Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Headline of the Year

From last Monday's New York Times:
Hate Groups Mostly Quiet in Election
I'm not merely questioning why "the dog that didn't bark" is news (lefties being noticeably hard of hearing when ahead in the polls). Rather, I agree with James Taranto's analysis on Best of the Web:
Could this be because "hate groups" are something of an urban legend?
Just like the Bradley effect.


OBloodyHell said...

>> Just like the Bradley effect.

I repeat what I said there --

> underscores that the condition requires both racism and a reluctance to admit racism.

No, it may be that it assumes accusations of racism and a recluctance to be exposed to accusations of racism.

...not quite the same thing

And I would not be surprised to find that this "reverse Bradley effect" (reverse because it's driven by fear of accusations of racism, not racism) turns out to have been in play all along.

When they've been accusing people of racism for opposing Obama for months, how many people are going to stand up to that? Not a lot. Most people are natural chickenshits nowadays when it comes to confrontation. It's one reason libtards often win shouting matches -- the sensible ones are too cowed to stand up and continue to make a scene. We've gotten too genteel with the madness.

I dunno. I'm not going to be amazed to find Obama wins, but I'm going to be very mildly surprised. This is a consistently liberal college town, and I just don't see that much open support for Obama here. The polls just *feel* wrong.

Carl said...

I agree on your definition of the Bradley effect as well of its low probability. But I still see Obama winning by a minimum of 36 electoral votes.