A post over at Dan Cleary’s blog expresses a concern I’ve heard expressed by some Republicans/Conservatives that a McCain victory might be diminished if there is evidence of the so-called “Bradley Effect.”
I’m not sure that it being a factor would necessarily diminish a McCain victory, unless “being truthful to pollsters” is the moral standard. Though racial prejudice MAY be one motivation for being a “Bradley Effect” voter, it is inarguable that concern about appearing racially prejudiced for not voting for Obama is really the motivation . . . and who’s (here, here) to blame for that? Indeed, I think trumpeting this issue is simply another way to influence uncommitted voters toward Obama.
1 response so far ↓
1 Dan Cleary (2 comments) // Oct 9, 2008 at 11:14 am
To clarify my point on the Bradley Effect, I only mentioned it because I am certain it will be cited as one of the reasons for an Obama loss, if indeed he ends up losing. The point may be moot, since an Obama loss doesn’t appear likely, but the race isn’t quite over yet.
After Tuesday night’s debate, James Carville alluded to the Bradley Effect, and even hinted at riots if Obama heads into Election Day with a 5+ point lead in the polls, and loses:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/james-carville-hints-riots-if-obama-loses
I do think the results of a close election ought to be accepted as legitimate by both candidates. Unless, of course, there is clear evidence of voter fraud in key battleground states. Say, by ACORN or some other purportedly altruistic group of “community organizers”:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021723.php
Leave a Comment