i would love to be asked by a polster on the street. LOL
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER
>
> October 15, 2008
> Ann Coulter
>
> With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a
> lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media to wail about
> institutional racism in America.
>
> Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in
> 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that
> black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.
>
> First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being
> accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than
> the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier than flood or famine,
> terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it's even scarier than
> "food insecurity."
>
> Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be
> forced to explain why they're not voting for the African-American.
>
> This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question: "Whom do
> you support for president?"
>
> Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey
> Mouse.")
>
> Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just about
> the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were a little
> more moderate -- hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my convictions force me
> to vote for the candidate who just happens to be white. Say, do you know
> where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?"
>
> In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist,
> apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a
> Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool.
>
> Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post
> in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the
> polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were
> wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually
> by about 6 to 10 points.
>
> In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent.
> And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the
> election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6
> percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
>
> Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I
> found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.
>
> In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41
> percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it
> was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
>
> In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the
> largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York
> Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to
> Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed
> Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll
> had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated
> Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
>
> In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent
> to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading
> the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent
> to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for
> anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible
> journalistic entity.)
>
> A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the
> story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by
> a mere 5 points.
>
> Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to
> 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error"
> mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
>
> In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7
> percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct.
> 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS
> News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.
>
> So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only
> 5.3 points.
>
> In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on
> Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a
> massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
>
> In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls
> accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al
> Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to
> give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on
> Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
>
> In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate --
> not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end,
> Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the
> October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points
> ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or
> Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.
>
> *www.anncoulter.com*
>
>
> >
>
--
*~@):~{>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
