is to blame.”

Lots of “I don’t know” and “who knows” in the article, which ends with, no proof/evidence that “…the Bradley Effect is to blame.”

Further lacking proof/evidence when he writes, To put it more bluntly, if on election day Obama leads in any given state by “only” 1-5%, then there’s still a very good chance McCain will win that state.

Horsehockey. It could just as well be due to mistakes by pollsters – such as those made during the primaries…some real whoppers!

I wonder if the indirect intent of this article is to stir racial animosity. I hope not.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:34 am 13. RE:

The Left, with it’s ‘If you don’t vote for Obama, you’re a racist’ is simply trying to slip implement socialism behind the smokescreen of racism. It’s a cynical ploy. We’ve seen who the real racists are. Racism and Feminism are merely tools of the the Left. Advancing the Marxist agenda is all that matters.

Sarah Palin seems to have has awakened many women to the sham that’s been perpetrated on them for many years. It’s interesting to see blacks still willing to be used as pawns of he Left. And it’s also been revealing to see further example of how racist the black community actually is.

I’ve come to believe that ‘Black’ now refers more to a victim/entitlement mentality than a skin color. The evidence is in the treatment of any Black that challenges that victim/entitlement mentality.

When Obama loses, I think we all know what to expect. And we will roll our eyes at the pathetic display.

As far as the Bradley effect is concerned, why would I want to cooperate with pollsters? On much of anything? They do more far harm than good. People should decide independently of what other people are thinking.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:43 am 14. Valerie:

If it were a person of accomplishment and known philosophical approach, such as a Condi Rice or Colin Powell, and there were a split between the polls and the voting, that could be fairly considered a Bradley effect.

With Barack Obama, a portion of the Democratic Party, the portion that is responsible for the abominable approval rating for both Houses of Congress, has pushed a candidate with no accomplishments, no paperwork, and a fraudulent citizenship document on his “Fight the Smears” website, and they have insisted that Democrats must vote for him because he’s running on Hillary Clinton’s platform. Not all the PUMAs are women, and not all of them are white.

Until you eliminate the buyer’s remorse factor, you haven’t isolated the Bradley effect.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:51 am 15. shaun fischer:

I think also the hard headed voters like me need our own polls. When scolded by the elite that if I don’t vote for Obama I’m a redneck racist!If I don;t ooohhh and aaahhhh and coo over the newest Spike Lee movie,then again I’m a gun toting bible clinging racist.Don’t cast a vote for Hillary? Well Not enough time to write all the sexist crimes I have comitted.Being hardheaded, trying to shame me into doing somthing that the elites will then pat me on the head and sniff hautily “good little unwashed peaant” will backfire everytime.I’ve noticed since the primaries that the elitest and thier lapdog MSM had already set up senarios that if either of the dems lose in November it was because of Racism or Sexism.This is thier operating procedures,couldn’t be on thier same old socialist mantra and tirades.NOOOO!! it’s never that!Start making excuses of voter fraud ,race and gender,and do it early to pound it to America.This is what helps these 60’s spoiled knotheads sleep at night,and look themselfs in the mirror.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:58 am 16. hp:

you know. you lose credibility when you choose words like “bastions” when you’re talking about a topic as heated as this.

you and i know it means one thing. we also know that it could EASILY be mistaken for something else. i know. purely coincidence.

playing the race card for this race? enough.

if not, sarah will LIKEWISE be able to claim sexism should that ticket not win.

do you REALLY want to continue to go there?

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:04 am 17. gfg:

93% of blacks voted for Obama in the primaries. Could it possibly be that they voted along racial lines and not because of The One’s brilliant domestic and foreign policies? Oh no, of course not.

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:08 am 18. Boris:

I don’t think the Bradley effect will matter much this election.

If the Bradley effect were real, I’d expect we’d see a robo polling firm like Rasmussen to be consistently higher for McCain–but this hasn’t been the case. In fact of the recent polls, Rasmussen has shown the best performance for Obama.

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:36 am 19. Lisa:

Oh BS. This former Dem isn’t voting for Obama because I think he’s a sexist pig.

I’m tired of the sexism he threw at Clinton and now at Palin. If he had had the decency to allow a full roll call at the convention, I might have stayed home in November but he didn’t. Instead, he pissed me and lots of women off by blowing off Clinton. I swore that afternoon I would vote for McCain.

Palin is just icing on the cake and Obama’s treatment of Palin is just a reminder.

Obama’s a sexist pig… with or without lipstick.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:11 am 20. Davecatbone:

IF Obama should lose, and IF their is a resulting backlash of racial rioting….the Liberals will have once again lost the next election. Most of America is NOT racist, and is getting very tired of being accused of such.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:30 am 21. misanthropicus:

The racial electoral elephant has been in the room for about two years – yet the correct definition of the problem the democrats face is not that white people will (and in what degree) vote on racial lines, but the fact that they, Dems/liberals have OVERESTIMATED the dose of political correctness inhabiting/paralyzing the voters’ minds, i.e. how many would buy/stay into Obama’s candidacy in a state of complete suspension of disbelief.
As far the Bradley Effect, this is the racial manifestation of a built-in problem that any and all polls face – in polls people have the tendency to give approving answers. And no matter how the questions are phrased in order to obtain a neutral/truthful answer, a small quantity of answers to a question perceived as to be positively answered will always err in the direction of “yes”.
How much these two problems will affect the voting, no one can precisely predict – I, for myself, say that they will add significantly to the other, existing Obama shortcomings, leading to a clear Republican win.

Now the Question of the day: where is Michelle, her $6oo beads, and her comfort zone? Don’t liberals find her anymore an asset for mister Obama’s campaign? If so, why?

Confused in Los Angeles.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:33 am 22. Ex-fetus:

“I’d expect a southerner to be more willing on average to tell a pollster exactly what he or she really thinks.”

Yep. We don’t call them blacks or N****s anymore, we call them democrats. So when you hear on your police scanner that a blue Lexis is east bound on I-40, fleeing an armed robbery with 4 democrats inside, the police know exactly what to look for.

On the other hand, just as Palin will be the first female President in ‘12, the first black President will be a Republican. Colin Powell can be President when ever he wants as a Republican. The hardest part of his election campaign would be talking his wife into letting him run. It would be easy sleddin’ after that.
I expect either Steele or BJ to be Saracuda’s VP choice. After all, it was the Republican Party that ended slavery and got the civil rights act passed.
Ya’ll ever think that maybe us white guys are getting tired of tot’in the load all the time and it would be a good thing if qualified females and blacks took up some of the strain?

We are all in this boat together, this is an oar and your hands go right there.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:45 am 23. Self-hating boomer:

I’m white and Jewish — two groups not exactly very oppressed these days.

For crying out loud, nobody is oppressed these days. Oppression isn’t an issue. The issue is demonization, and yes, whites and Jews, especially male ones, are demonized more than any other group these days.

This isn’t to deny that there isn’t still a lot of discrimination still happening, but there’s a huge difference between discrimination (mostly unconscious) and oppression.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:14 am 24. David:

This should be a landslide Democratic election, everything is in their favor(well except Pelosi and Dean). I was a crossover voter in 2006 that led to the Democratic majority. I was fully prepared to go with the Dems again this year just out of disgust for the Republican party….that is until they nominated Senator Obama.

I am sorry, but even I can not vote for such a character.
Poor judgement, questionable associations, a voting record of extreme party loyalism(when not voting present), and a complete lack of experience just to name a few of the many problems with this candidate.

The icing on the cake…….my character is called into question when I state relevant documented problems with a candidate by saying I am racist for not supporting Senator Obama……

I would have no problem at all with having a minority hold the highest office in the land, there is one requirement though……competency.

Pretty speeches are not enough.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:15 am 25. BobNC:

Maybe! The variances between the poll results and the actual votes can be due to many things. First, why would anyone tell the truth to some one who calls you on the ‘phone right at dinner time? You tell him what you think will influence his survy findings in a manner that suits your views.
Sure, I may say I’m supporting Obama because I don’t want to be accused of being anti-black or anti-muslim and then vote for him, i.e., the bradley effect.
But, I might also vote against Obama because I now realize he is an empty suit, a know nothing, lazy guy put forward by the Chicago pols and their anti-American comrades. The Biden decision, alone, must have caused millions to realize that Obama is just another political crook, put forward ONLY because he is black.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:20 am 26. Self-hating boomer:

In liberal bastions like California and New York, the Bradley Effect might be greater than in other places. There’s more pressure to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxy, and fewer conservatives to lean on, too.

I think you’re right, although the way you said that implies a unwarrented slam on conservatives. I don’t believe that liberals are any less racist than conservatives. That’s a self-serving stereotype.

A black man I once knew was transferred from St. Louis to Seattle. His comment on Seattlites was something along the lines of “Back in St. Louis, if a guy didn’t like me because of my race, he’d tell me to my face. Here [Seattle] I just get a lot of silence.”. He then went on to say that he preferred St. Louis, where at least he knew where he stood.

So I agree, political correctness just results in a lot of dishonesty.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:22 am 27. Self-hating boomer:

And my gut tells me that the Bradley Effect could cost Obama Michigan and Pennsylvania — and thus the election.

That’s a bit of semantic gymnastics there, saying that the effect will “cost” Obama. It would be accurate to say that the effect is currently overstating Obama, and in reality McCain is well ahead. The effect isn’t costing Obama anything; he never had it to begin with.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:30 am 28. Self-hating boomer:

Apex has a point. Even after McCain trounces Obama, we won’t be able to attribute it to the Bradley effect. There’s way too much other stuff going on in this election. Pollsters are still highly uncertain about the magnitude and net effect of the PUMAs, for example.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:34 am 29. Dark Helmet:

Let’s talk about race, okay, let’s.

Jewish is not a race, it’s religion how’s that for starters?

Try again.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:35 am 30. Self-hating boomer:

We don’t call them blacks or N****s anymore, we call them democrats.

According to the governor of New York, “community organizer” is a racial euphemism. This shows you how completely around the bend this racial hyperbole has become.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:37 am 31. AdrianS:

I would venture to say that many people, voters, have taken or will take the time to read all about Barack Obama and they don’t or won’t like what they learn about the incompetent and shady character (Obama) who refuses to answer questions about who he really is.

I don’t think it race itself has anything at all to do with Mr. Obama’s race or religion, whatever they are. Realize that there is absolutely no love lost between right thinking American’s and Tony Resko, Jeremiah Wright or even William Ayers — the racial socialist that bombed police stations.

These friends of Obama are the problem for him and he knows it. But it is part and parcel of who Obama is — a radical, leftist, communist, extreme, anti-America socialist liar.

As for me, I’m voting for a true patriot, John McCain, and the Honorable Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin — well qualified to fulfill her calling.

Down with Obama. Long live America and American values.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:44 am 32. Dark Helmet:

‘So I agree, political correctness just results in a lot of dishonesty’

Racsim results in alot of dishonesty. We have yet to even define it. Our host here started the whole thing off with jewish being a race, which it is not. This is the kind of nonconfronted dishonesty that gives pc it’s foot hold.

Let’s talk reverse discrimination.

What comes to mind?

That it is something that we all should hope to achieve?

No? Why not. Read it again Think about it.

You can’t deal with a problem if you aren’t willing to identify it. That is the first step in dealing with racism the only way you can, your own.

I wish each of you the very best of luck with that.

Let’s Roll

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:54 am 33. urbanleftbehind:

Fedras-

I like your line of reasoning, but I would take it a step further. Liberal democrats and blacks should also start polling for McCain at greater frequency prior to the actual election. Hispanics could start busting out the “Yon Makain” gear in full view. Jews and Asians could do the same. If the polls portend a Reagan-Mondale like blowout, the expectations would be lower and blacks would see a McCain congratulatory speech not taking place until Noon on Nov. 5 as a pleasant surprise and not a crushing disappointment.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:55 am 34. Freddie Funky:

regardless of McCain’s VP pick: Obama will not only 90% of the African American vote, he will drive a much higher than normal African American turnout. In southern states like North Carolina this may end up being a very significant effect.

Aside from that I agree with Self-hating boomer, and others above. Anyone who was undecided or wavering wont be a secure vote and will flutter around until election day. So the polls now are interesting, but last second surprises could have a big impact

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:04 am 35. ST333:

You only lie if you aren’t up on the issues and want to be seen as “in the loop”. I’m a McCain guy because I believe McCain when he speaks and I’m against Obama because I’m philosophically opposed to bigger government with higher taxes and more control and say of our day to day lives. What’s there to feel guilty about? The Democratic candidate in half black? As far as I’m concerned, only a real mental midget would vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ someone based on race. Learn the issues or stay away from the ballot box.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:06 am 36. Self-hating boomer:

Racism results in a lot of dishonesty. We have yet to even define it.

Actually, it has so many definitions, it’s semantically useless. It’s become a political tool, not a word that actually conveys any meaning.

If we’re ever going to make any progress on race relations, one of the necessary prerequisites is that we have one single and accurate definition of the word “racism”, and no one abuses it.

Not going to happen.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:14 am 37. Ex-fetus:

And then there is question D-3;

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082508/content/01125110.guest.html

About 60% (58 to 61) of voters identify themselves as “conservative”.
Most poll questions are slanted to get around this ‘bias’. The pollsters ‘filter’ it out. It is part of the old ‘add 5 points to the Republicans’ rule of thumb.
So the world’s most famous community organizer started off down 40 points since liberals are about 20% with moderates and undecideds being that last 20%
Obama bin Biden being only down 10 or so at this point just shows how slick that Chicago machine con-man really is.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:18 am 38. urbanleftbehind:

for those confused, I meant a McCain victory speech.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:21 am 39. jvon:

I think greated than the Bradley effect is the too-lazy-to-get-off-their-ass-and-vote effect, which affects Democrats much more strongly than Republicans for some reason, and seems likely to be even more pronounced for a candidate that is counting on the youth vote.

But we’ll see. November is not far off now.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:35 am 40. Michael:

Polls for a number of years have had a 3 to 5 percent lean to Democratic candidates that didn’t pan out in the voting booth. It’s consistancy leads me to believe there is a problem with the pollsters methedology.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:49 am 41. JosephMarshall:

The Republican and “Independent” worthies who spoke at their convention–Joe Lieberman, Fred Thompson, Rudi Guliani, Sarah Palin and John McCain–are supposed to be “leaders”. The same is true of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama.

Leaders are supposed to set standards and examples. They are supposed to be the best of what our politics has to offer, not the worst. Until somebody is finally elected President, those nationally televised conventions, viewed by forty million plus people, are the major place for leaders to set examples for everybody, no matter what their party.

When you read the actual speeches of those Republican leaders, and even more so when you look at the recorded broadcasts, it is perfectly clear that they regard Barack Obama the man with personal comtempt and disdain–not mere disagreement with his words or his views.

The head of the McCain/Palin campaign was quoted as saying that this campaign was about “character” not “issues”. What else can such a statement mean other than this: we will denigrate our opponent’s character in any way we can, and refuse to address in any way at all what he actually has to say?

How else can you describe this attitude toward Obama other than personal contempt?

For some reason his adversaries always imply, and seem to act as if, he has no right to even be running at all, or to do anything in his campaign such as travel abroad and meet the people whom he might have to deal with as President.

He speaks intelligently, directly, clearly, and without equivocation, even if he says things you do not agree with. But, for some reason, his adversaries seem to go out of their way to suggest that he shouldn’t even be speaking at all, that it is somehow “entertainment” when Obama does it.

As far as I can see, this is not a matter of John McCain being a better choice, it is not even a matter of John McCain being an overwhelmingly better choice. It’s not a matter of John McCain whatever.

It is that Barack Obama shouldn’t be there at all.

Why shouldn’t he be there? Why shouldn’t he do these things? He’s a family man with family values, a member in good standing of the Illinois bar, a man who has given his time to help those who need it, a United States Senator who is even on the Foreign Relations Committee, and he’s even a Christian man of faith.

There is only one possible reason that I can see why anyone would imply that Obama doesn’t have the right to run for President. And that is because of his race.

When Republican politicians talk about Obama’s “inexperience”–in the way that is overtly insulting and contemptuous, like the direct quotations from their convention speeches, they mean he is Black.

When they talk about his “elitism” and his “celebrity”–in the way that those speeches are overtly insulting and contemptuous–they mean he is an uppity Black.

When they denigrate his personal “community service”–in the way that those speeches are overtly insulting and contemptuous–they mean that it was done among people who are poor and Black.

Even if they believe the things they say about him, there is no excuse for the way they choose to say it, or the tone in which they say it. None.

This calumny was not kited out on the spur of the moment by overwrought and crazed political bloggers or their commentors, nor by disaffected and savage political commentators, nor by news media that have an agenda to defeat either slate of candidates.

And such insult, such contempt, was not a matter of an offhand remark made in a moment of ill timed levity, of which anyone is capable.

It was deliberate, cold-blooded, without moral scruples, and was systematically put into major political speeches meant to be heard by millions of people.

Supposedly these are the best and most responsible people in the Republican party speaking to the American public, and the best policies and political philosophy the Republican Party has to offer.

Now you may deny it to me. Or you may even deny it to yourself. But every African-American in this country knows this to be the case. They have watched code words like this being thrown at their most prominent men and women for the last thirty years–or just about the time we all agreed, for politeness sake, to refrain from the words that these euphemisms encode.

Personally, I was no more enthused in the primaries when the Clintons began to use encoded attacks on Obama’s character than I am about the current ones. In fact, Obama’s victory itself gave me far less joy than Clinton’s ignominious defeat precisely because she chose to make those attacks.

So pleased me greatly that the McCain people recycled Hillary’s attacks on the air during the Democratic convention and made it abundantly clear to all Democrats just how much it is bad politics when Democrats campaign that way.

I am under no illusion that, right now at least, that John McCain and Sarah Palin aren’t likely to win this election. They are.

But I am also under no illusion that the reason for this is the cold-blooded, systematic character assassination that occurred at their convention. For if John McCain had such overwhelming merits to be President as a “maverick” and a tortured prisoner of war, why would they need to attack Obama’s character at all?

So if John McCain happens to be defeated, it will please me far more than if Barack Obama is elected.

I don’t want anyone who tries win through such character assassination to lead either my party, or my country. Barack Obama has deliberately avoided doing such things to John McCain. And it is perfectly clear that he thinks such personal respect for an adversary is a more important thing than winning elections. So do I.

This means that I can vote for Obama with a clear conscience, whether he wins or loses. After the way she campaigned, I could not have voted for Hillary Clinton with a clear conscience, nor could I vote for John McCain with a clear conscience.

Try as I might, based on reading what they said at their convention, I could not tell you if there was anything Joe Lieberman, Fred Thompson, Rudi Guliani, Sarah Palin, and John McCain thought more important than winning elections.

If I’m wrong, well, I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before. And, luckily, I’m not running for President so it doesn’t matter that much whether I’m right or wrong.

But if I’m right, none of us should have a clear conscience.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:50 am 42. Dave II:

Look, the “Bradley Effect” is simply a “way” to explain the unexplainable when it comes to a black candidate losing so badly when he was so well ahead in the polls. Nothing more. Is it accurate or right?

That’s really not the issue. The issue is WHY does this seem to happen so often with black candidates? The prevailing explanation IS, of course, that voters don’t want to be seen as racist to the pollster…but that is not the WHOLE reason behind it.

I think in Obama’s case, as is so well exemplified by the many reasons given here, there is a MYRIAD of GOOD, well-deserved, and legitimate reasons to not vote for Obama…him being black is the LEAST of them, and I suspect for most Americans it is that way. But the POLLS need an “explanation” and this is as good a historical one as any…

I think we may have to rename this particular effect (and YES, it will happen!) the OBAMA EFFECT to explain how a candidate that had sooooo much going for him managed to blow this election so badly…

It’s alrady bit him before…especially here in California (HOME to the “Bradley effect”!). Ahead by 7-10% in the primary polls, Obama lost by 8%! It was the PERFECT example…especially for a “liberal” state.

Is race a factor? Sure, but in Obama’s case, given our liberal/tolerant/ 21st-century mindset here…you HAVE to say it was a MINOR issue.

That’s why given the REASON behind a “Bradley effect” (i.e. race) in Obama’s case…it is a VERY “weak” explanation for what will happen.

Oh, but that won’t stop liberals and the media from pointing to it as the reason for his big loss. It’s just that from now on, we will have a NEW
“effect” for why a far-left liberal, who just happened to be black, managed to blow an election when he had so much going for him.

Might I suggest:

THE PALIN EFFECT.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:52 am 43. Paul S.:

I agree with the “Closet Republican Effect” as well, especially here in New York with, as Stephen Green says, the “pressure to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.” But a lot of these people aren’t lying to pollsters when they say they intend to vote Democratic; they’re just making an assumption about themselves. But things change once they actually think about voting or when they’re in the booth with no friends or spouse around.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:07 am 44. AJ:

Good work.

Funny but typical how libs believe in the Bradley Effect too, but misunderstand it. They think it shows “white racism” of course — but really it shows guilt-ridden libs who are too feckless to admit they won’t vote for the Empty Suit.

Also, Steve, Jews, historically, are the MOST oppressed people in human history. I know what you’re saying about now — though anti semitism is on the rise worldwide, especially in Europe and America’s black community, but to open the piece that way is a bit odd to me.

Also, being a white male like me (and Jewish), it has never been tougher to find work, have credibility, etc. The PC guilt mongers make white males out to be evil, even though this country, especially for its forst 100 years, was fought for, built by and thrived due solely to white males.

I’m being honest. And as Larry Elder once told me, “remember, an honest man is always in trouble.”

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:14 am 45. Boris:

“Polls for a number of years have had a 3 to 5 percent lean to Democratic candidates that didn’t pan out in the voting booth.”

This is completely untrue. Just look at the RCP averages for last election.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:19 am 46. urbanleftbehind:

David:

The Bradley Effect, at least in CA, should be renamed the “Chinga” Effect. Its probably the third-world immigrants and their descendents (Latin America AND Asia) making sure that the black candidate doesnt lor over them. Palin was a wise move in this regard because though she might have some hard right views on immigration, she’s never said anything as dumb as Tom Tancredo did while tooling in Miami last fall– he said Miami looks like a third world country. Yeah, its a third world country that flies huge American flags in its used car lots and pulls the lever for the R’s when it counts, dumb arse!

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:23 am 47. susan:

“it is perfectly clear that they regard Barack Obama the man with personal comtempt and disdain”

i disdain a man that is friend with terrorists and marxists.

Beside, isn’t the same disdain Bamba displayed for the country people and their guns and their religion?

” He’s a family man with family values”

hold on a second. The term “family values” is overly abused and for the wrong reasons. Someone that thinks “class envy” is the way and pregnancy is a “punishment” doesn’t possess what is widely considered a good dose of family values. Unless for you, EVERYTHING is RELATIVE as for any leftist and right or wrong is merely semantic

“When they talk about his “elitism” and his “celebrity”–in the way that those speeches are overtly insulting and contemptuous–they mean he is an uppity Black. ”

here you are deeply wrong. If there is something that is not at all associated with black people is ELITISM. Even rich black people are not generally aloof and pretentious, but rather easy going and communicative. Bamba is not. That is why he cannot relate to ordinary people other than the brainwashed ones.

“And it is perfectly clear that he thinks such personal respect for an adversary is a more important thing than winning elections. So do I. ”

if there is one thing that bamba your idol has not displayed is personal respect and fair play and his arrogance in portraying himself as already president around february should tell you something about his humility and fair play and what is more important than winning the election.

Every commentator (even from the left) judged his stunts quite pretentious (the trip to europe, the greek columns, the logo, presidential seal before its time) and it’s people from his base that are admitting he’s elitist.

So check your facts before writing.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:25 am 48. Kurt:

I have two thoughts with regard to this:
1). I had every intention of lying to the pollsters when they called me this year, and I might still do it if I get called by some pollsters whom I believe are neutral and legitimate (as opposed to campaign operatives), and if I actually answer the phone–something I rarely do these days when I don’t recognize the number. But the other night when some Obama campaign staffer called to ask me who I was going to support, I couldn’t lie about my vote, as I had no patience whatsoever for listening to whatever sales pitch they were about to deliver, nor did I want to be asked to volunteer or to have them think they could drop by and give me some lengthy harangue about why I should support “The One.”

2). Before the 2006 election, the Republicans talked on and on about the undercount of likely Republican voters, trying to convince themselves that they were headed for big victories, when the opposite occurred. While there definitely may be something to the Bradley effect this election cycle, if I were involved with the McCain campaign, I definitely wouldn’t depend on it.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:34 am 49. Charlie (Colorado):

When you read the actual speeches of those Republican leaders, and even more so when you look at the recorded broadcasts, it is perfectly clear that they regard Barack Obama the man with personal comtempt and disdain–not mere disagreement with his words or his views.

Joseph, I’m perfectly capable of having contempt for a man without reference to his melanin.

Steve, I agree with you on this, and I’ve been consciously thinking about the polls as being, say, 3 percent off. Conservatively, as it were. I suspect Obama’s internal polling may sugegst something similar — but the way things are going, the Bradley effect may be swamped by the Palin Effect.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:39 am 50. Dave II:

Joseph…interesting post, and yes, you are wrong on so many levels…but it seems to me you ascribe EVERY issue that Republicans have regarding Obama’s character, judgement, experience, and even his “assencion” to the top of the ticket, as being RACIST…and that is just wrong, wrong, WRONG!

That the Republicans were giving such “damning” speeches at the convention regarding Obama is PRECISELY because he IS such an easy target regarding all these issues….and NONE of them have ANYTHING to do with RACE!!!

And your last sentence is the most telling of all…

If you are voting for Obama because you think you will have a “clear conscience”…you are a TYPICAL LIBERAL! (I could add “white” in there but I won’t as I’m not sure if you are…but that is really beside the point.)

You are the poster-boy for “race-based guilt” and, as such, EXACTLY the type of voter Obama is counting on…because if you actually LOOKED at his record and his accomplishments (no, NOT his campaign either) there is no way on God’s green earth you can say he is ready to be commander-in-chief or POTUS.

But I digress…let me ask you a question, since you feel so “offended” by the attacks on Obama you feel are racially motivated…

Do the attacks on PALIN strike you the same way?????

Or does that indignation only arise when it pricks your liberal “guilt”, but NOT when it is pointed at a woman????????

Obviously, you feel Obama is “put upon” because of his race…can Palin say the same because she is a woman????

You may not think so (many liberals can’t fathom how Palin can be called a “woman” with her views) but that will show itself in the election.

Gender will trump race…and that is NOT part of the “Bradley Effect”!

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:39 am 51. M.P.:

I have in-laws in Michigan (registered Dems who work at Ford & GM, snowmobile etc) who have no intention of voting for Obama for a variety of reasons but who say that they and their friends routinely lie to pollsters again because they don’t want to be perceived as racist. Media, campaign and editorial claims that anyone who does not vote for Obama or even criticizes Obama is somehow racist certainly make things much worse.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:40 am 52. David:

I believe Bush got about 11% of the African American vote last election. If McCain gets 5%, which seems to be the projection, is that enough to offset any Bradley Effect?

I am sure that, sadly, there are some white Americans who will not vote for Obama because of his race. My feeling (it’s a hope actually, I guess) is that the number of such people will be low.

I do not think that blacks voting for Obama is, in itself, racist. After the long sad history, any black person who votes for Obama has a very good reason.

I prefer McCain, simply based on his personal character and toughness. It will be a sad thing if he is elected because of race prejudice.

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:06 am 53. Tom Holsinger:

I am familiar with the Bradley effect. I was heavily involved in California politics when Tom Bradley first ran for Mayor of L.A., and my father was then an official of the California Democratic Party. I was privy to the California Democratic Party’s internal studies of the subject.

The key to the Bradley effect is a public perception of a candidate’s core identity as being “black” – that he thinks of himself as being “black” first. Los Angeles voters did not know Tom Bradley that well in his first race for Mayor. Racism was also then not as socially unacceptable as it is now.

This is not the place to go into the details of why voters are less likely to vote for candidates whose core identities are perceived as “black”. Perjorative identity politics is not confined to race. Note that Democrats are attacking GOP vice-presidential nominee right now for being an evangelical Christian.

Tom Bradley was as boring as a politician could get and still breathe. Here is an example: when he later ran for Governor against the almost as stultifying Republican George Deukmejian, editors used to threaten miscreant reporters with assignment to cover their debates. This was a very credible threat.

And Bradley won his next race for Mayor as voters realized that his core identity was not being “black”. He might even have beaten Deukmejian years later had he shown more energy.

General Colin Powell is another politician who is not perceived as “black”. That is obviously not his core identify. Powell’s formidable personal “gravitas” (in the authentic Roman sense) is what made him so attractive as a public figure.

Barack Obama succeeded as well as he did because the initial public perception of him was that he had transcended his nominal racial identity. This is why the revelations about his pastor, Reverend Wright, were so damaging. That thrust Obama’s “black” identity forward and, while it is still pretty obvious to experienced political observors that this is not how he thinks of himself, Reverend Wright’s obvious raciam coupled with Barack Obama’s acknowledgement of a deep spiritual debt to Wright at the least raised major questions about Obama’s core identity.

IMO class and elitism are Obama’s biggest problems, not race, and this is getting him killed in the polls right now.

Overall, my guestimate is that there will be some Bradley Effect in this election, but it will be limited, especially relative to Obama’s many other problems.

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:26 am 54. David Thomson:

“I do not think that blacks voting for Obama is, in itself, racist. After the long sad history, any black person who votes for Obama has a very good reason.”

That is absolute nonsense. Blacks do not have any right to indulge in identity politics. They are, like the rest of us, morally obligated to choose the best candidate to lead our country. We must stop treating them like victims. It is time to condemn this childish behavior. Black people of voting age are also adults—you should cease treating them like pampered children.

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:28 am 55. MJ:

I am a Canadian citizen and I’m discussed about the name calling and hatred and I mean the hatred. What you people do not understand is we are on the outside looking in and can see this election a lot clearer. If what you want is “Change” why not give him (Obama) a chance. If you wanted to be hated in every corner of the global then vote for MCcain because he is the same as Bush. I have encounterd numerous people who would like to see the end of the super power and if you continue on this part it will happen sooner than you think.

Also for that person to call some one else a pig my God don’t she have any repect for herself.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:27 pm 56. ST333:

There it is, “hated in every corner”….Please define that. I keep hearing about repairing the relationship with the UK and Europe. What does that mean exactly? What’s in need of repair? Is international business suffering? I think the rest of the world has a Napoleon complex. We don’t need to check with you when our security is at stake. If that’s where the “damage” has occurred then I laugh at you. Go back to your forced political correctness and stew. Europe is mad at forced multiculturalism. period.

“If what you want is “Change” why not give him (Obama) a chance.”…..Why, because he’s half black? That’s change? He’ll be beholden to his liberal puppet masters and their agendas. That’s not change, that’s the same old Washington we’ve had, just the other side of the coin. Change is actually working for your country and constituents, not your party. You don’t see anything clearer on the outside MJ, you see what they show you. Someone tell me what Obama is going to do that will make the rest of the world “like us again”. Move towards socialism? Enforce mediocrity? What a joke.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:02 pm 57. Joseph Somsel:

The way to test your hypothesis of the Bradley Effect is to compare poll results for Obama against other markers of political preference. In other words, how do responses to questions about foreign policy, size of government, increases in taxes, military budget reductions correlate with expressed presidential voting intentions?

You’d think that Gallup and Rasmussen, etc would have thought of this.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:05 pm 58. susan:

“I have encounterd numerous people who would like to see the end of the super power ”

MJ, envy is a human trait. And one of the worst. The whole economy of the western world is driven by the United States. People in the western world who enjoy the idea of the fall of USA are not intelligent enough to think that it will be a lot worse to gravitate around the economies of China or India or the petrol middle-east.

You do not really make a point beside telling us that envy is devilish and also stupid.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:07 pm 59. Southern Patriot:

I live in Alabama and during the last election the MSM & the Polls claimed that Kerry was ahead by 3-4 points until he lost. Afterwards Bush had been ahead by a LARGE margin.

Don’t ever trust the Press or the Polls.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:07 pm 60. Sandra M:

Race? Skin color? My favorite Republican before Sarah Palin came along was Bobby Jindal, a man of color I fully believe could be elected President, because unlike Democrats, there are Republicans — who knows what percentage — who actually believe in PRINCIPLES and THINK IN CONCEPTS and don’t vote race, color, gender or ethnic identity. What did Mayor Bradley stand for? Does anyone know?

The reasons not to vote for Obama:

1. The minister of the church he attended for 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is ANTI-WHITE and ANTI-AMERICAN. The latter is unforgiveable and unacceptable to me. Wright’s church espouses Black Liberation Theology, marxist-based Christianity.

2. His wife told us she’d never been proud of America until her husband ran for office. I’m proud of America once or twice a week at least.

3. Earlier, Michelle Obama let it be known that Obama snores, is “smelly in the morning” doesn’t pick up his socks or put the butter away. I noticed that their two little girls said: “Daddy doesn’t do anything but talk.” That reaction to Daddy comes from his wife, a seething mass of resentment, even though her husband gave the hospital she works for a million dollar earmark and they tripled her salary to $300,000 for a non-job. I think Obama is a henpecked wimp. Once, Michelle grasped the power she could have as First Lady, she stopped whining as she informed us of what Barack would and wouldn’t let us do.

4. Obama’s childhood mentor was a member of the Communist Party. Frank Marshall Davis, a Chicago poet. I’m sure the relevant Chicagoans were told of Obama’s arrival.

5. There are THREE more Obama scandals that haven’t yet full surfaced.

a) The Annenberg mess. Did Obama really blow $49 million dollars meant for the education of disadvantaged black children? Black parents will be outraged.

b) The now boarded-up public housing that he and Rezko collaborated on. If and When pictures surface, poor blacks may stay home instead of voting.

c) “THE ONE”. That was how Oprah described him. Oprah once belonged to Wright’s church, left and is now involved with a Guru, Eckhart Tolle who preaches about “THE ONE” “THE CHOSEN”. I didn’t get the whole “lightworker” “will change the planet” spiel until I read the story in HUMAN EVENTS. More will emerge.

Obama’s politics and economics are Marxist.

Religion? Take your pick: either

Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology

or the Eckhart Tolle New Age cult Oprah has apparently been pushing on her TV show and in her magazine and other media. (I haven’t watched her in years, hence, have no first-hand knowledge.

Michelle didn’t seem too impressed with Barack early on. It’s Oprah and Tolle who have fed his megalomania and the hysterical line about the “oceans receding.”

This is a story that absolutely should be covered — and soon.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:11 pm 61. Southern Patriot:

MJ:

The Republicans have not said ONE thing that was hateful toward the Democrats.
You whant to see hateful go check out some of the Liberal web sites, there you will be disgusted by the hate.

Also Mrs. Palin was not the one who called or referred to herself as pig. It was The Chosen One “Obama”

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:13 pm 62. Rachel Peepers:

Will race be a crucial component of this election? Of course.

Much of the campaign to a lesser or greater extent has been about just that. Let’s face it, if Obama were white, he’d still be organizing midnight basketball.

At least doing that he has some experience.

However, when he talks about the lipstick on a pig joke, and tries to explain what he meant, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

In the media world, the test of meaning isn’t scienter, or what you intend to say. That’s irrelevant. The test is what your audience takes away from what you say.

In other words, the test is what your audience infers from what you say.

Advertisers have lost millions because their inferences were not what they intended.

News people don’t know this. Media lawyers know this. I don’t think even Barack and his henchmen know this.

What they do know is that in politics you can say anything. Lie till the cows and you can’t be punished with a cease and desist order or fines or any kinds of that stuff.

So when Obama talks about what he meant when he said, “you can put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig”, it’s irrelevant.

Likewise, Obama’s statement on Letterman last night was inaccurate. It’s not about literally what the words say. It’s literally about what the audience takes away.

We know what his audience took away. So does Barack. They thought it was a real knee slapper. It was one of those wonderful mysogynistic “Let’s mock Sarah” moments. Remember how Father Fletcher cruely mocked Hillary in church? This pig joke was simply more of the same. Business as usual for the Obama campaign. Women make such great targets David Axelrod once said to Obama. You don’t have to lead them as much. And they talk about change. What hypocrites. Mysogynists till the bitter end.

At any rate, you, me, we all have a decision to make November 4th. Rather than letting any one statement, speech (no matter how well delivered), commentator or commercial being the guiding factor in your decision.

I suggest a much simpler decision making process.

Your conscience.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:19 pm 63. Sue:

MJ forced me to post here. Canadians hate America just at Europeans do. But, while they hate us, they just love the fact that we have spent our blood and money on keeping them safe these past 70 years. I say we stay a super power but stop protecting anyone other than ourselves. To hell with the rest of the haters of the world, we have enough of that sort here in the US.

And, dingbat, Sarah never called herself a pig, you just cannot see, hear or feel what’s right!!! She compared her onerniess to to a pit bull…Obama compared her to a pig!! Sheesh!

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:39 pm 64. chrisa798:

Steve,

You are starting to look a lot like Tom Bradley.

(Just an editorial note: the picture is of the size and location that suggests to me that it is the author)

Or is that some sort of clever device aligned with the premise of your article.

The Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX is one of the best international terminals, regardless of race.

A bit OT, but what I think funny is that the left has adopted the default position that a successful governor is an idiot. They are doing her work for her in part–she will continue to do well, and will lookall the more better because she will so thoroughly outperform expectations.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:05 pm 65. Self-hating boomer:

I am a Canadian citizen and I’m discussed about the name calling and hatred and I mean the hatred.

Is that what you mean?

What you people do not understand

“You people”? Eh?

is we are on the outside looking in and can see this election a lot clearer.

Clearer? I think you mean more clearly.

If what you want is “Change” why not give him (Obama) a chance.

I think you’re supposed to end a question with a question mark. And to answer the question, the reason is the same reason that you don’t give keys to the bus to a six-year old. I mean, by your logic, why not?

Etc.

But what do I know? (See how easy that is?) I’m just an ignorant Yank, who doesn’t know how to psell.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:26 pm 66. Tom Holsinger:

Having just looked up the Wikepedia link on the Bradley effect, that is NOT the “Bradley effect” I referred to above, which was based on Tom Bradley’s first run in 1969 for Mayor of Los Angeles. That 1969 campaign first revealed what is now called the “Bradley” effect to political professionals in California, and it is their studies of that 1969 campaign which I referred to.

That the term spread nationwide after Bradley lost his first race for governor to George Deukmejian, in 1982, merely shows the myopia of the national press. We were well aware of this in California from 1969 on.

And Bradley lost to Deukmejian in 1982 for reasons other than race. We had a tax revolt going on against Democrats in general, outgoing governor Jerry Brown (”Governor Moonbeam”) was very unpopular, etc. California Democratic professionals expected Deukmejian to win and did not believe the public polls. Our internals showed what was happening.

Tom Bradley was too boring and too low on energy in 1982. He might have won if the voters wanted things to keep going the way they had been under Governor Moonbeam, but that was the last thing they wanted. California voters wanted change in 1982, and Tom Bradley plain did not offer change.

Which again highlights the difference between media perception and reality.

Getting back to the subject though, I agree that there is a such a thing as the “Bradley Effect” as it is commonly referred to, even if I have professional differences with the Wikepedia entry on it, and that it will have some influence in the 2008 presidential election. I don’t think it will have a significant impact due to Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s many other problems.

And, IMO, the “Bradley Effect” applies only to Democratic candidates who must, as Obama has, openly associate with, and not merely tolerate, black racists like Reverend Wright. No black Republican who did that could survive a GOP primary. No black Democrat who does not do that can survive a Democratic primary.

This says far more about the Democratic Party today than the “Bradley Effect” as it presently exists (i.e., not as it existed 20-30 years ago) says about America.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:40 pm 67. Marina:

Talking about polls… of course, people lie.
Regardless of the Bradley-effect (inside white and inside black communities) or the too-lazy-to-get-up-and-vote-effect or any other effect that may well play its role in these elections – although the main choice will still be between empty-suit marxist and real american values – , one thing hasn´t been mentioned yet in this discussion.
Are the polls trustworthy?
1) Nearly all of the polling agencies are linked to chronically leftist MSM. They will always be more concerned about their client than about the truth.
2) Where do the people who make the polls come from? Isn´t there any possibility that they will try to implement the teachings of their socialist college teachers?
3) There are plenty of ways to manipulate the outcome of polls (whom do you ask, how do you put the questions, when do you ask them?).
4) There is only one way to check, if they are reliable: the election itself. So, the only polls who have to stand the test against reality are the ones just before the elections. Months before, a simple lie will be virtually impossible to discover.
Add the fact that many people (thank God, not all of them!) tend to follow the conceived “mainstream”, and you see the value of “polls” in political propaganda. Can you imagine Soros to abandon this powerful tool of manipulation?
The way Obama was constantly leading the polls was already suspicious.
The surprisingly small Palin-effect in most polls is even weirder.
The appearance of Obama on “hostile” TV-stations and the pathetic way he engages in bad stand-up comedy insulting people is making it obvious:
the polls we get do not represent the real situation. DON´T TRUST POLLS!

(Despite all attempts of MSM and team Obama-bin-Biden, it wasn´t possible to make Sarah Palin seem “unpopular”, so they had to give her at least a small “bounce” in order to stay believable.)

Go McCain/Palin!

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:05 pm 68. lee:

Americans should to take anti American sentiments from abroad with a grain of salt – ALWAYS. Liberals love to point out to global disdain for America as some mandate for change, but if they actually spent time in ultra nationalist nation like South Korea (not vacationing around their typical crowd), they’ll see how their people and leaders need to take a look at the mirror before pointing ONE finger at America.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:30 pm 69. Ex-fetus:

“He speaks intelligently, directly, clearly, and without equivocation”

I don’t think that word means what you think it does;

e·quiv·o·ca·tion /ɪˌkwɪvəˈkeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-kwiv-uh-key-shuhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3. Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME equivocacion < LL aequivocātiōn- (s. of aequivocātiō). See equivocate, -ion]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

What is more ambiguous the the expression “Change”? Change what? Change who? Change Where? Change How?
Is english your native tongue?

Boris, Your translator is out of wack. 180 degrees. Type in “UP” and see if it doesn’t come out “вниз”

“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:33 pm 70. Not a Lib:

It is not race that matters it is who Obama is…

http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=694&cid=3123

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:46 pm 71. Not a Lib:

It is not race that matters it is who Obama is

http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=694&cid=3123

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:49 pm 72. newscaper:

Personally I detest the notion of the Bradley Effect.

Not that people lie about pollsters, far from it, but that in this case deception (even alleged self-deception) is presumably based on closet racism, when I think it is far more likely people who *aren’t* racist, but perhaps concerned about being tarred that way.

I wouldn’t expect a shit-kickin’ redneck to fib to a pollster, but rather the college educated upper middle class voters who’ve been pC indoctrinated to the point that they feel almost guilty about not supporting Obama.

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:04 pm 73. FJ:

Those who conduct these polls are underemployed young people (Dems usually) who will produce the results they would like to see. They make minimum wage. You get what you pay for with call centers.

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:59 pm 74. john from cinncinati:

AJ: The PC guilt mongers make white males out to be evil, even though this country, especially for its forst 100 years, was fought for, built by and thrived due solely to white males.
yes they were all by themselves, they found a pristine land devoid of all inhabitants. thump your chest and yell arrrgghh real loud, but i beg to differ. where were their moms/wives at? the next 100 years what? or who?
the Mccain effect? face it Obama was out maneuvered.
Bail! Michele, Bail! this boat is taking on water…

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:31 pm 75. Sandra M:

Joseph Marshall said:
When Republican politicians talk about Obama’s “inexperience”–in the way that is overtly insulting and contemptuous… they mean he is Black.
When they talk about his “elitism” and his “celebrity”…they mean he is an uppity Black.
When they denigrate his personal “community service…they mean that it was done among people who are poor and Black.”

I only listened to 3 speeches at the Republican convention: Fred Thompson (who I had supported for Pres) Rudolph Guiliani and Sarah Palin so I asked a friend who listened to all the speeches and he didn’t hear what you heard. Perhaps you’re more attuned to”subtle racism” or perhaps you see racism everywhere.

What about the BLATANT racism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright that in 20 years and twice a month, Obama was exposed to 480 times but somehow neither heard nor saw?

America didn’t know that perhaps 10% of Black Christian churches spew hatred of Whites and of America. After they saw those clips a few times, people then observed that the audience was practically dancing with glee at this reverse racism.

Obama began to lose primaries just about then. And I think there’s probably beeen a tectonic shift on the issue of the Black race.

Lastly, no one so blatantly insults Blacks in the most disgusting way possible as other blacks as nutcase Harry Belafonte trashing Colin Powell as a House Ni**er, and Condaleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas as well.

I have great respect for Black Republicans. Virtually none for professional Black Democrats, too many scandals (Rangel, William Jefferson, Carol Mosley Braun, etc. etc. too much graft, too much coziness with this country’s enemies. And only a token interest in how their people fare.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:50 pm 76. Paul:

JosephMarshall

Did it ever occur to you that people make fun of Obama because he really is inexperienced and has no business running for President? If you look up the eight other Senators who came to the Senate at the same time, six were US Congressman for at least 5 years, one was Secretary of HUD, and one was the Colorado Attorney General. Every single one has more experience either in a higher political office or as a genuine executive. Comparing him to the other members of his Senate class, what’s special about BO except his ability to deliver a speech and repeat the words hope and change over and over?

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:52 pm 77. Dave:

YOu’re mistaking the BE for Operation Chaos.

The reason Hillary started winning was largely because of Rush Limbaugh’s clever plan to extend the agonies of the Dem primary.

Otherwise, I’d say the BE is not so much to blame as a gradual ‘coming to know him’ experience on the left. By the time they realized they’d rather have Hillary, it was too late, but they tried.

I will stipulate, though, that the most likely victims of the BE would be liberals. Conservatives largely ignore race and largely tell the truth. But liberals are perpetually afraid to be ‘off the track’ and will say and present anything to show they’re with the program, even if they’re NOT.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:14 pm 78. Dark Helmet:

You’re all missing the point and just not ready to deal with the real issue here. Well, keep trying. It’s much much more basic than all of this.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:37 pm 79. Banjo:

If we’re talking about “effects,” would BO be where he is without the white guilt effect fostered by a generation of political correctness?

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:06 pm 80. Andronicus Magnus:

Canada has no business lecturing us on whom we should be voting for. Canada is a nation of slaves, not men. If you don’t believe me, google Canada Human Rights Commission”

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:19 pm 81. Dave:

StepheN: Please clarify your humor. First Jewish President since WHICH Roosevelt?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:57 pm 82. Javelin:

It’s good to hear all the good old folks, the regular typee, not the pointy headed arugula eating ones, going on about how they hate Obama for solid, non-racist reasons, and if Obama loses, they don’t want to hear people blaming racism yadda yadda and so on. But if McCain and Palin lose, are we going to hear the same folks whine about how the elite and their liberal lapdogs and sock puppets are bigoted against plain old real Christian Patriotic Americans? You know the real victims of oppression these days. Now, will that be called the Palin effect or something like that?

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:02 pm 83. Javelin:

“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
ex Fetus
Wish someone told your mother that!

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:04 pm 84. Norberto:

Sue:
I live near Canada and met tons of Canadians, most of them like America, but some of them do look down on people like you. But since you are so self absorbed, you actually think your ilk is America. Talk in cheap generalizations like that and you expose yourself as a stupid bigot!

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:08 pm 85. Gregory:

Dark Helmet: One minor quibble.

Judaism is a religion. However, traditionally speaking, it is a religion embraced by a single group of people – to be precise, a subset of Hebrews and descendents of Shem (hence, the term Semite). According to the Biblical historical records, the Jews are the tribe of Judah, son of Israel – therefore they are one of the 12 Israelite tribes.

Now, I dunno about you, you can be a Christian, an out and out atheist, or even (gasp) a Muslim and still be of Jewish heritage. Hence, it is a race (in some sense) as well as a religion. Confusing, but there you are.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:09 pm 86. Judy, NYC:

i am not voting for obama. he is a black separatist. the most momentous civil rights legislation was written into american history, thus creating the biggest black middle class on the planet. young white civil rights workers gave up their lives in that battle, right alongside young blacks. racism was well on its way to extinction, until barry obama showed up. this guy is a monster. it is unconscionable that he should even be considered for the presidency. indeed, it offends me.
i am also not in favor of his islamic fascist friends of america, the honor killers and the scarf wearers roaming the halls of the white house, along with the rabid anti-americans, ayers, wright, farrakhan and the slumlord rezko. it offends me.
he is also an idiot. not the kind with a disability. the kind that is smarmy, self absorbed, lazy of mind, vacant of soul, cynical and stupid enough to think he is getting over on us all. and, that really offends me.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:49 pm 87. Paparon:

Did Obama get this far due to affirmitve action policy? Did the Democrat Party feel it was time to put up a black man and tell the whole world how this nation can elect a black president? Were there any serious vetting for this half black who now is floundering, and perhaps saying to himself, this is over my pay grade? Bradley factor here in the California election for mayor Bradley for the governor, I am not sure that there were any anti black voters to speak of; mayor Bradley was a good man, no scandels and he run the city as well and can be expected.

Sep 11, 2008 - 10:13 pm 88. Henry:

I read all the McCan’t-Do-Anything-For-The-Country supporters here and it’s all just low class, typical, and redundant trashing of Obama. Get some higher education so that your mind will transcend beyond the bounderies of hate.

Sep 12, 2008 - 2:04 am 89. michael:

People say that blacks will vote for Obama just because he’s black, but in fact the percentage of blacks supporting him is no different than the percentage of blacks who support the Democratic candidate in any given presidential electionyear. Roughly 90% of blacks always vote Democratic. And that’s where he stands among blacks, so clearly Republican blacks are not going to vote for him just because he’s black.

Sep 12, 2008 - 3:47 am 90. Anat:

It seems to me that Bradley effect this time is most likely to concern black women. If her man and her sons support Obama, she is not going to disclose a different opinion and risk a family fight. But why should she feel differently from a white woman about those lipstick jokes?

Sep 12, 2008 - 5:22 am 91. Ed Wallis:

Oh, “michael” 3:47…

Your argument doesn’t hold up when you consider Zerobama versus OTHER DEMOCRATS (remember the primaries…?!) such as H. Clinton, J. Edwards….

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:11 am 92. Dr. Frank Lippenheimer:

It sure doesn’t help Obama the way he sounds like Cicero when he’s before the teleprompter (unless he’s addressing a civil rights theme, then he sounds like Jesse Jackson doing Hillary doing MLK), and some peep with a cig on his lip when he’s speakking (semi) unscripted before the faithful. It’s just amazing. I mean, compare his Berlin speech to planet Earth with his stuttering breathalyzer comment or his recent “pig” insult of Sarah Palin. It’s like Jekyll & Hyde.

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:47 am 93. Ex-fetus:

Henry, did your higher education go beyond Bong101? If it did can you recall your Phil101 course? There can be no love without hate. No joy without despair. No triumph without failure. etc., etc. yada yada.
This is not an ad homineum, since it is NOT directed at you, which means it isn’t a personal attack but a general observation. I have noticed that on a blog, those that accuse others of lacking an education, usually don’t have much of one themselves.

“An education isn’t how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It’s being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don’t.”
Anatole France
French novelist (1844 – 1924)

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:34 am 94. RE:

Ex-fetus,

And then there are those who confuse knowledge (acquired from education) for wisdom. Theory, book smarts, and ideology won’t carry one too far on the streets.

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:03 am 95. J.K.:

I disagree. I am sure race will be used if he losses. If he loses the election it is because he is a Marxist. This is something you fellow Marxist are incapable of understanding. This country was founded on individual responsibilty (which you have almost completely wiped out) and the government staying our of your life. I want my country to remain the United States of America and not “Sherwood Forrest”. Has it Ever occurred to you that the real racists are the BLACKS. 95% of them are voting color.The word racist travels on a 2-way street!

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:17 am 96. J.K.:

Joseph Marshall You sound just like Marc Lemont Hill. Are you black?

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:35 am 97. Dark Helmet:

Gregry,

Nice try, no cigar. It is not confusing at all. Religions are not races. PERIOD.

Therefor, racism can not be applied to any religious group. That is the simple, plain fact.

Please stick to reality.

Sep 12, 2008 - 9:09 am 98. Sarah:

Barak Obama is not BLACK, he is MUSLIM!!!! And I would like to know why he is so ashamed of his WHITE heritage??? He is 50% caucasian (WHITE) and less than 7% black, but you never hear that out of his mouth! The reason he likes to align himself with ONLY his “BLACK” heritage is because this is what is going to help him win black voters. I’m personally a little offended that he is being so racist against me as a white person. I don’t consider it to be reverse racism, it’s just plain RACIST! I won’t even go into all the reasons that he is sexist as well which only serves to alienate him more from me!

Sep 12, 2008 - 9:15 am 99. RE:

C’mon Sarah,

Drop the muslim thing. There might be some muslim associations in his background, but he follows some Marxist bastardization of Christianity called Black Liberation Theology.

Besides, Michelle would beat the tar out of the man-boy-child if he suggested she cocoon herself in a burka.

Sep 12, 2008 - 9:33 am 100. MarkD:

I’d no more discuss politics than I’d put a McCain bumper sticker on my car. Why? I’d lay odds the car would get keyed or I’d get into a pointless argument. It’s my opinion Senator Obama has no accomplishments to qualify him for the Senate, much less the presidency.

Race has nothing to do with it. I’d vote for Clarence Thomas were he running. I’d vote for Thomas Sowell. I’d vote for Walter Williams. I wish it were any of them and not McCain running on the Republican ticket. It’s not. It’s tolerable, barely versus the unaccomplished most liberal voting record in the Senate.

Save the race card for when a Colin Powell runs against a John McCain. There racism could actually be a factor. You’d have two men with actual accomplishments and military experience and moderate positions. I can say I don’t know who I’d vote for in that race. This one, it isn’t even a question.

Sep 12, 2008 - 10:08 am 101. pauldanish:

Another place where the Bradley effect might be pronounced is Virginia. There are a large number of federal workers living in northern Virginia who have compelling personal reasons to disguise any racial prejudice they might harbor: Even a hint of it could get them fired.

Indeed, before there was a “Bradley Effect” there was a “Wilder Effect” named after the first black governor of Virginia. Wilder won his election, but he ran about 7 percentage points behind his polling. That’s pretty pronounced.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:02 am 102. rk:

Henry

when I read your comment I immediately thought you must be black. Do you also watch “The View”?

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:46 am 103. rk:

MJ. If you are a Canadian, perhaps a bomb in the middle of Toronto might help your understanding of reality.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:01 pm 104. rk:

MJ Sometimes experiencing something tragic changes ones opinion. I certainly hope Toronto never faces what we faced on 911. However, if you should, I really don’t think you would have the same feelings as you have at this moment. If you prefer that Russia or China be the superpower, I really think you are in for a rude awakening.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:21 pm 105. Sarah:

Dear “RE”,
I’m happy to leave “the Muslim thing” out of it, but I’m still curious as to why he refuses to admit (or possibly just refuses to mention) that he is 50% white.
I happen to completely agree with you about his wife beating him, I’m guessing this is why he can duck and swerve like a champion whenever a serious question is “thrown” his direction.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:38 pm 106. urbanleftbehind:

pauldanish:

Obama should start working on another subconscious fear of those same northern Virginians – getting tossed on their keister by a Palin purge (or consolidation) of cabinet posts and attendant federal agencies (and not just the social service type ones that typically employ Marylanders).

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:42 pm 107. Dark Helmet:

“he suggested she cocoon herself in a burka”

Are you all going to let the she co coon comment go by?

Okay children.

Racism 101

Lesson #1.

Sit down, shut up & Pay attention. Here at the Dark Helmet School for the blind , we use 3 foot rulers , not AADD drugs.

Not confronting racism is a form of racism.

It’s a slick way of getting it in by attaching it to a point you would not normally disagree with there by giving it some level of acceptability because you don’t want to disagree with the context that it was presented in.

RE:

“Drop the muslim thing. There might be some muslim associations in his background, but he follows some Marxist bastardization of Christianity called Black Liberation Theology.

Besides, Michelle would beat the tar out of the man-boy-child if he suggested she cocoon herself in a burka.”

You have a racial slur being used here in connection with an acceptable idea. The proper point to be, point out the unacceptable and move forward with what is.

It is not proper in America to call a black person a ‘coon’, a co coon ( meaning the other coon in charge )

Ask anyone who is black, they will tell you please do not call me a coon, or a co coon, that it is offensive. To which you as a person who strives to deal with your own racism and how you treat others would say, “okay.”

That would be the end of it.

If you bring up other things that are not part of what your actions are, then it becomes another subject. Do not go there. You can only control what comes out of your mouth. Others actions do not justify yours when they do not directly pertain to you.

Oops, that’s the bell. well I hoped you all learned something here today kids, places are not races and more imprtantly, neither are religions or sexual orientations.

Oh wait, RE meant wrap yourself up like a pre-butterfly, never mind, then.

Yeah, he’s right, that bitch would freak out……..

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:58 pm 108. Fla Chuck:

“I am sure that, sadly, there are some white Americans who will not vote for Obama becluse of his race. (snip)

I do not think that blacks voting for Obama is, in itself, racist.”

How can you even *think* this stuff, much less put it together in one post? This is just as stupid, nonsensical, and just plain *wrong* as saying, “I think women should share their locker rooms with men, but it’s understanable if the men want to stick togetner and exclude the women. How do you even think this stuff without your head exploding?

My goodness – even as a kid I knew it was wrong when a white voting for a white because he was white was wrong & racist, but a negro voting for a negro because he was black (Yes, really am that old) was “power block voting” and was good.

I call BULLSH!T!!!

Sep 12, 2008 - 2:23 pm 109. 888:

Obama’s emotion-laden supporters always see things from the either the racist or ultra-liberal point of view — in other words, if you don’t vote for Obama, it means you’re either prejudice against blacks, or you’re out-of-touch and aren’t cool because you’re not with the elitist, celebrity crowd who support Obama. Look at how Rosanne Barr criticizes Jon Voight, who is a Republican supporter of McCain, and also Rosanne’s criticism of Voight’s daughter, Angelina Jolie, who is intelligent and courageous enough to tell Hollywood that she’s an Independent and still has not decided on which candidate to vote for: http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/08/jon_voight.php. Obama’s extremist supporters villify anyone who goes against their positions and candidates. They don’t respect other views. Rather than discussing the issues intelligently and respectfully, they get personal and insult and degrade the opposition.

Sep 12, 2008 - 5:26 pm 110. Javelin:

So now Obama and the blacks are the racists? Are all those Irish American Catholic who voted for and venerated JFK anti-WASP bigots too? According to con logic: racism is overplayed, I’m sick of being called a racist, and the real racists are the liberals, finally, the most oppressed and scorned group of people are white conservative Christians.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:10 pm 111. Ex-fetus:

“Therefor, racism can not be applied to any religious group. That is the simple, plain fact.

Please stick to reality”

The root word they are looking for is Bigot.

No, NOT Bardot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot

Or at least I don’t think so, although I might be guilty of being overly clever here.
That’s OK, the ones that use Raciest in place of bigoted prolly won’t get it anyway. It’s not really their fault. The PC mavens made the two words synonymous a while back and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.”
Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 – 1865)

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:17 pm 112. god:

Racism is pretty much ingrained with American people over 25. There are some exceptions. It seems that our young people are less racist these days. The whites have black friends, Asian, Latinos, but not necessarily in reverse. Or maybe they just are more polite . . .

The most sincere expression of racism are gangs.

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:35 pm 113. Another View:

This world is the White mans colony and don’t ever understate that fact. Jewish is a religion. Many Jews pretended or converted to Christianity to escape persecution. Not in any way simplifying the Jewish Holocaust. But to say Jews are the most oppressed people is flat out libelous and disingenuous.

When my tax dollars go to support Zionist crimes against humanity and Israel continues to keep her foot on the throat of the Palestinians. While White Jewish Males dominate the media. I am not quite convinced of your oppression.

But I do Know the African Holocaust is Roughly 99 million and counting. The only Jews suffering are the Jews in Ethiopia. They suffer with the rest of the Blacks in this White colony.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:17 am 114. Another View:

DOG-g d
what the heck are you talking about? Are you saying young Minorities don’t have friends of other races?

If that is your intention you are wrong. Minorities are way more receptive to Whites than vice-versa. I have never met a black person without white friends in my life. Although I have met Whites who admitted I was the first Black they ever had a real conversation with. And that’s just a conversation.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:25 am 115. Ed Wallis:

“Another View,” THANK YOU VERY MUCH for debunking that old adage that “Blacks can’t be racist.”

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:49 pm 116. Evan Sayet:

Stephen, just wondering, as I wrote on my blog, did you ever consider that the Bradley Effect might be blacks who don’t want to be seen as race-traitors (and viciously attacked as Uncle Toms, etc) who say to pollsters that they’re voting for black candidates and then, when they are in the privacy of the booth, vote their real, American (as opposed to race) values?

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:53 pm 117. dar:

You don’t have to be a racist not to vote black. There is so much going against Obama. He is an ex-muslim, his father a muslim, his mother an unmarried atheist. Grandparents socialist. Dope user, admitted. Lived in some alleys in N.Y. for awhile, strange. This guy does no way fit the picture of a u.S. president.!! He is a socialist, wants redistribution of wealth, that will be the pay back for slavery, I guess. Wants more Affirmative Action, only the Blacks benefit. So, to believe it is BECAUSE he is Black, just doesn’t wash.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:33 pm 118. dar:

sarah: Obama pimped out his white grandparents when it suited him. otherwise he pushes the Black portion of himself. Refuses to push any of the Arab portion from the father’s side. We all know why.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:37 pm 119. god:

Another View 11:25 am:

Maybe I’m not up-to-date in <25 race relations. But I do have the feeling that young people are less racist than the rest of us.

dar 4:33 pm

Atheists have much higher standards and ethics than most religious people.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religious beliefs, so a President could be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, Jewish, or atheist.
Respect for others only brings peace. And also we have separation of Church and State.

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:21 am 120. Dem Party Elite Freaking Out:

[...] Stephen Green had a good article about the Bradley Effect a few days ago. Posted by Dan Collins @ 10:23 am | Trackback Share This [...]

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:32 am 121. bs:

Another View @ 11:25: “The only Jews suffering are the Jews in Ethiopia. They suffer with the rest of the Blacks in this White colony.”

Matter of fact, Ethiopia has never been colonised. Furhermore, the so-called black holocaust is not the fault of colonialists, racists, bigots or Nazis. In fact, the only reason the toll is as low as a hundred million (granting for the sake of argument your statistics) is precisely because of Western aid. Hundreds of millions of Africans survive only because of food handouts. All that achieves is uncontrolled population growth, which only aggravates the problem. You think you’ve seen a black holocaust? One good crop failure in America, and the deaths in Africa will dwarf all the famines, plagues and wars of history. But that will also be the fault of the racist Whites, won’t it?

BTW Henry @ 2:04, your own “education” apparently didn’t teach you how to spell, much less think. You are the living proof that American universities are now just indoctrination centers.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:11 am 122. MM:

This post is a bit too shallow. The “Bradley Effect” may be in play for a small minority of voters. However, in my opinion, the “Bradley Effect” is essentially a creation of the media and the political class to rationalize away the fact that voters did not buy into the politics/policies of Ed Bradley. Since the media “vetted” the policies of the candidate, and those policies adhered to “mainstream” Democratic Party principles, then the only explanation for the rejection of Ed Bradley by the voters had to be latent racism.

Racism exists on the part of all voting groups to some extent or another. When personal and political decisions are based striclty on the color of one’s skin, or ethnic background, then I will agree that’s racism. However, the media and the political class of this country suffer from the same kind of failure, and the resulting elitism is racism by another name. Whether you like it or not, the perception of voters regarding a candidate’s elitism (or racism) will always trump the message, and asking voters to vote against their self-interest is a one-way ticket to rejection in the voting booth.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:19 am 123. Another View:

Eddie Wails- Of course blacks can be racist. Racism is a part of our world. But I am not racist if that is what you are trying to insinuate. I have posted that to you in the past so quit already.(and it’s no old adage it’s a myth perpetuated by people like you)

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

What are you saying Eddie Wails?

But your racism is being aware of reality or Defacto policy. As usual a person trying to change the definition. to gloss over real racism. Racist to you is a black man who views the world different than yourself. And is intelligent enough to articulate those FACTS.

BS
I am not blaming the “White Man” for anything. But the west did in fact colonize the world. And all the wealth and resources are in Western control. Except for the regimes the west puts in place to protect it’s assets. Also trust me I know Ethiopia is Maybe the only country in Africa the Europeans didn’t colonize. I said the Ethiopian Jews are the Jews who are really suffering. But the Italians did successfully destabilize the country. The UN and US stood by while they massacred millions with chemical weapons. While trying to colonize. As did the British, Germans, Russians, French, Portuguese, Americans, Spanish and who ever else I forgot. But that can’t be why Africa is Messed up. Same as South and Central America.

You won’t learn about real issues on FOX Rupert has his own Agenda.

The Western World is directly responsible for the condition of Africa. That is precisely why they give Aid. Most Aid is from private charities. You don’t realize that. I know the “White Man” is not the problem. It’s those men who happened to be White who have committed atrocities. But these same men use there color to further there agenda by brainwashing the average working man.

If you would stop treating history as if it started 50 or even 100 years ago you would see. And its not about guilt. It’s the simple facts. You have no real clue of history. Or you choose to forget.

BS you stated “One good crop failure in America, and the deaths in Africa will dwarf all the famines, plagues and wars of history. But that will also be the fault of the racist Whites, won’t it?” You tell me BS “great initials”.

In the 1990s, African governments sharply reduced or eliminated duties on imported rice, urged on by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and some influential free-market economists. The assumption was that richer countries would reciprocate by curtailing subsidies to their own farmers. That never happened. In response, a few African countries have raised duties on rice, violating a key tenet of neoliberal trade philosophy. Protectionism is supposed to be bad—so bad that international advisers have spent decades convincing African governments to open their markets as wide as possible to imports.

What Uganda recognized is that the world’s major rice exporters actually practice the opposite of what the World Bank and IMF preach. Much of the rice grown in Pakistan, Vietnam, and especially the United States is stimulated by subsidy payments to farmers. Then the rice is “dumped” into African markets at low prices—sometimes below the cost of production. These producers also maintain stiff duties against imported rice, contradicting free-market ideology but helping protect domestic farmers against global competition. And for good reason: Virtually every successful Asian economy was built on selective trade barriers—and in China and India, the world’s two fastest growing economies, such barriers remain in force. Even South Korea and Japan maintain massive duties on imported rice simply to protect the livelihoods of their own rice farmers. Rice duties are working in Uganda—and also in Nigeria, where rice output is also soaring. In both countries, the value of imported rice is declining and locally produced rice is winning the hearts and minds of ordinary consumers.

entire article
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4306

And before any of you idiots say “go Back”. Let me just say I am no fool. I have 10 traceable generations in the U.S. It is my home and country. But that in no way means I am gonna swallow all the BULLSH*T that gov’t feeds me. I am loyal to the land. Screw corrupt politicians. In addition “your damn skippy I’m gonna be where all the wealth was horded to”. And I wish the best for all people.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:35 am 124. Another View:

BS
The diamonds, The oil, The Cocoa, the timber,The tropical islands, The beautiful resorts.

Who do you think controls that stuff? And how did they get control?

I wouldn’t argue the African Leaders should have been more careful with the Europeans. But that doesn’t change the fact that the west has and still is raping Africa.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:52 am 125. Vodkapundit » Don’t Get Cocky:

[...] Stephen Green on 14 Sep 2008 at 12:02 pm Last week I stirred up some fuss over at Pajamas Media for daring to speculate a bit about the Bradley Effect, and what it might mean for the Obama Campaign. Now an unnamed Obama [...]

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:02 am 126. Ed Wallis:

“Another View”, THANK YOU for proving your racist perspective beyond a shadow of a doubt (…or, is “shadow” supposedly R A C I S T these days according to you, you fool?!)

…anyone who disagrees with the white man… yada yada yada

BADA BING! BADA BANG!! BADA BOOM!!!

You da man! AV!!

Sorry that your screed, based on socialist resentments, just doesn’t “speak” to many, anymore.

Keep da faith, ‘bro’! Right on!

Socialism IS NOT an American value. Please consider moving to Russia or China.

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:14 pm 127. Another View:

Eddie Wails:

You did not quote me. So don’t pretend you did. Ed I am a Capitalist. Ed I am Well off. Ed I love America.

You are just stupid to look at information objectively. Or you just lie to the working and middle class American because you are greedy.

I know you are intolerant. Look at your argument.

“Sorry that your screed, based on socialist resentments, just doesn’t “speak” to many, anymore.

Keep da faith, ‘bro’! Right on!

Socialism IS NOT an American value. Please consider moving to Russia or China”.

Neither is Fascism.

I warn you. Do not debate me to spare your embarrassment.

You show your ignorance easily.

And again
And before any of you idiots say “go Back”. Let me just say I am no fool. I have 10 traceable generations in the U.S. It is my home and country. But that in no way means I am gonna swallow all the BULLSH*T that gov’t feeds me. I am loyal to the land. Screw corrupt politicians. In addition “your damn skippy I’m gonna be where all the wealth was horded to”. And I wish the best for all people.

Sep 14, 2008 - 5:19 pm 128. Another View:

Ed Wallis:

“Another View”, THANK YOU for proving your racist perspective beyond a shadow of a doubt (…or, is “shadow” supposedly R A C I S T these days according to you, you fool?!)

Only when you stop to make lame perceived comment like yours above.

Sep 14, 2008 - 5:23 pm 129. ProgMeister:

Bradley effect? spend a little time in Texas, where there are people who will be voting Obama but will not admit it in public …

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:26 pm 130. bs:

Another View:

You like my initials? Knock yourself out, I’m not one of those insecure individuals you’re used to who run from name-calling. Sticks and stones…

Before you presume to judge my knowledge of history, you should know a few facts. I’m old enough to remember the past 50 years of history. I don’t have ten traceable generations of American ancestry – in fact I have none. I live in Africa – one of those evil colonists who are responsible for the present condition of Africa. By which I mean, such depredations as the wheel, written language, stable government, roads, electricity, agriculture … insofar as those have survived decolonization. And I have watched that process in my lifetime.

Forgive me if I oversimplify your rather longwinded argument. The problem of agriculture in Africa is not tariffs that prevent African farmers from competing on world markets. It is simply that Africa doesn’t produce enough food to feed its population. This is not due to colonialism or any lack of physical capacity, but purely human factors. Rhodesia used to export food; Zimbabwe exports only refugees. South Africa is rapidly going the same way.

So, the only way to prevent mass starvation in Africa is food aid. Private, public, what’s the difference? So millions survive on handouts. If people can get free food from charities, where’s the incentive to grow your own? How can a farmer sell his produce? Result: less production, more demand, more charity, until the bubble eventually bursts.

And spare me the “rape of Africa” sob stories. Africans had no use for minerals before the colonists came and exploited them. Left to their own devices, they still wouldn’t know they were there, or what to do with them. In less than a hundred years, colonists developed mining and agricultural industries in Rhodesia that sustained the country. Zimbabwe inherited a thriving economy and an infrastructure that Africans could never have developed on their own. I think they got a pretty good bargain. Today, the mines are idle, agriculture is all but dead, and the people are starving. Believe me, colonialism was the golden age of Africa. Never before has there been such progress in such a short time. For Africa, never again.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:27 pm 131. Joe:

Screw the Bradley effect. Obama’s problems are of his own creation. People on the left and right are forced to project virtues or vices onto him because he hasn’t accomplished a damn thing in his life except advance the cause that is Obama.

Is he corrupt? – we don’t know. He certainly hasn’t been shy about benefitting from those who are though.

Is he a far leftist? – we don’t know. He certainly has a background which is full of intimate associations with those who are though. And he isn’t honest about it.

Is he a narcissist? – This one is not even arguable. Yes.

Is he a capable leader? – we don’t know. He hasn’t accomplished anything legislatively. Certainly hasn’t led any fights for anything or broken with his party, ever.

Is he an open book? – clearly he is not. I have a million questions about him still, after all his time in the public spotlight, and the mainstream media refuses to do their due dilligence and put him under the microscope as they do with other candidates.

The problem is that there are only two things you can reasonably take away from Obama’s history. That he has gone to great pains to conceal just how radical his beliefs are or that he really is fairly mainstream left and benign but doesn’t believe in anything enough to fight, has been fairly incompetent to effect change when he’s had the opportunity to do so, lacks the backbone to chasten the scumbaggy people he has been surrounded by and is basically a wet noodle who talks a good game and little else.

Sep 15, 2008 - 3:24 am 132. Another View:

BS

I respectfully disagree strongly. The difference between private charity and Govt. aid is very different. Charity is from the people. Gov’t aid is almost nothing and comes with policy. It is well known since decolonization the west has tried through policy and terrorism to slow Africas Economic progress. Who were Amin and Mobuto puppets of? And who sufferd?

You said;
So, the only way to prevent mass starvation in Africa is food aid. Private, public, what’s the difference? So millions survive on handouts. If people can get free food from charities, where’s the incentive to grow your own? How can a farmer sell his produce? Result: less production, more demand, more charity, until the bubble eventually bursts.

And spare me the “rape of Africa” sob stories. Africans had no use for minerals before the colonists came and exploited them. Left to their own devices, they still wouldn’t know they were there, or what to do with them. In less than a hundred years, colonists developed mining and agricultural industries in Rhodesia that sustained the country. Zimbabwe inherited a thriving economy and an infrastructure that Africans could never have developed on their own. I think they got a pretty good bargain. Today, the mines are idle, agriculture is all but dead, and the people are starving. Believe me, colonialism was the golden age of Africa. Never before has there been such progress in such a short time. For Africa, never again.

Venezuela Just realized the power of there natural resources fairly recently. African countries would have done the same.

Your Leo Frobenius idealolgy is quite obvious and disturbing. Africa has had civilizations prior to Europe. They had the wheel, Written language and everything you claim they didn’t. Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, Begin, are just some of the major states.

Do you know what happened before your life in Africa? I did not call you evil. Nor did I say white Africans are evil. What I said was the west Stole Africas resources for themselves. Progress for who? Not native Africans. Of course they built roads they had to get the loot from place to place. Africa is a huge continent of course some parts did better than others. But to lump all as incompetent is flat out disgusting. Who are you kidding? The decline of Africa was the colonization of Africa bottom line.

Chagos Islands- Diego Garcia ring a bell
Just one of many

Sep 15, 2008 - 5:00 am 133. oracle:

Nice column. I think you are spot on, and figure 3 to 5 points for the Bradley Effect. Maybe more.

The “Bradley Effect” was the explanation used by pollsters to explain how they could get it so wrong. Really really wrong, way outside margin of error. And pollsters hate to get it wrong, that is how they make their living.

I’m not going to dance around a key issue I see, unlike most other folks posting here. No resorting to in-laws in Michigan or in a better world all this would be irrelevent. Let me lay it on the line. I’ll NEVER vote for anyone that would loose upon our country “affirmative action on steroids”. Obama is not a strong leader, and there would be no check or balance on about 30 million of his followers who would demand their piece of the American dream right now. They would expect every single patronage job, promotion, contract, business deal, grant, etc. to go to an African American. And they would not understand when Obama said no. After all, they got the keys to the car.

Somehow, I don’t think Obama has it in him to face down the Black Nationalists — they are pretty scary whoever you are.

Sep 15, 2008 - 3:32 pm 134. mogulus:

very well written and witty article. best bradley info i’ve seen in this election period. I don’t personally mind Obama but i’ll be dipped if i’m going to vote for someone just because of their race or skin color.

what you said about voting for your like skin color being your right, is correct. But call it what it is. Racism. the question is, is racism really wrong? probably not in the end, as long as it doesn’t take away anyone else’s rights.

sad, but hey. what are we gonna do? outlaw independent thought?

Sep 17, 2008 - 6:15 am 135. letha:

what I am hearing here is people saying that white is right..and black is bad…i might be wrong but I have heard this before.

Sep 18, 2008 - 5:11 pm 136. Rene Norton:

What about a Palin effect

Don’t you think we will have to name another phenomenum after this election?

Women, 60% of the democratic party surely not admitting to their fellows that they will vote for McCain/Palin

Women for McCain will be underestimated in the polls…surely

Sep 19, 2008 - 7:28 am 137. Joseph King:

discrimination runs in all directions on all kinds of different topics, that’s just the nature of human beings.

Oct 8, 2008 - 5:17 pm 138. brwsta:

LIVING IN nEW ORLEANS

Oct 8, 2008 - 7:01 pm 139. brwsta:

Anyone who has their eyes open is aware of the real racsim in this country-thAT IS

Oct 8, 2008 - 7:03 pm 140. brwsta:

Anyone who has their eyes open is aware of the real racism in this country-that is the inability of blacks to support a good person who isn’t black…Rep Jefferson of New Orleans (remember him-90,000 bucks found in his freezer;all of his colleagues pleaded guilty)lead in this weekend’s Dem primary and will win since his opponent isn’t black;MLK wished for people to be judged not by the color of their skin but on their character-a message that most whites but few blacks have embraced

Oct 8, 2008 - 7:09 pm 141. Signs of Progress in the Privacy of the Voting Booth « Grandtheory:

[...] toward blacks to pollsters than they do in the voting booth. Some, like blogger Stephen Green at Pajamas Media, are worried that the Wilder Effect might produce a surprising Obama loss on Nov. [...]

Oct 8, 2008 - 8:00 pm 142. grandtheory:

I just published my very first blog. I linked to your blog on the Bradley Effect. I would be interested in hearing your opinion of my thoughts. Thank you.

Oct 8, 2008 - 8:03 pm 143. RaceWire: Thinking More About Post-Electoral Racial Justice « Stop Dog Whistle Racism!:

[...] There has been a lot of talk the last few weeks about what an Obama victory might mean for race relations and racism in the US, with people weighting in from all sides. You can find a few examples here, here, here and here. [...]

Oct 24, 2008 - 12:10 am 144. Mariua:

Fantastic, amazing site design. What CMS do you use ?

Sep 28, 2009 - 4:05 pm 145. Sizif:

Very the curious portal design. What CMS do you use ?

Oct 9, 2009 - 4:13 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: