The American Spectator

Spicy Joker| 11.5.08 @ 2:45AM

Well said. Nevertheless, I still don't understand how Pennsylvania could vote so overwhelmingly for Obama. McCain didn't even come close.

Fred| 11.5.08 @ 3:00AM

The Bradley Effect has nothing to do with actual racism. It was the fear of being perceived as racist, so you would say you would vote for the black guy when you were not going to do so. Why am I not surprised that one of the bargain basement bloggers here doesn't understand that?

Captain America| 11.5.08 @ 3:36AM

The Bradley Effect is a canard.

How about the O.J. Murder Trial Effect, given that 90 percent of all blacks voted for the black candidate.

Theresa| 11.5.08 @ 5:36AM

When speaking to my husband about this topic we spoke of something else. Someone did a 'man on the street' interview recently. He interviewed all registered black voters. This interviewer would twist things around like 'so you're voting for Barack Obama, it's really good that he is a strong pro-lifer isn't? - response 'Oh, yes he is my man he will defend life'.
My point is this - is there any opposite of the bradley effect? Or maybe not opposite but 80% of these folks interviewed didn't know anything about where Obama was on important issues. One such person was asked 'So what do you think about Obama's pick of Palin as VP? - reponse 'great he made a great choice'.
Any response to this thought would be appreciated.

W. James Antle III| 11.5.08 @ 9:55AM

Fred, that isn't the context in which the Bradley effect was discussed in this election, with people raising the idea that a critical mass of white voters would never vote for the black candidate no matter what the polls said. Of course a lot of anti-Bradley, anti-Wilder voters were nonracists who didn't want to be perceived as such. But so what? That's not the way the Bradley effect itself was perceived by the electorate or the media, and it isn't for the most part how it was discussed during his campaign. Why am I not surprised you don't understand this?

Bob| 11.5.08 @ 12:17PM

I agree that conservatives should, and must, win the battle of ideas. In the end, conservatism will always trump liberalism. Republicans won in 1980, 1984, and 1994 so overwhelming precisely because we engaged the Democrats in a battle of ideas. We need to drop the personal attacks, and focus on the principles that will always hold true: limited government, individual freedom and personal responsbility.

Frank Marschino| 11.5.08 @ 1:07PM

James, I side with Fred on this one....it's the politically correct aspect that makes it the Bradley Effect, not racism. And it's real, due to the pressure from the liberal media. Surprised you, as a conservative, don't understand that.

M. Tobias| 11.5.08 @ 3:28PM

Hello,

I just got back to my computer. It seems that I managed to get the McCain-Obama percentages almost exactly backward [or maybe not, considering the reports of voting "problems" and intimidation]. So I suppose that I'll just have to keep my day job and make political predictions as a hobby.

Anyway, as to the Bradley effect. True, the Bradley Effect, both since its coinage [when it was used to blame Tom Bradley's loss in the California Gubernatorial election on racism and racist voters] and in this election, was defined as a "racist" effect, this was done, as pointed out by Mr. Antle, by the media [and the people with pro-Obama interests]. So, is it really a racist phenomenon or just defined as one by those who wish to blame racists for the defeat of a minority candidate?

I spoke on this issue previously. In my opinion, there is little racism directed toward members of minorities in this country. It does indeed exist, as does every other type of prejudice, but it does not pervade the national mentality. What does persist is the liberal practice of labeling everyone and everything that fails to support either a member of a minority or anything that may benefit a minority as being "racist". This is what is feared by whites in America; being labeled a "racist". That is why whites tell pollsters they support a minority candidate or are undecided when they are neither. The proof of this is the fact that many white Americans vote for minority candidates all of the time [in a statewide or National race, it is virtually impossible for a a candidate to be elected without significant white voter support].

As to the battle over policies? What are Barack Obama's policies? He articulated nothing but "Change". Change can mean many things. Things that Obama never articulated, except occasionally in an unguarded moment to people like Joe The Plumber. How can you debate smoke and mirrors? Simply put you can't. The only way to define Barack Obama as a person, was to look at his associations, his past activities and practices and what few words he had previously spoken. That anyone would define this as an "attack" is ludicrous. John McCain played "nice" and he got sacked. When your quarterback continues to get sacked on a given play, you tear that play out of the playbook and go to something that works.

Well, President-elect Obama will have the next four years to show everyone exactly who he is and what policies he intends to try to implement.

Stay tuned.

Joe Arbuckle| 11.6.08 @ 12:21PM

Actually it more of a reverse Bradley effect took place... 96% of blacks could not look past skin color in their choice, even though he attended a racist church for years and years. If only 2 out of 3 exercised this prejudice, the 1st and 2nd Amendment would still have an ally.

MLKing is rolling in his grave... it will be years before we have a chance at unity again.