The Bradley Effect

[Belegon]

Some of the new registrans might have been signed up by ACORN and might be bogus. There is a good chance many of them won't vote, and might not even be eligible.

The ACORN flap is not over voters whose registration has been confirmed. It's over false names on registration forms, and there is always a percentage of registrations that are rejected. It's not voter fraud until the registrations are accepted.

The reason for the fraudulent cards is simple. ACORN was paying people per registration turned in, a long accepted practice on petitions and on voter registration. Why did you think those people were always bugging you as you left the grocery store, altruism?

Confirmed registrations are up, dramatically so. And not just in Nevada, but across the country.

And Box, the McCain campaign is going to quit these attacks. The numbers from last night clearly show that people trusted Obama's response about this and about Ayers and that McCain was hurting himself more than helping by pursuing this.

 

[sr71plt]

Some of the new registrans might have been signed up by ACORN and might be bogus. There is a good chance many of them won't vote, and might not even be eligible.

Grabbing for those tiny little straws again, I see. The comparison of the "voters" produced by the ACORN scam to the upswing in voter registration nationwide as something like tear drops and the ocean.


Live your delusion though--for, um, about three more weeks, I think.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This election has a voter phenomena that is new, brought about by the Obama campaign's effective use of the Internet and his appeal to younger citizens. New registrations are shooting through the roof. We saw the effect in the primaries, where something like three times the number of people voted in the Democratic primaries as voted in the Republican primaries. Registrations are up 34 percent in my city--and 15 percent in the surrounding county (by a Virginia quirk, Charlottesville is an independent city completely surrounded by a separate county). Mostly new voters, with every evidence that most of them are Obama voters. This alone is likely to put my state of Virginia into the Democratic column for the first time in decades. I see no reason to think that the phenomena is playing differently anywhere else. If these new voters took the initiative to register just this year, there's no reason to think they won't carry through and vote. There is no historical precedence to suggest otherwise.

Those who think this is either a close election--or one where McCain will take the electoral college--unless there's some sort of dramatic turnaround in the next three weeks (which, of course, could happen), aren't thinking rationally.

I've just been listening to Fox news (to get another side of the reporting on last night's debate to compare with CNN's reporting). They are already talking beyond the presidential election to how important the congressional elections are. (Which is true; they are. And there's every indication the Democrats will strengthen their majorities in those houses in this election too.)

It's common knowledge that there are more registered Dems than Reps, but I think the three to one ratio is too high.

There are always new registrations. I can't help thinking that if somebody has been eligible to vote for several years, and is only now cajoled and browbeaten into registering, that person might not be interested in voting. After all, they weren't interested in the past. And, there is always the liklihood that some of them will turn out to be bogus.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Grabbing for those tiny little straws again, I see. The comparison of the "voters" produced by the ACORN scam to the upswing in voter registration nationwide as something like tear drops and the ocean.


Live your delusion though--for, um, about three more weeks, I think.

There were 600,000 new registrations in Ohio and 200,000 of them appear to be questionable. That's a lot of tears or a small ocean.

 

[sr71plt]

There were 600,000 new registrations in Ohio and 200,000 of them appear to be questionable. That's a lot of tears or a small ocean.

Oh, pleeeeeezzzze.

 

[Liar]

There were 600,000 new registrations in Ohio and 200,000 of them appear to be questionable. That's a lot of tears or a small ocean.

Source?

 

[Guest]

You didn't take those figures from amicus, did you, Box?

Edited to add:

It makes sense that the GOP is doing anything they can to discredit newly registered voters. Enough people are disgusted with the current party in power and are registering to vote against the lot.

 

[The_Trouvere]

BELEGON

You seem to forget the Democrat Stupidity Factor...
REMEMBER! DEMOCRATS APPEAL TO THE CARNIVAL FREAKS!

In the election of 2004 a high percentage of those who voted for George W. Bush thought that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein had cooperated with Osama bin Laden in plotting 9/11. This time around many McCain supporters think Barack Obama is an Arab terrorist. If these Republicans are not carnival freaks, what are they?

 

[The_Trouvere]

In the primaries, the black vote went for Obama in excess of 95 percent....my query is, and you already see this coming, is this not a reverse Bradley effect, with Blacks voting based on race?

The Bradley effect is whites saying they will vote for a black candidate and then voting for a white candidate. I doubt many blacks say they will vote for a white Republican who actually vote for a black Democrat.

 

[Liar]

The Bradley effect is whites saying they will vote for a black candidate and then voting for a white candidate. I doubt many blacks say they will vote for a white Republican who actually vote for a black Democrat.

But could it gothe other way around? That some black Americans say they'll of course vote for the brother, but don't when it's just between them and a ballot? Because they just like the other guy's ideas better.

I could see that happening. Theoretically. Social pressure to vote within your group exists everywhere.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In the election of 2004 a high percentage of those who voted for George W. Bush thought that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein had cooperated with Osama bin Laden in plotting 9/11. This time around many McCain supporters think Barack Obama is an Arab terrorist. If these Republicans are not carnival freaks, what are they?

If you recall, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq, Iraq used WMDs on Iran and the Kurds, and Saddam sent a significant portion of his military stuff to Iran and Syria during the first Gulf War. Its a no-brainer that Saddam had WMDs for a long time.

The truth is we dont really know what Bush & Cheney found in Iraq. They claim they found squat, but maybe theyre lying. It wouldnt be the first time.

 

[jomar]

If you recall, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq, Iraq used WMDs on Iran and the Kurds, and Saddam sent a significant portion of his military stuff to Iran and Syria during the first Gulf War. Its a no-brainer that Saddam had WMDs for a long time.

The truth is we dont really know what Bush & Cheney found in Iraq. They claim they found squat, but maybe theyre lying. It wouldnt be the first time.

No, it wouldn't. But they'd have trotted out any captured WMD as vindication for the war and McCain would be using it right now to prove Obama's poor judgment given his vote against the war.

 

[sr71plt]

If you recall, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq, Iraq used WMDs on Iran and the Kurds, and Saddam sent a significant portion of his military stuff to Iran and Syria during the first Gulf War. Its a no-brainer that Saddam had WMDs for a long time.

*sigh* I don't know how many times I have to post this. There's no issue about whether Iraq had WMDs. The United States gave them WMDs--to hold Iran in check. The question was what they had at the point at which we wanted to pretend we were scared that they had them. Not much, if any. They used some on Iran, some on the Kurds, sold some, and let others deteriorate to the point of no longer being useful (all of which we at least generally knew at the time). The Iraqis aren't known for their brilliance in this area. For instance, to save their air fleet in the first Gulf War, they flew it to Iran (duh). The Iranians never let them fly it back (double duh).

The truth is we dont really know what Bush & Cheney found in Iraq. They claim they found squat, but maybe theyre lying. It wouldnt be the first time.

This has got to be one of your most boneheaded postings to date. When they hinged all of their justification on the Iraqis having WMDs and they had this big public hunt for them, why in the world would they hide the fact that they found some? (triple duh)

The stupidity of the Bush administration at the time was in not just salting some where they could conveniently be found. The administration is so dumb, it doesn't even know how to fight a war on par with others. (Couple this with permitting Saddam to be captured alive--quadruple duh).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Last post to you forever....I suggested that you find someone else to help you with your depression, I'm not interested in the job. Apparently most posters here arent, either.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

Last post to you forever....I suggested that you find someone else to help you with your depression, I'm not interested in the job. Apparently most posters here arent, either.

I sincerely hope that's true. You have flatly stated that you are only here to provoke. You certainly don't post on the basis of any careful research or any great intelligence.

(I noticed you didn't address the substance of what I posted--and I had been posting straight to the "substance" of what you posted. )

 

[Stella_Omega]

Originally Posted by JAMESBJOHNSON View Post
Last post to you forever..

SR71plt, congratulations! You've done what no one has done before.

...
(I noticed you didn't address the substance of what I posted--and I had been posting straight to the "substance" of what you posted. )

And the method is revealed?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
There were 600,000 new registrations in Ohio and 200,000 of them appear to be questionable. That's a lot of tears or a small ocean.

Source?

Rather than my posting a lot of links, google New Ohio voter registrations or similar words, and you will find dozens of sources. SCOTUS might be trying to give the election to Obama this year.

You notice I said "questionable" not bogus. I have no idea how many of them are valid, but it's a certainty that some are phony. Some of them always are, consisting of some smartass fooling around or actual attempts at voter fraud.

 

[Liar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
There were 600,000 new registrations in Ohio and 200,000 of them appear to be questionable. That's a lot of tears or a small ocean.




Rather than my posting a lot of links, google New Ohio voter registrations or similar words, and you will find dozens of sources. SCOTUS might be trying to give the election to Obama this year.

You notice I said "questionable" not bogus. I have no idea how many of them are valid, but it's a certainty that some are phony. Some of them always are, consisting of some smartass fooling around or actual attempts at voter fraud.

Googled it. Found biased sources screaming "MASSIVE DEM VOTE FRAUD!!!" and other biased sources screaming "MASSIVE GOP CONSIRACY AGAINST BLACKS AND POOR!!!", more moderate sources with conflicting numbers (none as high as 200k), or just a million sources talking about the debate around regiatration fraud, voter caging, et al.

So pretty please, where did you get the 200,000 that appears questionable from? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the burden of providing some kind of supporting source is on you, not me.

If you didn't pull it out of your ass, you must have read it somewhere. Where?

 

[sr71plt]

Googled it. Found biased sources screaming "MASSIVE DEM VOTE FRAUD!!!" and other biased sources screaming "MASSIVE GOP CONSIRACY AGAINST BLACKS AND POOR!!!", more moderate sources with conflicting numbers (none as high as 200k), or just a million sources talking about the debate around regiatration fraud, voter caging, et al.

So pretty please, where did you get the 200,000 that appears questionable from? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the burden of providing some kind of supporting source is on you, not me.

If you didn't pull it out of your ass, you must have read it somewhere. Where?

In fairness, if you google "200,000 voters ohio," you'll come up with several, including ones datelined AP.

The "oh pleeze" I registered to this in the first place was the supposition that it was all a DNC plot.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Googled it. Found biased sources screaming "MASSIVE DEM VOTE FRAUD!!!" and other biased sources screaming "MASSIVE GOP CONSIRACY AGAINST BLACKS AND POOR!!!", more moderate sources with conflicting numbers (none as high as 200k), or just a million sources talking about the debate around regiatration fraud, voter caging, et al.

So pretty please, where did you get the 200,000 that appears questionable from? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the burden of providing some kind of supporting source is on you, not me.

If you didn't pull it out of your ass, you must have read it somewhere. Where?

Okay, but I don't know what you will accept as reliable. Here is one from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/jennifer_brunner_says_courts_d.html

Here is one from an AP writer:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93R8IE00&show_article=1

Here is one from AOL News:
http://news.aol.com/political-machi...-court-rules-for-dems-on-registration-checks/

That should be enough to substantiate what I said, and that I did not pull the number out of my ass. I only referred to the 200,000 registrations as questionable; I did not say they were bogus. However, it seems certain that some of them are.

To be completely honest, I don't remember where I got the figure the first time. It was probably a news item in Yahoo, which I saw when I came online. The exact source of my first comment doesn't really matter.

 

[sr71plt]

That should be enough to substantiate what I said, and that I did not pull the number out of my ass. I only referred to the 200,000 registrations as questionable; I did not say they were bogus. However, it seems certain that some of them are.

No, what you insinuated in a series of postings was that this was a DNC/Obama campaign conspiracy of some sort for some gain you can't/won't rationally identify.

To that, I said--and say--oh pleeezzze.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, what you insinuated in a series of postings was that this was a DNC/Obama campaign conspiracy of some sort for some gain you can't/won't rationally identify.

To that, I said--and say--oh pleeezzze.

I have never said it was a DNC or Obama conspiracy, although I have said they would benefit from Acorn's bogus registrations if they manage to pass scrutiny. That last is common knowledge.

 

[sr71plt]

I have never said it was a DNC or Obama conspiracy, although I have said they would benefit from Acorn's bogus registrations if they manage to pass scrutiny. That last is common knowledge.

look up "insinuate" in the dictionary. And you certainly have done that. And it's insidious (you can look that one up too).

 

[Boxlicker101]

look up "insinuate" in the dictionary. And you certainly have done that. And it's insidious (you can look that one up too).

Okay, here is the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insinuate

I have never done any of the things there. I am not a very subtle person. I do not insinuate.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I am not a very subtle person.

I have to agree with this...