Barack Obama and the Bradley Effect

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Eugene Kane bashes white people once again.

Bradley effect means Obama backers won’t rest easy till Nov. 5

Can we count on white folks to follow through on their word?

For the past year, I’ve met lots of white people in Milwaukee who profess their admiration and support for Obama. Most were longtime Democrats, so that’s no surprise. But many supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries and were shocked when Obama defeated their candidate for the nomination. It will be interesting to see whether all of the Hillary supporters come home to Obama’s camp as they said they would.

If Obama maintains his strong lead in the polls and America wakes up Nov. 5 to find he isn’t the president-elect, I believe there will be lots of explaining to do. Some of that will center on the Bradley effect.

Can white folks be trusted?

Good grief.

Does Kane follow the polls?

Does he understand the screwed up methodology of some of them?

Does he realize that warped sampling will give warped results?

It can't be said that Obama has a "strong lead in the polls," especially among likely voters. He has a lead, but not a "strong" lead. Many polls put Obama's lead within the margin of error.

Kane says if "America wakes up Nov. 5 to find he isn’t the president-elect, I believe there will be lots of explaining to do."

Oh, really? That sounds very threatening, doesn't it?

Exit polls claimed John Kerry to be the victor in 2004. Polls conducted prior to the election had Kerry ahead as well.

Was that the Bradley effect? Was that about race?

...Personally, I don’t find it amazing that some white people don’t feel comfortable giving their true opinions about a minority candidate to a pollster. My experience is that many people believe they are expected to think a certain way about racial issues, whether that’s their natural opinion or not. That stance makes for civil conversations and polite interactions; it doesn’t translate into an open and candid discussion of our differences.

Basically, if you can’t talk truthfully about race in most social situations, I can’t imagine why talking to a stranger would be any different.

Interestingly enough, some predict a kind of “reverse Bradley effect” could benefit Obama next month. According to this theory, many polls underestimated Obama’s appeal with whites during the primaries, especially among young voters who aren’t the traditional sources for election pollsters.

Also, Obama’s popularity among black voters might have been underestimated for the same reason his popularity with some whites was overrated. Apparently, researchers in the Democratic primaries found some black Obama voters told pollsters they were undecided because they didn’t want to be accused of racism.

Kane talks about white people not being comfortable giving their true opinion of a minority candidate.

What about black people? Are they comfortable admitting that they're going to vote for a white candidate if voting for a minority is an option? The abuse of James T. Harris shows the danger in that.

Everything Kane is saying about whites can be flipped and said about blacks.

And about that "reverse Bradley effect"--

If on Nov. 5 Americans wake up to discover that there was a reverse Bradley effect, will there still be a need to do "lots of explaining"? I suppose Kane would find no need for outrage in that case.

It’s encouraging that major newspapers such as the Washington Post and New York Times have run recent stories on the Bradley effect to educate the American public before election day. This way, if something incredible turns this election on its ear, we’ll have a name for it.

At this point, if Obama loses, it won’t just be sour grapes; it will likely be much more stomach-turning than that.

This column is stomach-turning. Kane is shamelessly playing the race card.

Obama better be elected or else.