--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why can't Barky close the deal?
The latest Gallup poll puts him ahead by 2 measely points...well within
the margin of error.
Of course, this is without the Bradley Effect factored in:
STRESS BY GALLUP: OBAMA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why can't Barky close the deal?
The latest Gallup poll puts him ahead by 2 measely points...well within
the margin of error.
Of course, this is without the Bradley Effect factored in:
STRESS BY GALLUP: OBAMA
My guess is that the importance of the so-called Bradley effect has
been vastly overestimated. The Bradley effect happened in the early
1980s, right? Things have changed a lot since then. I can't see the
reasoning behind it anyway. The idea is that people don't admit to
pollsters that they won't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that the importance of the so-called Bradley effect has
been vastly overestimated. The Bradley effect happened in the early
1980s, right? Things have changed a lot since then. I can't see the
reasoning behind
On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:33 AM, do.rflex wrote:
The Bradley effect is named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley,
a black, who lost a close 1982 gubernatorial election in California
after holding a solid lead in the polls.
It's pretty sad, isn't it, that people like shemp are stuck
*hoping*
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:33 AM, do.rflex wrote:
The Bradley effect is named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley,
a black, who lost a close 1982 gubernatorial election in California
after holding a solid lead
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that the importance of the so-called Bradley effect has
been vastly overestimated. The Bradley effect happened in the early
1980s, right? Things have changed a lot since then. I can't see the
reasoning behind
Sal wrote:
It's pretty sad, isn't it, that people like shemp are
stuck *hoping* enough Americans are still too racist
to vote for a black man, at least enough to swing the
election. Says volumes, doesn't it? It's all they
have left.
So, Sal, we should vote for Barky because he's half
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
wrote:
Why can't Barky close the deal?
The latest Gallup poll puts him ahead by 2 measely points...well
within
the margin of error.
Of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that the importance of the so-called Bradley effect has
been vastly overestimated. The Bradley effect happened in the early
1980s, right? Things have changed a lot since then. I can't see the
reasoning behind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:33 AM, do.rflex wrote:
The Bradley effect is named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom
Bradley,
a black, who lost a close 1982 gubernatorial election in
California
after holding a solid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
You obviously don't understand the Bradley Effect. Democrats who
will NOT vote for Obama are more likely to SAY in polls that they
will vote for Obama and then not do it on election day, not
Republicans.
George Will noted conservative commentator last Sunday:
95% of what governments DO is redistribute wealth.
The socialism charge against Obama is bogus. Our free market system
is a farce of controls driven by private interest groups. Calling
Obama Marxist after our government just stepped in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Will noted conservative commentator last Sunday:
95% of what governments DO is redistribute wealth.
The socialism charge against Obama is bogus. Our free market system
is a farce of controls driven by
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Will noted conservative commentator last Sunday:
95% of what governments DO is redistribute wealth.
The socialism charge against Obama is bogus. Our free market system
is a farce of controls driven by
People are so engrained in the two party system that if you're
against one of them, it's automatically assumed that you're for the
other.
Good point, and I stand corrected if I mischaracterized your POV.
I am not drinking any cool-aid on him, but I think Obama is the better
choice this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are so engrained in the two party system that if you're
against one of them, it's automatically assumed that you're for
the
other.
Good point, and I stand corrected if I mischaracterized your POV.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are so engrained in the two party system that if you're
against one of them, it's automatically assumed that you're for
the
other.
Good point, and I stand corrected if I mischaracterized your POV.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that the importance of the so-called Bradley effect has
been vastly overestimated. The Bradley effect happened in the early
1980s, right? Things have changed a lot since then. I can't see the
reasoning behind
19 matches
Mail list logo
