Adam Shaw @ American Thinker:
At time of writing, polls show the race for the presidency to be tight. General consensus seems to be that whoever wins, the 2012 election will be won by a bat squeak.
Yet to many, especially those of us on the right, it seems peculiar that Obama is still remotely in the race. With high unemployment, minimal GDP growth, a 100% increase in food stamp costs, and out-of-control spending, many conservatives are asking how just under half of the American population can possibly want more of the same.
While it is not possible now to get into the many reasons certain people will vote Democrat in November, I propose that all polls, not just left-leaning polls, may be being strongly misled by their data, and Romney/Ryan may actually have a huge lead not seen in polls.
It is my contention that this is due to a mix of the infamous Bradley effect and what is known in Britain as “the Shy Tory Factor,” with both coming together to exaggerate just how popular Obama is in America.
The Bradley effect is a much-debated polling distortion that is easy to demonstrate but difficult to prove. The idea that when a black or minority candidate is on the ticket against a white candidate, certain voters may lie under pressure from a pollster, worried about being seen as a racist for choosing the white candidate over the minority, sounds highly plausible. The consequence, should the Bradley effect be in play, would be a skewed poll indicating that the minority candidate is in better political shape than his or her opponent.
Some argued that while it may have been a factor in the past, it was not a factor in the 2008 election, when Barack Obama was elected convincingly, just as polls predicted.
Yet this dismissal may be premature. A closer look at the statistics shows that predictions for how much of the white vote Obama would win were strongly exaggerated by polling companies. For instance, a CBS poll near election day predicted that McCain would win the white vote by a mere 3%, and on election day the Republican actually brought in 12% more of the vote than the Democrat. Had it not been for an unusually high turnout among blacks and minorities, Obama’s landslide would have been a lot closer.
Therefore, there is no reason why we cannot expect at least a similar Bradley effect this year. In fact, it could possibly be even stronger — after all, the liberal smear that those who oppose Obama are racist is one that really took off since Obama took office, specifically with the rise of the Tea Party. This could serve only to magnify the Bradley effect, as some white voters may feel ashamed of being seen as sympathetic to a “racist” organization.
Yet there is another factor that, mixed with Bradley, could radically distort the numbers — and it is a concept not known in America, but known very well in the United Kingdom. Called “The Shy Tory Effect,” it could be the little-known variable that could be hiding a landslide for Mitt Romney.
Let’s hope.
From the American Thinker:
Half of the people don’t pay ANY taxes. Why would they want that to change?
The polsters must also be poling the dead who will come out of there graves, and the ones who get to vote more than once, and the pets who get to vote, who will be voting democrat.
If Romney conveys any warmth at all tonite he will ruin Obama
Dick Morris conducted two polls that supports this conclusion. Like most pundits, he has a mixed track record. He got it wrong about the Republicans winning the Senate in ’10, but he did get it right in ’04 when he predicted Bush would win by a larger and thus indisputable margin than he did in ’00. He was also the architect behind Clinton’s successful bid for re-election, so he does bring more credibility to the table than most pundits. Hopefully his take proves to be accurate. I couldn’t find the article, but another individual who has been keeping track of emails in the Obama camp concerning fund raising, has pointed out how much more desperate they have been sounding as of late indicating that Obama’s internal polling may be suggesting a deteriorating election landscape.
This race needs to be a clear cut rejection of the Marxist/socialist ideals that have been thrust upon this country proving that ’08 was the biggest fluke in election history and that the country’s political views didn’t lurch that far to the left. That means winning the Presidency by a clear cut majority, gaining House seats, and winning control of the Senate with the largest majority possible. Libertarian and third party victories, although unlikely, will count just as much as Republican ones. The Dems need to suffer such a humiliating defeat, that the moderates in the party, the few that are left, will either take back their party from the left wing ideologues who now control it and destroyed it and make it what it used to be, or will switch parties.
In a tad over 2 months we shall see what Americans believe is more important- power of the government or the rights of we the people.
Wait until the debate. Remember how Obama cleaned up all the Republicans in the room in a single-handed debate on health care? Ever hear Romney stutter—you’re going to hear it then–he won’t have his teleprompter there.
There might be a ”Bradley Effect,” because so many who let the idea of ”white guilt,” turn their vote will not repeat the mistake.
But that ”Shy Tory Effect,” holds even more promise.
Nothing in American history is like it with the exception of the concept of the Silent Majority from the 1960’s.
But Obama has had a hand in creating the groundwork for a shy Republican effect in that he demonizes the Republicans just as the Tories had been demonized.
Both have been painted as against the workers, for gutting welfare and protective of ”the rich.”
Still, the voters went Tory!
Maybe the voters will go Republican as well.
One other factor harkens to Maggie Thatcher’s famous saying, ‘The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
We have become a nearly 50-50 nation of wagon pullers VS wagon riders.
Tytler wrote:
I do not believe we are ”there” yet.
I know too many who receive government aid but who oppose Obama vehemently!
They are not ready or willing to become permanent riders on the wagon.
They desire to get another chance to get out and pull.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
I knew you were delusional, but that is beyond sanity that you would believe that, Lib1.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): ##5
Are you sure Obama won’t have his TOTUS? I can’t imagine him without it. He even uses them at Town Hall meeting where he isn’t supposed to know what the people are going to ask. If he doesn’t have hos TOTUS, I’m guessing he has one of those devices in his ear where someone is telling him what to say. Who knows. We know he can speek without TOTUS telling him what to say. He usually says how he REALLY feels about America, like, “You didn’t build that.” He didn’t say, “You didn’t build that by yourself. The government put infrastucter in to help make it possible for the business to succeed.” He wants us to think we can’t do anything without government help.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): I read the words “stutter” and “teleprompter,” so you must have meant to write “Obama.”