November 5, 2009
They keep trying to bring race into the election. Let it go. It reflects ignorance and laziness.
JULIAN BORGER from the guardian.co.uk.
US election 2008: After everything, race still played a part. If it had been left to white voters, John McCain would be president-elect this morning by a significant margin.
This man is an utter moron. I’m not going to bother going into his crappy ass article. I just want to show that the idiots in the media will continue to point to race when it was a complete non-issue. Obama got the same number of whites as Clinton 43%. If you want to talk about race – black participation was just slightly higher than 2004 – so it was the white and Hispanic vote that WON him the election – not the black vote. Let it go – race was not a factor. If it were he wouldn’t have won in a landslide > 7 million votes. And had he counted on the black vote to turn out to make him president it wouldn’t have happened.
The Bradley Effect IS A MYTH. IT DOES NOT EXIST. and of course the man who first described it isn’t going to let it go. The candidate himself said race would not be a factor and it wasn’t.
Here’s another one from the GlobeandMail.com TU THANH HA
Charles Henry, the political scientist who first documented the Bradley effect: “It’s taken two wars and almost a depression to get people to overlook the skin colour and go for the qualified candidate. Obviously it’s a major milestone but I’m not ready to put to bed the notion that race is dead in American politics.” Dr. Hopkins said the Bradley effect has not had an impact since the mid-1990s.
Of course, he’s not going to give up. He invented it – he has to keep it alive. A black man in President of the United States and he isn’t ready to put it to bed? What’s it gonna take? What higher office is there? And then this. I’d laugh but these folks are dead serious it seems.
Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford University political scientist: There may be a slight penalty for race. If it was a white candidate, it would probably be a wider gap.”
Wider gap? 52-47 winning by > 7 MILLION VOTES?
This utter madness. It would have been a wider gap if the 8 MILLION eligible black voters decided to actuall vote for Change!.
Another from Wales online by Jon Roper , Professor of American Studies ‘Bradley effect’ will tell a lot about US voters (emphasis added)
In 1982, exit polls predicted that Bradley would win the race to become Governor of California by a comfortable margin. He lost. Bradley was black and running against a white opponent. His defeat led to speculation about the so-called “Bradley effect”. Voters may claim that a candidate’s race does not affect their preference when asked directly by pollsters but when they actually vote it still determines their decision.
Two factors may help Obama neutralise and transcend the “Bradley effect”. The first is his drive to register more voters in key states, not least among the African-American population. If they think his victory is possible, they will turn up to vote for him in unprecedented numbers. Second, Obama’s central message of change is generational as well as political. His appeal to younger and hopefully more colour-blind voters is one which polls can find difficult to measure.
What nobody seems to recall is that Bradley won the vote that day. He lost because of a large flood of absentee ballots from Deukejian’s home area. Bradley lost by 93,345K votes out of 7,648,683 votes. There were also issues on the ballot that factored in, the underpolled Armenian vote, it was a weekend poll, a negative ad by Bradley during the last week, coupled with a surge by Deukejian and a 3rd party candidate.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
THE BRADLEY EFFECT IS A MYTH.
BRADLEY WON THE VOTE THAT DAY.
HE LOST THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF UNDERPOLLING, ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND HIS OWN STANCE ON THE ISSUES.
Polls are flawed. I was polled and I lied on every question and they had the wrong city and name. And black voters coming out only because they think he can win? It was not unprecendented. It was 13% slightly higher than 2004.
Therefore without the white vote (43%) and Hispanic vote (67%) Asian (61%) he would not have won. End of story.
Mercury News MARY ANNE OSTROM a view from a different Standford Professor.
Standford Professor: David M. Kennedy, the Pulitzer Prize-winning history professor: “He’s not merely an agent of change as the first black president, he represents a culmination of a series of demographic, cultural and political transformations that have been aligning for two generations. White attitudes about the race issue are changing. If nothing else, this election demonstrates that.”
OK. PLEASE. NO MORE BRADLEY EFFECT.
Do some writing instead.