"If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
does an excellent job of charting how the media polls are
weighted for success - Obama's success. Here's a summary, but go look.
Here are two charts: the first one shows
the biased poll that shortchanges Republican party ID, and the second
poll shows a more realistic party ID breakdown — note the difference:
an 11-point Obama lead shrinks down to just 4-points when correct party
ID breakdown is used.
I have a minor quibble with the HillBuzz historical weighting giving Democrats a 4% advantage. Examination of the 2004 election showed a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans who voted.
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
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."
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.