|
Alumbrado -> RE: The race factor (9/24/2008 11:38:21 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
quote:
ORIGINAL: Taboo4Two
There is a great deal of current research that shows the "Bradley / Wilder Effect" to be a thing of the past. http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf
In the most recent primary elections Obama consistently outperformed projections in his battle with Clinton. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html
Obama might lose because he is black and McCain might lose because he is old. Predjudice is alive and well in 2008.
Domino
Afternoon Domino,
Did you read the study that you linked to first? They found that there is a definite Bradley (Wilder) effect, especially when it influential. They suggest that the Whitman effect is a myth.
Secondly, I would suggest that the study in the second link is faulty. One simple fact is left out of that study, it was a study of the current Dem primary, Bradley and Wilder both won their primaries, thus the theories based on their names are still intact. Also it doesn't take into account that there were 2 "minorities" running in the primaries, which makes the comparisons even more suspect.
Just my thoughts on it,
Thadius
The Wilder effect was quite simply that people lie to pollsters, pollsters lie about results, and ever since Dewey 'defeated' Truman, it has had more to do with polls being unreliable, than with race..
People will use race, religion, gender, age, push-poll results, doctored photos, gossip, and any other bit of agit prop they are fed to rationalize their voting choices, but pollsters and political statisticians have a vested interest in obfuscating the fact that they can no more measure 'attitudes' or 'performance' in advance, than any other purported fortune tellers... its just that the other fortune tellers don't have quite so much money at stake in keeping the fraud going.
|
|
|
|
