Here is a small conjecture concerning the claim that secret racism may be causing US pollsters to overestimate Barack Obama’s true support, which I have most recently been reading about in this article.
Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters – something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain.
Maybe the concealment is real, and maybe some of what is being concealed is indeed racism, but maybe some of it is something else. What if a lot of people secretly oppose Obama being the President for good non-racist reasons, but fear of getting involved in arguments which will involve them being accused of racism, even just thought to be racists, by annoying pollsters? Although not Obama supporters, such people just say “I will vote Obama” to avoid even the hint of such unpleasantness. They will not be voting Obama, because they think he is a vacuous windbag, from Chicago, too thin, dodgy on Iraq, or because they don’t care for Biden, whatever. They will be voting for McCain for similarly varied reasons, other than McCain’s mere whiteness. But they fear that the pollsters they are talking to might suspect otherwise, and who needs that grief?
For that to make sense, it is necessary to believe that people care what stupid strangers think of them. But surely, at least some do. I certainly care, a bit, what people whom I hardly rate at all think of me. I don’t like being cursed for my lack of generosity by drunkards in the street, or shouted at by people who are clearly rather unstable, or denounced for bumping into someone by someone who actually bumped into me. I don’t like it when a mere fleeting expression on the face of such a person even suggests such critical thoughts on their part.
None of this matters to me very much. Such slights are very quickly forgotten But then again, nor would lying about my true voting intentions to some annoying pollster in what is, after all, supposed to be a secret ballot.
Remember that merely replying that “most people” would never think like this is no answer, although a sadly frequent error when all that is being surmised is that a few people might be persuaded to act differently by an oddity in their environment, although not a majority, and certainly not everybody. This is a surmised marginal effect, influencing a few but ignored by most, like a small change in the price of a chocolate bar. To dismiss what I am suggesting, you would have to believe either that nobody thinks thus, or that there are other concerns – what concerns? – that might cancel out such tendencies.
Just a thought. No link, because I have not seen anyone else say such a thing, although I’m sure plenty have. If not, I am sure that some have thought this.
More US election speculations from me here, which has links to more. I am flattered that the mighty Guido Fawkes thought this piece worth linking to in his Seen Elsewhere section, although blink and you would miss that, because Guido sees a lot.
UDATED UPDATE Sunday evening. The link chaos of the final paragraph is now all corrected. Posting errors by me have been cleaned up and my own blog is now back in business. Apologies for all the confusion, and apologies also for spelling apologies wrongly in the previous version of this update.
An interesting point. It’s a tough one for those wearing their politics as a cool, progressive image for themselves: Obama has taken a ridiculous amount of criticism for being a sexist, both in the primaries and in full main campaign. I don’t know which side to pretend to support…
I suspect this is part of it. ‘Secret racism’ is probably also real, although it’s unclear if it is significant of the order of % and probably will remain so. There is no practical means of deducing whether it is responsible for any hypothetical below-poll numbers Obama voting or such things as you suggest in the posting.
Either way, racism will no doubt be the justification trotted out here. It seems that the democrats cant ever admit just losing, there always has to be a conspiracy – this takes the place of the Florida “vote rigging” allegations.
It’s never considered that people might acually disagree with them.
The notion that fear of being called racist drives political discourse in the US is 100% dead-on. One has to constantly step around this landmine when taking any position at variance with Democrat Party orthodoxy. There’s no question that Obama’s numbers are artificially higher as a result…the only question is how large is the effect.
I think you have the right of it Brian but you are missing the other side of the equation. A huge number of people are voting for Obama simply BECAUSE he is black. White people in the US are splitting their votes as always but black people are voting for Obama in the 90-95% range. He is also picking up the “white guilt” vote. All in all it is difficult to imagine that he would even be the nominee if he were white.
So you are right. Some people are intimidated into saying they will vote for Obama but even more are voting for him just because they like the thought of having a black president regardless of what policies he espouses. As more is learned about the ridiculous Mr. Obama I think he will continue sliding in the polls.
I think you have the right of it Brian but you are missing the other side of the equation. A huge number of people are voting for Obama simply BECAUSE he is black. White people in the US are splitting their votes as always but black people are voting for Obama in the 90-95% range. He is also picking up the “white guilt” vote. All in all it is difficult to imagine that he would even be the nominee if he were white.
So you are right. Some people are intimidated into saying they will vote for Obama but even more are voting for him just because they like the thought of having a black president regardless of what policies he espouses. As more is learned about the ridiculous Mr. Obama I think he will continue sliding in the polls.
Sorry for the double post but the screen didn’t acknowledge the original posting. I will now go drink heavily to try to slow my response time down to match my computer’s.
Ever since John Major beat Neil Kinnock in the 1992 election. ‘polls have consistently overestimated Labour’s strength’ – a fact commonly attributed to the secret selfishness of the public.
The “Bradley Effect” could just as easily apply to people ashamed to admit they are Republicans, especially in places like Frisco and NYC.
A humorous look at the Obama campaign, In the DNC War Room(Link). FYI, some explicit language, for those that might care.
If there is a hide-from-the-pollsters’-misapprehension effect, Obama brought it on with his racist con-artistry, openly or underhandedly accusing people of not voting for him because of “antipathy” toward people of a different skin color and conflating such imputed racism with a small constellation of admirable or mainstream positions slightly more likely, certainly in caricature, to be held by his opponents than by his supporters. Perhaps the con was necessary for his winning the primary. But it isn’t easy for Americans as a whole to vote for a sleazy, shallow, half-witted, hardcore leftist even without Obama’s particular baggage.
It is interesting that another con Obama has been using has been to treat the advertising of his character by his foes as a body of “lies” — without addressing any specifics, AFAIK. I’m curious to know, for example, if Obama the legislator really did vote to change a compulsory requirement for sex education from starting around 6th grade to starting in kindergarten; it’s bad enough to have the dregs of academia propagandizing your kids, but to have this start in kindergarten???
It is also laughable to see Obama accusing McCain of not wanting to talk about issues, when it is Obama who has repeatedly refused to engage in anything hinting of a genuine, unscripted debate.
Obama is very, uh, good at projection, impugning others with his own flaws, and thus reaching deep-seated cores of self-identification that must respond with equally deep turmoil, if not revulsion.
Sometimes I think Obama should change his campaign slogan to “What, me worry?”. The madness has got to be intentional, at least, right? 🙂
FWIW, I won’t be voting for McCain. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
Whenever I encounter a pollster (which is very seldom, where do they do these polls?)
I make a point of always answering the exact opposite of my real opinions.
But then I’m just pure Evil! 😉
@RAB I’d be pleasantly surprised if they have a box to tick which is compatible with the libertarian meta-context anyway.
I think that there are probably several demographic groups that this can apply to, some in surprising ways. For instance, I think you will find there is a fairly significant number of black women raising families, who regularly attend church who will find a lot to like in Sarah Palin. It only takes a few percentage points of this traditionally Democrat group to swing the election in places like Pennsylvania. All in all a very interesting election year.
Here’s a link of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed “Fast Eddy” Rendell acknowledging some of the points made above. Fast Eddy, by the way, is somewhat of a Joe Biden type – big mouth, speaks his mind, largely forgiven for it (because he’s a Democrat), but not stupid. He knows his state and electorate very well.
I was polled a short while ago by ICM, and on the political bit I pretty much lied about everything, including saying that Broon is the best man to lead teh Labour Party. It’s down to incentives. What is a person being polled incentivised to do? Well, it’s to try to skew the poll’s results in favour of their personal objectives. I suspect that that is a part of the reason for all these mysterious “effects”. It’s cannier people trying to mislead the people who’ve commissioned the polls.
There definitely will be some over-reporting of the Obama support in most polls. This was the case last time around where Kerry polled better than he actually got. And people not wanting to be labelled ‘racist’ is probably one reason.
But keep in mind, the polls mostly are of people with land lines (telephones) and not mobile/cell phones, which makes many of the younger voters not being represented in the polls. Since the youth is mostly for Obama, that is likely to be a factor this time around, balancing the normal over-representation of the Democrat support.
Is he saying that there are conservatives that would have voted Obama if he was white? Why would they? If anything, it’s the white democrats that should be suspect on this one.
Smited.
…it is necessary to believe that people care what stupid strangers think of them
I believe that, because I do care what strangers (of unknown intelligence, since it is difficult to know how clever one is oneself, never mind random people) think of me. In the 80s and 90s pollsters learned to correct for the unwillingness of British voters to report their support for the Conservatives, because interviewees felt it was not quite a respectable view to hold even in front of a professionally neutral questioner. There might be a similar effect in the US, given the fierce cultural divide, but I suspect it is not uniform and pollsters will miss hidden Republicans in “blue” regions and hdden Democrats in “red” ones.
That’s why we have secret ballots, to avoid voters being subject to social pressure. And it is why oppressive regimes seek to undermine the secrecy of the ballot even as they proclaim their democracy.
The links don’t work for me. Just get:
“PHP has encountered an Access Violation at 7C810A5B”
Agree with you BTW.
Simon:
I was phoned by a pollster once, and when I said “Libertarian” for my party affiliation, it was clear on the other end that the man on the other end had no idea what to do.
In my case they may be exactly right. Under no circumstances will I ever vote for a Pinko Commie for any public office whatsoever.
Maybe a Greeno Commie like Al Gore?
Nah, I don’t think so there either.
Commentators often state explicitly that if you do vote for Obama, it is because you are a racist. Here is an example:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/dick_polman/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html
Listen to this: “Here’s one hint. Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a “racial sensitivity index,” based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category – roughly 30 percent of the white electorate – favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1.”
>I was phoned by a pollster once, and when I said >”Libertarian” for my party affiliation, it was clear on the >other end that the man on the other end had no idea >what to do.
I had a lovely chat with someone from a poll having something to do with my local council recently, in which I was asked to rate the performance of my council and the value for money I was receiving from my council tax in a whole range of different areas. After I answered “very poor” to every question, I think the guy thought I was taking the piss.
Lying to pollsters is just good, clean fun. Even better is lying to the census bureau. On the last census form I returned, I was a single mom from Central America struggling to raise five kids. I was also an illegal immigrant. Boo Yah.
Eat my shorts, lefty gummint paper-pushers.
As stated in my UPDATED UPDATE, I have sorted out the links in the previously final para, and my own blog is now working again.
MDC
I don’t think it makes sense to say that all of those who intend to vote Obama purely because he’s black are being intimidated. What if they simply think that it’s about damn time the USA had a non-white President? That’s a reasonable opinion.
I personally oppose with great vehemence the idea of positive discrimination being set in the stone of law, but positive discrimination of a more casual sort, so to speak, often makes sense, I think. Businesses, for instance, may be anxious to promote people of a particular ethnic group, despite them being somewhat lacking in other important qualifications, because more of their customers are starting to come from that group. Voting for a black Presidential candidate, simply because you think that too many Americans will vote against a black candidate because he’s black, or that too many Americans did this in the past, as I say, makes sense. You may not agree. But I hope you’d agree that such notions are reasonable. To think thus, you do not have to be in the grip of white guilt.
And more to the point of my posting, intentions to vote Obama because he’s black are presumably not now being hidden, so there is no hidden support for Obama out there of this kind, that might balance out the effects I discussed.
There may, of course, as other commenters have stated, be other kinds of secret Obama support. Obama supporters in Republican country may want to avoid grief when they are talking to Republican pollsters, for instance. But, the general opinion seems to be that such secret Obama-ism is rarer.
No Brian, it is not “reasonable,” if one recognizes that the “right” to vote, to be preserved, must be held as a “trust” to be exercised in good faith for a rational objective in providing governance (public safety, defense, etc.).
In the democratic process, the power to vote is not a “right,” it is an obligation. The motivation and manner in which, and degree to which that obligation is not met generates most of what is complained of in these commentaries.
The fault is not in our stars. . .
See, J.S. Mill (I know you have !)
Alisa, correct, Rendell was referencing “Reagan Democrats” – the ones that gave Pennsylvania to Hillary and not to Obama. That’s pretty much all democrats of Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, suburbs excluded. Western and Northern Pennsylvania are mostly white and socially very conservative, but also heavily unionized (more similar to Ohio than to New Jersey). This is why I expect Obama to lose Ohio, and he has been spending heavily on TV advertising here in Pennsylvania, but his lead is tenuous at best.
An example: a colleague of mine, a staunch Republican, happens to think we are going into a major economic depression. He points out that because of the Great Depression Republicans got an undeserved reputation for not caring for the little man which persists to this day, and he’s pretty much decided to at least not vote in order to let the Democrats take the brunt. My colleague, by the way, is not a schmo – he has degrees in political science and economics.
How come nobody is haranguing African-Americans for not voting for a white guy? Are they allowed to be racist?
And is there a gender gap to overcome? Are some people saying they’ll vote for Palin, and that tired white guy next to her, but secretly thinking ‘Not ready for a woman yet’?
In the USA’s Deep South, we called this the “under the radar” effect.
When former Ku Klux Klansman (and current idiot) David Duke was running for office in Louisiana, he would brag that his support “flew under the radar” for the reasons outlined above.
Duke lost every election, but always came in with more votes than polling predicted.
I definitely think you’re right. (It’s certainly true for me, living in Berkeley, CA.) This reminds me of a surprising moment in 30 Rock (Tina Fey’s show), like a year ago– long before Obama or McCain were sure to be the nominees (which makes her very prescient!). Her character is confessing to a list of most shameful things about herself, including the fact that (I paraphrase) “I will probably tell everyone I’m voting for Obama and end up voting for McCain.” Not that I needed another reason to love Tina Fey. (Who incidentally was a great Palin on SNL this weekend. Turns out Palin was amused, and has dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.)
(Also on 30 Rock, Alec Baldwin as Jack Donaghy plays my favorite, most loveable & hilarious, unashamedly capitalist Republican character I’ve ever seen on TV.)
By the way, in my case (and I imagine others like me), it’s not even the fear of being thought a racist, but the opprobrium of merely being an *evil Republican*. Even more, someone who would thwart the coming of the One, once-in-a-lifetime historical miracle, who will heal the planet, redeem us in the eyes of the world, and so on. Seriously, who wants to deal with being abominated, even by a stranger. So it will be my secret shame (or secret pleasure).
Being abominated is more or less our hobby here so maybe we have a different perspective 😀
Plamus: thanks, that makes much more sense. I keep telling myself to look up “Reagan Democrats”:-) I keep missing the unions aspect in American politics, simply because, as it happens, I have no personal knowledge of it.
I like that! It chimes nicely with my habit of telling environ-mentalists that “the last thing I did for the environment was cut down a tree and burn it.” (Although, in truth, it’s only part-burned, the rest being stacked up and waiting for winter).
On topic, I too was struck by the parallel with people in the UK telling pollsters one thing and voting another.
Darn it, t.o.r.! I just knew you were one of those renewable energy preverts!
Re the Bradley effect, my read from here is that 3-5% is about right for declared Democrat’s candidates. I guess maybe 1-2% for declared Republican’s. But I doubt it results in a crossover vote in either case.
However tralala hit a big point. I have a friend who is a life long Democrat and currently a union member who likes and supports Palin but will not vote for anybody with an (R) after their name. She plans to skip the election. This surprises me because she is someone who holds very strong opinions and is quite personally conservative.
Mid: but are you sure you really know how she is going to vote? Or maybe that was your point?
Micklethaite claims to be against positive discrimination for blacks and against white guilt. However actually argues for both. Another unwilling to admit his opinion.
Voting for Obama because he not white and so its his turn is white guilt, positive discimination, wrong and dangerous.
If Obama thinks he is elected because its his turn he will be justified in thinking he has permission to oppress non-whites and will.
Votes McCain and get Palin’s great energy policies. Nothing else matters.
I am quite confident she will not vote. She pathologically hates Bush and while she doesn’t hate McCain quite as much, she refuses to vote for him. Bush’s big government, confrontational, smirking, unitary executive, buddy system, arrogant . . . well you get the picture . . . has squandered any good will the (R) had back in the early nineties and destroyed the Republican brand with just about every group that ever supported them.
For me, one of the pluses to McCain/Palin is their anti-Bush buddy-kickback busting record. Not having ever been a Republican sympathizer at all, she does not understand that back story between Bush and McCain. For her Bush=Republican=Bush. Her rejection of Obama is due entirely to the treatment of Hillary. The present treatment of Palin has only deepened that feeling.
Frankly, I think she just hates bullies and both Bush and Obama and their supporters fit that description. She likes defenders of underdogs which is why she votes Democrat and she is not convinced that McCain is a defender of underdogs. Her news comes from MSM.
I am always shocked that it NEVER occurs to the press that white people might not vote for Obama because he doesn’t represent their political goals when they vote. And, conversely, the press consider it perfectly reasonable for blacks to vote for Obama because he is black.
As soon as Thomas Sowell runs, I plan to vote black. If he wishes to stay in office, then once i vote black, I will never go back. 🙂
Then you need to read more carefully. I have never know anyone more willing to admit their opinions than Brian. In fact shutting him up is pretty much impossibe.
He argues against racial discrimination under law. He, like I, has no problem with all sorts of discrimination just so long as it is not imposed by the state at the point of a gun. I discriminate against people I think are stupid. I discriminate against people whose views I find repulsive. I discriminate against people for all sorts of reasons… and so do you. Everyone does.
And the beauty of your position, Perry, is that if anyone disagrees with you then they are discriminating against you and all who think like you! They’ll have to non-discriminatingly accept what you say, or be a hypocrite! A win all round, I think.
Voting for a black Presidential candidate, simply because you think that too many Americans will vote against a black candidate because he’s black, or that too many Americans did this in the past, as I say, makes sense.
The above is what Micklethaite wrote.
I do agree that we all make choices so discimination is normal and not the business of the law.
It does not make sense to me and is dangerous to vote for black person based on guilt, as is justified by Micklethaite
We are told (by the media and adademia) that it is not racist for about 80 to 90 per cent of black voters to vote Democrat – because it is about policy not race.
So how was it not racist for about 80 to 90 per cent of black voters to back Senator Obama over Senator Clinton?
Remember Senator Obama did NOT run as Marxist – he presented himself as a big spending, pro regulation interventionist. Just like Senator Clinton.
So why did almost all black voters back Senator Obama over someone who had decades more experience (including forty years in the Civil Rights movement).
If white voters choose to return the favour now…….
Of course what blows the “it is racist not to support Obama” argument out of the window is that it is used on black voters themselves.
Any black person who refuses to support Senator Obama gets called an Uncle Tom (or worse things).
So some of those people who say they support him and do not, may be black.
Roger Clague
I do not suffer from white guilt.
You are lumping together positive discrimination and compulsory positive descrimination, as Perry says.
And it’s dangerous to vote for anybody.
You say it makes sense to base your vote on how people have voted in the past. That is wrong
I vote on what a candidate proposes to do affects me now, not to make up for other voters, now or in the past.
O.K. we won’t call it guilt but you are supporting discrimination for Obama because of voters of bbthe past.
It is not dangerous to vote for anyone.It is dangerous to vote for the wrong reason. I have met officials, who know that they were promoted because of their race or culture, who see it as their duty to discriminate against me because I am white.
The discrimation you think makes sense is wrong in principle, because of its effects. It being by law or choice makes no difference to those effects.
Most small government types, when questioned by pollsters, tell them to eff off, and then hang up.
There is your polling bias right there.
Lef’tards are proud of being lef’tards, and like talking to pollsters.
Roger:
Sorry, but you are wrong. It may be wrong, or even immoral to vote for the wrong reason, but it is no more dangerous than voting for the right reason for the wrong person. Human beings, even the best of them, are always unpredictable, to various degrees, as are the circumstances under which they might have to operate. This is why Brian is correct in pointing out that voting for anyone is dangerous. He did not say it was undesirable, just that it always carries an element of risk.
And, of course, not voting can be just as dangerous.