The commentariat's topic du jour is this AP story which cites a study conducted in conjunction with Yahoo!, Knowledge Networks and Stanford University and which reports that "Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice." Here are some thoughts I have on the matter:
1. It is irresponsible to cite this study without fully disclosing its methods or making it subject to peer review, particularly as it appears to use a rather convoluted soup of statistical and inferential techniques.
2. The study appears to be one of all adults, rather than registered or likely voters. Expressions of racial prejudice have a strong inverse correlation with education levels, and so do turnout rates. Therefore, even if it is true that Barack Obama's race puts him at something like a 6-point disadvantage with the population as a whole, the margin is probably more like 4-5 points among likely voters.
3. A related and unresolved question is how many persons will vote for Barack Obama because he is black. Such behavior would probably be more implicit and harder to ascertain than voting against a candidate because of racial prejudice. For instance, Obama's biography is significantly more compelling because he is black (actually, bi-racial), and his change message is probably somewhat easier to sell because he looks different than other (e.g. white) politicians. If he were white, in other words, Barack Obama would not be Barack Obama. Moreover, there may be some people who explicitly vote for Obama because they think it will advance a goal of racial equality, present a different face to the world, and so forth. In the absence of sufficient detail on the study's methodology, it is impossible to know whether these things have been accounted for.
4. One should be very careful not to confuse a study like this with the Bradley Effect. Of course some people are racist, and will vote against Obama because he is black -- I have met some of them. But the Bradley Effect concerns something different -- whether such people are likely to lie about their behavior to pollsters. There is simply no empirical evidence that the Bradley Effect exists any longer. It did not exist in the primaries, and it did not exist in the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee, which was perhaps the most racially-tinged contest of the past decade (in fact, Harold Ford slightly outperformed the late polls).
9.20.2008
On Race-Based Voting
by Nate Silver @ 3:29 PM...see also bradley effect, race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

200 comments
Thank you, Nate.
It is nice to see some of us are keeping our heads this election year and not letting ourselves get carried away on the race issue.
I wondered what your take of the article would be. I think I could have saved the AP a lot of money.
My version of the story: Some white folks will not vote for a black candidate.
Where's my check, AP?
It is a wash .. some white folks will not vote for Obama because he is black and some black folks will vote for Obama because he is black.
Certainly, the 6-point poll in SC is evidence of the latter.
Their are other factors which will make up for the race issue most significant is bush, followed by mccain's age and likelihood of palin becoming president, this is compounding by her dangerous inexperience. also race didn't stop obama against a very popular white population called hillary clinton!
where is the support lacking in terms of party id? in order to be effective we would have to assume that all the people not voting for obama based on race were democrats or independants. His support among both groups is solid and in line with historical averages for democratic presidential candidates. If there is no bradley effect then i have a hard time believing this study.
FWIW (I really have no idea), PPP is scheduled to release NC polls tonight, and someone at OpenLeft was pointing at their pre-release chart which shows the Economy dominating at 58%. I guess some are hoping that polls may have come close or even reversed there.
http://www.openleft.com/viewQuickHits.do#3816
Politico also said this: "The AP-Yahoo study concluded that white Democratic racism may cause 2.5 percent of voters to "turn away from Obama because of his race," roughly the margin of George W. Bush's victory over John F. Kerry in 2004."
So not 6%, but 2,5% of Democratic voters. But this story is just a distraction anyway....
http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/thank-john-mccain/838/
Great ad
Gee Ron Fournier, AP Bureau chief and notorious GOP/Rove flack is driving this? Hmm what a coincidence. Good post Nate. Fournier is desperately trying to make the big time by taking a straight razor to Obama every chance he can. This misuse of data to smear is despicable.
It's the same MSM narrative. If Obama is losing, it's "why can't he close the sale with working-class/blue color whites?". If Obama is winning, it's "will race be factor?"
Of course race will be a factor! The question is, will it be a large enough factor? I don't think it will, at least not enough to deprive Obama an electoral college victory. People forget that Obama is likey to win Iowa (yes 97% white/family values Iowa!), OR, WA, ME, VT, MA, RI, WI and so on. You get the point. The irony is that Hispanics hold the key to Obama's path to 270 (CO/NM).
I've asked this before- but I think it'd be very cool to have a list of national tracking polls alongside the state polls.
Great post Nate. I was wondering about the age makeup of the sample, too. I hope the youth vote will be larger than expected this year to make up for the backwards thinking old people.
What if Obama loses after leading in the polls by a large margin before Election Day, as well as in your projection? What if the media cites the Bradley Effect as the reason behind an inexplicable loss? What then? Will the possibility of voter fraud be addressed? Or will no one fight for it?
Ai Giordano has a post that completely debunks Fournier's "racially aronist" claims. A good read (and it cites Nate's work):
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ap’s-ron-fournier-racial-arsonist-and-unethical-journalist
Nate: I think it's an exaggeration to say that the Bradley effect "does not exist anymore."
Clearly, it does not exist in THIS election.
But, the psychological underpinning of the effect still exists.
The Bradley Effect would come into play in the following circumstances, and ONLY in the following circumstances:
1. The race featured a black v. white candidate.
2. The black candidate was widely perceived as superior.
3. The white candidate was widely perceived as unacceptable for a variety of reasons.
4. The state had a significant percentage of racists.
5. The racists were embarrassed to vote for the white candidate, but were reluctant to vote for the black for racial reasons.
6. Normally, these racists wish to eliminate the "cognitive dissonance" of voting for the white candidate -- i.e. justify themselves in a number of ways -- by creating reasons to support the white and oppose the black candidate.
7. They are blocked from doing so by the obvious insuitability of the white candidate thus creating a psychological conflict.
These voters then become unwilling to admit their preference openly. Thus, they lie to pollsters, either saying that they support the black candidate, or more probably, that they are undecided, when they have secretly decided to support the white candidate.
8. Alone in the voting booth, they resolve the conflict by voting their racist instincts.
This is a rather long list. Thus, the key would be that the white candidate was perceived by the racists as being "inferior" or otherwise unacceptable -- leaving them with NO acceptable choice.
Note that in this election, the evangelical right was ecstatic over the pick of Sarah Palin. FINALLY, a reason for them to be enthusiastic over McCain. Suddenly, they all came out of the woodwork and announced to pollsters their McCain support.
Dissonance resolved!
For voters who STILL can't find reasons to support McCain, but can't find a way to support Obama, there could be a problem.
But, the more credible a candidate McCain seems to the average voter, the LESS likely it is that racists will be unable to find a cover-story to tell themselves that "it has nothing to do with race."
All of McCain's campaign is essentially to ("war hero," "POW," "Maverick"(tm), etc. are designed to give cover to white discomfort with a black President. And let's face it! The close polling shows that it's been very successful.
The racist vote isn't lying in the weeds, waiting until election day, they're openly supporting McCain.
Thus, NO Bradley effect.
Thanks for your comments about the methodology in the Stanford racial attitude survey. I'm reminded of research I read in grad school about how generalized racial attitudes got qualified when asked about one's neighbor. "Jim's not like most (fill in group here)" even though attitudes toward the group remain unchanged. It's not unlike the difference between evaluations of generic congresspersons contrasted with one's particular congressman.
Everything Cugel said.
The one way a HIDDEN racist vote might exist in this election would be among UNDECIDED voters.
We should simply watch to see if there is an unusually large pool of undecided voters on election eve, compared with 2004.
The existence of such a large pool of undecideds might indicate that voters were torn between voting their racist instincts for McCain, and desiring change -- which would indicate they should vote for Obama.
To reduce THIS dissonance, McCain has been campaigning all year as the "Maverick" "reformer" who will "bring the change you deserve."
This is pure balderdash of course, but McCain voters swallow it up.
The problem might come if undecideds were unable to bring themselves to believe that McCain would bring any real change.
But, human beings are endlessly inventive. As one voter at a Sarah Palin rally replied when confronted by her actual record, which contradicted his professed beliefs "I just don't trust the facts."
Given that level of denial, the polling should be pretty accurate, which should give us a pretty good idea where this election will end up based on the late polling.
Glad that someone can give some intelligent analyis on the race factor.
My biggest irritation is the media and their attempt to say Obama is deficient as a candidate because he can't "connect" with voters when it's obvious some are not going to vote for him because he's black.
That said, there are many more Americans who are not voting for Obama for reasons other than race.
I also noticed that a group of blacks have heckled Obama at a couple of rallys. So not all blacks are for Obama.
Of the 18 million that voted for Obama in the primaries maybe 10%were black. That leaves a whole lot of white people (and others) that voted for him. I'd say that it's the majority that made Obama the nominee and not the minority.
Yes, generally speaking, the republican party is a party of racism. Obama knows this and he has prepared for the racists and the Bradley effect. Like many minorities, he has to work harder to prove he is worthy of the position because he's black.
Thanks Nate.
The "Bradley Effect" doesn't have to exist for race to be the deciding factor against Obama. It'sentirely plausible that in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Minnesota 2% of folks are torn who to pick and in the end pick the white guy. They say they're undecided in the polls. It's not blatant racism. Subconsciously perhaps they can't do it. That swings one decisive state, that unseen 2%. Very possible, without it having to be this giant hidden thing.
Little things can matter. Especially with the tragically flawed electoral college system that's ridiculous. Biden's comment to his Delaware folks should be harmless, but it could be enough to flip a small group of voters to give Mccain Ohio.
lol
this is 2008
there are racists
they will vote mccain, barrr or stay at home
no need to worry
I don't about all of this stuff about some whites not voting for Obama because of his race. I know this. Some older white voters won't vote for him because of his political stands on some issues. Though, some of them don't like Bush anymore. These are the 'ironic' voters I run into. Don't like Bush, can't quite trust Obama or in disagreement with him. What are they gonna do?
Obama & Black voters: Well, Obama almost has full support, about 95%.
The 5% are those like J.C. Watts, a former congressman, a Republican, who likes Obama and is very proud of him, but won't vote for him because he has a project he is working on to attract balck voters to the GOP. For other voters, it may be that they don't identify Obama as "black" or that he is not "black enough." That's only my guess.
Unfortunately, this is true. I am caucasion, female, age 46, and a strong democrat. I don't care about race or sex, just that we need a democrat in the white house, and Obama is our man. He keeps his cool, he's a great guy. My neighbors are 10 years older than me, strong democrats, voting for McCain cause of Obama's race. I belive it is definitely a deciding factor with some people.
nj_moderate said... It is a wash .. some white folks will not vote for Obama because he is black and some black folks will vote for Obama because he is black.
Not a wash. Not even close. What if absolutely all blacks voted for Kerry. Since 88% already voted for him (a good overall black = D measure I guess) lets give him 100%. Blacks accounted for 11% of total votes, so 12% of 11% is a little more than 1.2%. That is giving Obama ALL of the black vote.
You don't think >1.7% of whites (77% of the 2004 voters were white, 1.7% * 77% = the same number of votes swapped) will NOT vote for Senator Obama because he is black, then you're fooling yourself.
So if only 1.7% of whites will not vote for Obama, it does not mater if every single black voter agreed to vote for him. Blacks wold have to capture 12%, whites less than 2%. I could ask my neighbors on one block for their opinion, and I bet I'll get more than one racist who will not vote for Obama... and I live in a middle-class, educated area.
If Senator Obama wins, it will be in a landslide, no mater what the numbers say.
Scott - your entire analysis depends on the assumption that black turnout is the same in a Kerry and an Obama election.
That's a bad assumption.
It would be interesting to have figures in some states as Obama is ahead in mostly white states and does better than Kerry in Iowa for example.
The race is for a problem for voters which would have voted republican anyway. And this effect could be cleared by a huge turnout among AA voters. He finally could do well in some red states (South Carolina -6% is still to be confirmred).
It would be interesting to measure the effect of race among democratic working class voters, which could explain the close race in Michigan.
And of course the effect of race among latinos. But he seems to do well in New Mexico, Colorado.
But finally, Nate's idea that a black or biracial candidate could be attractive to voters seeking a president radically different from previous ones is interesting.
To Alex S.
I agree, just a distraction.
The McCain campaign has their hands in this article being published now because he got nothin else.
Fact is, racist Democrats are going to cost Obama the election.
"Fact is, racist Democrats are going to cost Obama the election."
No they won't. But if he loses, the MSM will spin it that way, for sure. The Evil Racist Americans always makes a good story, especially if it can be used to explain away the defeat of the MSM's preferred candidate.
This entire article by the AP is Fouiner saying..
BUT HE'S BLACK!!!
"But finally, Nate's idea that a black or biracial candidate could be attractive to voters seeking a president radically different from previous ones is interesting."
It's why I've supported him from the beginning. The presidency is a largely symbolic position.
Nate,
Point 3 is well-stated, but why don't you just state the obvious outright: Many blacks will vote for Obama precisely because he is black...not because his biography is more compelling, not because his change message is easier to sell, and not because they think it will advance racial equality.
Your first sentence hints at this, but the rest of the paragraph avoids the utter obvious. Why?
InkStain: Scott - your entire analysis depends on the assumption that black turnout is the same in a Kerry and an Obama election.
That's a bad assumption.
No need to restrict that to just black turnout. Obama's GOTV effort is, I think, going to blow the doors off anything previously done.
"No need to restrict that to just black turnout. Obama's GOTV effort is, I think, going to blow the doors off anything previously done."
If you put a gun to my head (with apologies to the other thread) and forced me to guess one way or the other, I'd agree.
But I just don't like trying to quantify something for which there is no data.
I'd agree on the GOTV thing. Could have a significant effect, but could just as well turn out to be Obama's equivalent of Kerry's "youth vote" that was supposed to turn things around in key states and upend pre-election polling. We all know how that turned out...
Change in debate formats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Palin will have it a little easier, McCain a little harder. There´ll probably be nore chances for Obama to steer the foreign policy debate into economic territory.
Lani, good points.
I would not call the GOP a party of racists, but a party that has the attitude that it can win and govern without support from non-whites, and even most women. So this attitude will be reflected in its policies.
@ Matt,
Wait, so blacks have been voting 85% Democrat just for race all these years?
It's funny 40 years of blacks voting 80% democrat but now this year is must be *only* because Obama is black, how convenient.
I would advise everyone ignoring Fouiner, that article was written to create racial tension.
Last gasps...
The study would make more sense if the participants had been asked to also assess a couple of other racial groups -- Italians, Irish, Jews ...
Without a baseline of general prejudice, it is hard to come up with 6% or any other number.
InkStain said... Scott - your entire analysis depends on the assumption that black turnout is the same in a Kerry and an Obama election. -- That's a bad assumption.
OK, lets be more dramatic. I personally feel (know, believe) that >3% of whites are not going to vote for Obama because he is black.
Now IF black turnout were doubled, and IF every single black voted for Obama, then this rare scenario would simply nullify the racist vote.
I'm wondering about one of the methods used here. It sounds like respondents were asked which words describe African-Americans as a whole or in general, and then given a list of possible attributes. The thing is, IMO it's impossible to give any answer that isn't racist to that question. I don't think ALL African-Americans are nice any more than I think ALL African-Americans are violent. The question almost forces you to rely on a racial stereotype, whether it's positive or negative. So I imagine some people being turned off by the question itself and not answering - although, of course, people who do hold such stereotypes might not be turned off by it. Do you suppose that would skew the result at all?
If people vote against Obama because of his ethnicity that is wrong. If people vote for Obama because of his ethnicity that is wrong too. It's pretty simple.
VA Conservative.
There is no question the MSM will make RACE the reason why OBAMA loses. Nevermind his policy ideas would be a disaster. Higher taxes now would be devastating. Going soft on terror would be devastating.
Nope, the only reason 100% of American can resist voting for Obama is RACE. That according to the MSM.
Buckle up.
There are many of us who are motivated by the fact that in our life time we have the chance to vote for a black president. Before Iowa I looked at Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Told my kids that Obama did not have any hope at all, no matter how much they liked him. Iowa's white voters stunned many of us and led us to believe that it isn't about color, it is about the message. Barack is calm, cool, and he is a sign of what we need as well as being black. One reason many older white voters will vote for him. This was particularly important during the Dem Primary. Voting for him because he was black not in spite of it. Meanwhile the economy is a huge issue right now and I believe will be a key factor in what we see next week because it has been very obvious that the press loves the roller coaster. Remarks for or against one canidate seem to be driving the polls. Obama looks better this week because the press has looked more favorably on what he said... giving him a chance. I suppose this week they will try to let Mc Cain has his say to keep it even though I would hope that more people will have a look at Keating and see how much it reminds them of what is happening today. I need health care more then I can ever say and the thought that Mc Cain would have thrown my SS in with the housing market is enough to make me more than angry with his call for deregulation. What exactly is going on with the trillion dollar bail out and how will that effect us is so important. Glad to see this comment Nate on the AP story as it will help lead the news of why isn't Obama doing better ... that we always hear when he does do better.
Here's another thing the story leaves out.
Republicans have given racists more than enough cover to find enough of an excuse to not vote for Obama because he's black.
You can vote for Palin because she's an evangelical, just like you.
You can vote for McCain because he's a war hero who puts "country first."
You can vote for Palin because she's a woman.
You don't have to lie to pollsters. You don't even have to pretend to be independent. Republicans have given you more than enough cover to vote for their ticket.
It will kill me if this becomes the topic of the Sunday morning shows. While the economy is tanking, and we are taking on $700 bn without blinking, they'll talk about this....
NATE:
Your trend adjustment correction seems like an oversimplification and an overreaction to me, particularly, in the given situation, in OH.
Applying a uniform weight of national trends to states like NV and OH is a mistake.
Virginia Conservative,
I respectfully disagree with you about the MSM's preferred candidate.
It just appears Obama is the preferred candidate because he's an interesting story that creates profits for the corporations run by the media.
Obama is criticized more than any other candidate. Every day, he's got a problem with ______________. His tax policiy is not favored by the corporate held media because it cuts into their pockets via profits and bonuses.
He was the money maker in the beginning because he was the first black presidential candidate and now nominee.
Sarah Palin is the money maker now. It looks like they are trying to shove her down our throats but she's interesting so people want to hear about her; good or bad.
The coverage is starting to balance out cause the economy is a real issue that concerns Americans so it's so much about the candidates any more. Just look at the programming on cable news. It changed dramatically since last Monday. You've got economic specialsts on every channel talking in detail about our economy.
In the end, for the MSM it's all about money.
It would be very interesting to see the polls on this subject, white vs black voters, etc.
I just want to add my thoughts on what a great site this is. the comments tend to be right on and the site itself always has great thoughts and of course incredible polling info!
And i think democrats (not only) are more racists than republicans. You can see that in some Hillary supporters (not PUMAS). The Obama´s plan is more likely than Hillary plan than McCain plan, and the Hillary plan is more likely than Obama´s plan.
Hillary supporters who vote for McCain are racist, that´s true.
Kevin,
Thanks for clarifying my remedial point!
Lani--
When they do that they're just covering their asses by giving him reasons to lose. "Oh he was such a great candidate, but those darn stupid rednecks didn't realize it!" is the subtext of those discussions.
"OK, lets be more dramatic. I personally feel (know, believe) that >3% of whites are not going to vote for Obama because he is black.
Now IF black turnout were doubled, and IF every single black voted for Obama, then this rare scenario would simply nullify the racist vote."
But how many of those racist whites would have voted for a white Barry O'Brien? I don't think even Bill Clinton got a majority of white votes. John Kerry lost the white vote 58-41according to CNN exit polls. Even if you think the 3% of the population that's racist are evenly distributed, Obama's still really only losing 41% of that 3%, or about 1.2%. And realistically, I think that white racists are more likely to be Republican than non-white racists, so he's probably losing even less than that.
watch FL, OH, PA, MI, NV, IN, CO numbers after the first debate(26 September)
its going to get very interesting
44 days to go
The Land of Lincolner will “sequester himself near Tampa Bay beginning Tuesday for intensive preparation” ahead of Friday’s debate.
He’ll be surrounded by a tight circle of key advisers, including Greg Craig, a foreign policy specialist, who is playing the role of McCain.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/obama-sets-up-debate-camp-in-the-sunshine-state/?pagemode=print
The race effect would be have been interesting to measure if a AA candidate, condie Rice for example had been on republican ticket.
Would AA voters be more likely to vote red? Would white redneck be unlikely to vote republican?
Obama has had a lot of media coverage due to his exotic back ground. So did Palin in other way.
But with the crisis that occured this week, people may be more focused on issues than character.
This could make this election more serious and the attempts of McCain team to turn the campaing negative againg in the last days could backlash even more.
how can a Hilary supporter vote for McCain..LOL
they are like totally different
if you voted for Hilary you are crazy to vote for Mccain
Obama is the male(black+white) version of Hilary
Andrew Sullivan's assessment of Sarah Palin is accurate.
She's the biggest farce of a choice by a major party in an election that can be found in modern history.
I honestly believe and I'm not exaggerating to make a point, I'm actually serious, I believe there are over 1,000,000 people that are better qualified and more capable to handle the position. Say 500,000 women and 500,000 men. There's not one thing in her background that indicates that she's ready for the job. Nothing. She's less qualified than Dan Quayle was. It's compeltely absurd. This is becoming obvious, but I wish Rahm emanuel and Obama's camp didn't give in and let the debate become less risky. Perhaps their thinking is Biden is gaffe-prone. The Obama camp is currently ahead in the polling, so a VP debate could be risky for both sides. If she gave one press conference or had to sit down for one live interview with Tim Russert (RIP), she'd be toast.
If McCain is going to make any move in this election, it almost certainly has to come in this debate. Foreign Policy is his issue, the one he desperately wants to discuss.
Condi Vs Obama
OMG
rednecks will shoot them self's...LOL
If Obama looks good in the debate I think he will move ahead substantially and have the advantage the rest of the way. If he does poorly or comes off as he did in the Saddleback forum he will fall behind McCain. The debates seem that important this year. In 2000 and 2004 you could argue that the Democratic candidate won the debates but it didn't make any difference. ("Lock box", anyone?)
Wait, Obama is black?
Eric-
Everything you said could be applied to Obama as well. And don't try to say that the long and arduous campaign has vetted him sufficiently. The media has been too busy having chills run up their collective legs to actually ask him any tough questions. Yes, Palin remains an unknown commodity. But so is Obama and he's at the top of the ticket.
just got a text from one of my crazy liberal friends(i have a few..LOL)
------------------------
Obama 2008/2012
Hilary 2016/2020
Fu&& you Republican Joe
------------------------
OMG !
christopher said...
Wait, Obama is black?
-------------
LOL
Obama is not Black
he's Black+White(White+Black)
Is the Bradley Effect a symptom of racism, or rather a symptom of folks fear of rampant PCism? That is, folks don't feel free to speak their minds in public for fear of being branded a racist.
"The debates seem that important this year. In 2000 and 2004 you could argue that the Democratic candidate won the debates but it didn't make any difference. ("Lock box", anyone?)"
I don't know. I think some people are over-hyping the importance of the debates this year. The debates aren't going to swing things more than a point or two. Here on this site, there'll be 1,000 posts during and right after Friday's debate. PeteKent will give a long dissertation on how John McCain thoroughly thrashed Obama. Charles Kozierak will have repeated comments about how bad McCain looked. And 90% of the other comments will boil down to, "I think the guy I was already planning on voting for won the debate." The debates could sway some undecideds, but it's pretty unlikely that either candidate does so much better or worse than the other one that it would lead to some kind of surge of undecideds decisively to one or the other candidate. At best, the debates might firm up some weak support on both sides.
Tomthress nailed it. Kudos to the PeteKent and Charles K. references.
"If McCain is going to make any move in this election, it almost certainly has to come in this debate. Foreign Policy is his issue, the one he desperately wants to discuss."
Is it really possible to win a debate on foreign policy when people are focused on economy?
McCain can defend war in Irak. But after a 100bns bailout, it is 1000bn dollars to add to Bush bills that american can middle class will have to pay. and it make any massive tax cut unlikely for any administration.
Hard to win a debate on topics that many consider as secondary.
Foreign Policy should be a winner for Obama if the American public gets to listen to a 90-minute debate about it. We send our military to fight an unnecessary war, thereby throwing $1 trillion + down the drain. 4000+ Americans dead, 40,000+ Americans injured, a few hundred thousand psychologically damamged, we've flamed Islamic extremsist hatred for us by warring with someone that did nothing to us and did not pose a threat. Our allies don't t rust us anymore. We threw out our status as trusted leader of the free world, the beacon of hope, and the symbolic leader of the planet when we changed our historic precedent by starting a preemptive war and invading another's soveriegnty without cause and now what we're going to bring in a more belligerent, belicose leader than we laready have. Our allies won't say exactly what they feel because they fear us and want to stay allies with us, but they all think we're compelte fools and are praying when we get rid of this administration, we come back to the greatness we once were, the leader of the free world. Perhaps some close-minded, right-wing nut, conservatives think I'm wrong and don't care what the rest of the world thinks, but they'd be wrong. There are over a billion Moslem folks, we don't need a large chunk hating us. We need our military avaialble for other possible endeavors. We need to stop using them up for no good reason. How about we go after the bad guys where they are, instead of fighting an arbitrary war. And if we're going to nation-build and save some people, how about Darfur, that's a lot more dire situation than Iraq was in 2002. Oh yeah, they don't have any oil. How about ween oursleves off of our oil addiction. The foreign policy of the current administration has been the worst part of it and McCain is virtually lock step with them, probably a little more agressive- torture. At least there's that.
We see racial prejudice in some areas of the country while others we do not. If MI/PA go McCain by a small margin, in a very close election, then we can say race was certainly a factor, and even a decisive factor.
Now, that does not mean that a Colin Powell for example could not win because he is black. It meant that Barack Obama was not a good enough candidate , as judged by the American people, to overcome the racial prejudice.
Alex S. said...
Change in debate formats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Palin will have it a little easier, McCain a little harder. There´ll probably be nore chances for Obama to steer the foreign policy debate into economic territory.
I can see an upside in the VP debates for Biden in this also. I like Biden, but we all know he can be a bit verbal so perhaps this will keep his answers more concise and to the point. His answers will drill down to the points and specifics without going off on tangents which could help him. Plus, less direct exchange takes away the chance of him being portrayed as condescending, sexist or attacking Palin. Palin is gonna come of as scripted, redundant, and vague.
Obama become a leader of his party because of his opposition to Iraq in 2002, add charisma, great mix.
This debate Obama needs to win the hearts and minds of the folks that are thinking about voting for him, but he hasn't closed the deal with yet.
Americans should not be ethnocentric to not consider how someone else feels. I don't know why as a nation we're like that. Iran, Pakistan, Russia, they're all looking at us thinking scre America, they're not going to do to us what they did to Iraq and they can take a hike if they even consider it. The rest of the world isn't nearly on our side as much as it used to be. That good relationship has been squandered more than anytime in our 232 year history. It needs to be restored. Obama stands ready to do it. McCain would make the problem worse. This should be obvious to folks. I'll never understand why it's not.
Nate,
Great post. Thanks. I hope it gets as much airplay as the study, but we all know it won't.
This sort of study, and the story it supports, should be expected. It's sensational and gets hits (and therefore makes money). That is not to say that it should be accepted-- I agree with you, Nate, that any story citing statistics should disclose the formulae and data behind it. I used to have a friend who, when pressed, EVERYTIME would throw out a statistic from a "study" to support his position; any discussion I was having with him ended right there-- uh, can't accept your citation of "facts" without checking sources, dude.
I am looking forward to the first debate. You will definitely see some contrasts there, or should. McCain should be revealed as the Hawk he is and Obama as the more diplomatic leader. The Iraq issue I believe will balance out-- McCain will harp on Obama about the surge, and Obama can rejoind about the irresponsible commencement of the war itself and his desire to end it.
www.approximatingpoliticaltruth.com
"We see racial prejudice in some areas of the country while others we do not. If MI/PA go McCain by a small margin, in a very close election, then we can say race was certainly a factor, and even a decisive factor."
How would a small margin in those states prove race was a factor? You cannot say what factors decided the election for the voters in those two states by the margin between the candidates.
Anyone know what time the NC PPP will be released?
They say "tonight," I was thinking 6 pm might be it so I'm refreshing like crazy.
PPP is a terrible pollster.
"PPP is a terrible pollster."
They aren't the best, but they're rated just below Quinnipiac and above several others whose results we regularly discuss. Apparently it's going to be a slight Obama lead, which is probably an outlier, and the state will remain roughly M+2-3.
The debates will be very important for very specific blocks of voters.
Not for the young, the blacks, the rednecks, the hawks, the ideologues or the high info voters.
All these 45 days and all these 100s of millions of USD will be about the 10-15% of voters who belong in a variety of groups:
White married suburban women
White seniors
White union members
White catholics
All these happened to be Hillary's base. The result will depend on how toxic/unfavorable Obama is to these people.
So far Obama is considerably above the "Dukakis" threshold.
The republicans have to be very careful in going overboard in their racial baiting. These are not my words. These are Karl Rove's words
eve said...
How would a small margin in those states prove race was a factor? You cannot say what factors decided the election for the voters in those two states by the margin between the candidates.
We know there's a percentage that won't vote for Obama because he's black, 20% in Appalachia admitted it to pollsters during the democratic primary. Lets pick a number like 2% of the population of Pennsylvania who would vote for any democrat but not Obama because he's black. I'm guessing most people would consider 2% a very reasonable percentage.
If Obama loses PA 51 - 49%, 2 points, then we can say while race was not the only factor, it certainly was a factor and ended up being a decisive factor. That's common sense.
If you do not believe that 2% of PA, or MI, or OH won't vote for a black man, that otherwise would a democrat, then you are clueless.
Hey folks. I am GOP. I live in VA. Election race is tight all over. It's early. Let's relax a little... Now as to the whole Bradley/Wilder/Steele/Swan/et al effect ...
Has anyone considered that some may not answer with true intentions for FEAR that they might be called a racist when they are not. How many times have each of you given an answer to a question that was intended to avoid debate and hostility?
Consider this? If you got a call asking your positon from someone after seeing on the evening news that one candidate said, if they disagree, get in their face.
Think about it... The hostile in your face approach of any campaign will cause people to answer "less honestly." This doesn't mean it's racism, just caution or fear to avoid being labelled as one.
Both sides of this debate tend to forget, disagreeing doesn't make you dishonorable.
It's obvious comments on this and other sites are dominated by those invested in Senator Obama's campaign. Please remember that because some of us support the other guy/woman that we may just disagree on issues ... like a tax cut for people who don't pay any taxes isn't a tax cut ... it's a gift from the government ... or more accurately a gift from those who do pay income taxes ... in the old days we called that welfare...
"Apparently it's going to be a slight Obama lead, which is probably an outlier, and the state will remain roughly M+2-3."
In NC, I still think McCain's going to win it, but a poll from a reputable poster showing an Obama lead would be pretty big. I tend to be of the opinion that InkStain has voiced a lot lately, that it's a lot easier to get and stay close in a state than to actually win it. That's the biggest reluctance I have to thinking NC is a possible Obama win - he's literally NEVER led in a poll from a reputable pollster (i.e., not counting Zogby Interactive).
Nate,
Interesting thoughts from you on this poll. HOWEVER, the key is NOT what people FEEL. As an ardent Obama supporter, let me say that:
- THE key is HOW effectively marketers can exploit that latent, conscious or subconsicious, psychological bias, and cleverly scare people into VOTING their BIAS!
- Another key is how effectively a marketer, through a multi-pronged creative, and sharply targeted media buy strategy, leverages that successfully.
The Karl Rove clan have successfully proven that they CAN indeed do that!
This is ART not science!
Hear hear. Excellent and thought-provoking analysis, Nate.
"Has anyone considered that some may not answer with true intentions for FEAR that they might be called a racist when they are not. How many times have each of you given an answer to a question that was intended to avoid debate and hostility?"
This makes no sense to me. Who would ever trust the results from a pollster who calls people racists because they support McCain? Why would any pollster looking for honest answers incite debate or hostility?
Well.. the Democrats have a lot of catching up to do. Kerry was all Ohio, Gore was all Florida, and the Clintons only had an eye on the few "important" big states, as Hillary did in the primaries. The Obama campaign had to build the infrastructure first before they could exploit it. They only had some basic help from Howard Dean´s 50-state model. And now they are trying to turn the purple states blue. This effect will come into effect with each passing week. Pollsters might not realize it because they don´t count on these new voters, but the effect is there (or the campaigns wouldn´t put such heavy emphasis on this ground work). The effect will be strongest in Indiana because the McCain campaign isn´t countering it AT ALL. It will work well in states that are already trending Democratic, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. But will there be enough time? For Colorado and Virginia yes, for North Carolina...maybe... If we see a string of pro-Obama polls in a month we will be knowing that the effect worked, is probably stronger than the bare numbers show it, and that McCain has lost the state.
Todays polls were GREAT NEWS...for John McCain!!!
"PeteKent will give a long dissertation on how John McCain thoroughly thrashed Obama. Charles Kozierak will have repeated comments about how bad McCain looked. And 90% of the other comments will boil down to, "I think the guy I was already planning on voting for won the debate.""
Tom -- if he had a clue you wouldn't cast me as the complement of PeteKent. I am not a "fanboy" like he is.
I make no effort to hide my disgust with McCain and desire that he be kept far from the White House, but I do not tank my observations based on the outcome I prefer. I just call things as I see them.
In fact, I spent much of today arguing why I think Obama's lead isn't as high as Gallup suggests, and warning people not to assume this election is in the bag just because of a favorable week.
So if you're going to talk about me, get a clue first.
Jefrrey:
Your fear scenario (and you essentially definbed the Bradley effect) does not apply accross the board. It is strongest in face to face interviews, weaker in a telephone interviews and non-existent in a robocall poll like Rasmussen. (Which might explain why Rasmussen's results tilt toward McCain, although I can think of several other methodological reasons that this would be true.)
There are undoubtedly some individuals to whom the description applies. The question is whether they are numberous enough in the right locations to affect the outcomes. The research dpone lately suggests that the number of such people will be small. Obviously, it the election turns on Michigan and Michigans turns out to be as close as FL in 2000 then these voters will likely have made the difference. (As will tons of other factors.) But I do not think that likely.
Congratulations (apparently after smoking some hash) posted: "Today's Polls were great news for John McCain."
Congratulations likes to post that a lot doesn't he?
Yes, congratulations, today's poll results were about as good for McCain as was this week's financial melt down. And, by the way, the fundamentals of our economy are STILL strong. More great news for Sen. McPalin.
Please people. The only important thing about this Fournier/Rove-floated "poll" on race is whether they can get enought people talking about it to either force reporters to ask Obama his thoughts on the subject early this week or for Obama to comment about it in his stump speech. They're hoping to draw Obama into making some comment that they can interpret as "race-baiting" and cause another fake controversy to distract the media away from talking about the economy. And it's very likely to work.
This is all very funny, because Obama is the whitest dorkiest soccer dad ever. Except for the tan.
"This is all very funny, because Obama is the whitest dorkiest soccer dad ever. Except for the tan."
People tend to forget the initial resistance to Obama amoung the black intelligentsia - basically because he wasn't "black enough" or a descendent of American slaves. Before Iowa, it was Hillary Clinton who had most of the mainstream black support.
Justin:
The issue is not whether the interviewer is instilling that fear. It is whether the respondent has that in his/her head to begin with. Of course, unskilled interviewers can exacerbate the effect.
bryen193 said...
Please people. The only important thing about this Fournier/Rove-floated "poll" on race is whether they can get enought people talking about it to either force reporters to ask Obama his thoughts on the subject early this week or for Obama to comment about it in his stump speech. They're hoping to draw Obama into making some comment that they can interpret as "race-baiting" and cause another fake controversy to distract the media away from talking about the economy. And it's very likely to work.
This may be Rove's strategy, but Obama won't fall for that nonsense. He's not gonna let this get bogged down in race if he can help it. Now, the MSM loves racial stories (See the democratic primaries) and the McCain camp may be able to force a story down their throats but it won't have any umph, unless Obama comments about it, which he won't.
I went to the U of Chicago, and I have a great degree of difficulty thinking of Obama as "black" - precisely because his experience is more the immigrant's experience than a "black man"s. Of course, there are also recent black immigrants in America, and the thing is, they don't have very much in common with the West African-descended AA communities...
For those who don't get it, Congrats is repeating a line from the primaries. Whenever anything happened to help out Obama, someone would post to a message board, "This Is Great News... For Hillary!!!"
I think that Obama started out mostly with the white young anti-war Howard Dean demographic, and was only able to transition to overwhelming and enthusiastic support among mainstream black Amercia after right wingers like Sean Hannity began reporting negatively on his wife Michelle Obama.
"This is all very funny, because Obama is the whitest dorkiest soccer dad ever. Except for the tan."
I agree. All Obama campaign is about exotic background change agent, and all american christian family value loving husbang and father.
If if can hold this though balance, he wins.
"This may be Rove's strategy, but Obama won't fall for that nonsense. He's not gonna let this get bogged down in race if he can help it. Now, the MSM loves racial stories (See the democratic primaries) and the McCain camp may be able to force a story down their throats but it won't have any umph, unless Obama comments about it, which he won't."
One can only hope that common sense extends to Obama's surrogtaes and supporters as wel...
"For those who don't get it, Congrats is repeating a line from the primaries. Whenever anything happened to help out Obama, someone would post to a message board, "This Is Great News... For Hillary!!!""
Oh. Nevermind.
AxmxZ said...
"I went to the U of Chicago, and I have a great degree of difficulty thinking of Obama as "black" - precisely because his experience is more the immigrant's experience than a "black man"s. Of course, there are also recent black immigrants in America, and the thing is, they don't have very much in common with the West African-descended AA communities..."
We have friends who are naturalized citizens (immigrants) from Ethiopia. We asked them their impression of racism in the USA and about USA African Americans. They smiled, shook their heads and said, "There is little in common with other nations in the world."
Where the heck is the PPP poll already? I want to have sweet, sweet numbers to look at for 5 minutes to pretend that they're real.
Obama 49
McCain 42
North Carolina PPP, WOW!
@zzyzx,
>>For those who don't get it, Congrats is repeating a line from the primaries. Whenever anything happened to help out Obama, someone would post to a message board, "This Is Great News... For Hillary!!!"<<<<
I have speculated more than once that CTPEM is a democratic troll, meant to rev up the Obama supporters on this site. Certainly, I have never seen a McCain supporter say anything good about him/her. CTPEM gives the Republican Brand a bad name, and that is difficult to do in these times.
Most of the McCain supporters ignore him/her while a few Obama supporters always rise to the bait.
smitty: Did they mean racism in the USA had little in common with racism in other nations, or that AA have little in common with other nationalities?..
"PPP is a terrible pollster."
PPP is based out of North Carolina, so I think they would know the state better than any other pollster.
The North Carolina results should be very compelling and I'd rate their accuracy VERY high.
Obama consolidated the African-American vote in south Carolina when Bill compared him to Jesse Jackson. That made them mad and coalesce for good.
That´s true?????
Obama by 7 in NC.
NC PPP #s - link???!
The conclusions Fournier draws from this "poll" are faulty.
Please contact both Yahoo news and AP and ask them to remove this article.
AP: info@ap.org
AxmxZ, Obama is truly biracial. I don't get your comparison to immigrants, though. Obama is of course a native-born American, and born of an American mother.
Sorry to continue the OT stuff, but as of now I see nothing on PPP's site about NC polling.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.asp?@spdT=ECF791E062CD404AAB75
I don't see the NC poll on the PPP site. Also, even as an Obama supporter that seems like a massive outlier. Please post a link.
I can't take ANY poll in NC seriously. This puts the spread of them just within the last week or two at 27 points near the middle.
@ Hillary....
I just realize that the whole McCain campaign is built on racism... Most of what they did was to give people a reason to be racist. That´s where the whole "women for mccain" tactic is coming from... "Don´t vote on the issues, not even the female issues, just vote AGAINST Obama". And Sarah Palin is a continuation of this, although she also excited the base. They could have picked Huckabee though, but, NO!, the wanted to give people a reason to vote for "history", "don´t vote for the black man, vote for the woman!". They linked Obama to that black guy from Freddie Mac instead of the only "real" target, VP-vetter Jim Johnson who already resigned anyway... And now this piece... They are saying "There are others just like you! It´s ok to be racist!!!"
And then...
you get a +7 Obama in North Carolina..... earlier today I predicted a +5 Obama. Well, I was wrong it seems. But this must be an outlier to some extent, just like the +20 McCain from SUSA. What is going on in that state???
michael: He's native-born, but one of his parents was a foreign national. This brings him psychologically closer to other American-born children of foreigners, i.e. second-generation immigrants.
Ron Fournier is no different than Jeff Ganon.
He is a political hack paid for and promoted by the right wing power mongers as a typical Trojan horse. They install these douche bags at the highest levels of power and try to convince all of us that they deserve to be there. It's just more Bush/McCain nepotism.
Don't buy into it.
The number of pro-Obama outliers in the post-9/14 era is growing.
"smitty: Did they mean racism in the USA had little in common with racism in other nations, or that AA have little in common with other nationalities?.."
racism is a bit different in US as black are US citizen. In European countries, black are african immigrants. Story is not the same.
inkstain: Last big outlier scheduled for Nov. 4th.
I'm reminded of the scene at the end of A Time to Kill.
"Close your eyes and imagine a candidate that started out as a community organizer. He rose in popularity in a rundown area of Illinois and won a state senate seat. He makes a fantastic speech about unification at the 2004 Democratic Convention and becomes nationally recognized and he uses that fame to win a Senate seat and then launch a presidential campaign. He defies all of the pundits and wins the nomination even though he was up against a formidable candidate on a message of change and hope. Now imagine if that candidate... was white."
The racists in the room are shocked but realize how racist they truly are. And vote Obama.
MediaMatters believes Fournier is in the tank for McCain and cites some info to support that contention. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006
I think PeteKent may be Fournier.
sperricar: So is a third-generation immigrant from Algeria still an "Africa immigrant" or can he become a Frenchmen at some point finally?
Eric said...
She's the biggest farce of a choice by a major party in an election that can be found in modern history.
Yes agreed obviously, apart from GWB that is.
The stupid thing about the article is that, if you polled black people about their feelings about other black people, the numbers would be just as high or higher. Also, if you polled white people whether they think other white people are lazy-asses, lots of people would say yes. We're a fat fucking country, poll Americans in general, and you'd get a lot of respondents saying YES, Americans are lazy asses.
The real question is: Do you think Barack Obama is a lazy ass? I personally, think he's about as motivated and active a person as I've ever seen. I'm a whole lot more lazy than him, I guarantee you that.
I discussed the Bradley effect and cell phone bias a few days in my blog, Heartless and Brainless. Nate's analysis surpasses mine. Then again, that's why we're all here.
This is the headline everyone will wake up to on Nov 4
Say it with me Republican trolls:
O
B
A
M
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
This is what I said about the story/poll on the cell phone thread. My opinion has not changed nor has any new info come out that I think invalidates it so I am copy and pasting it from the earlier thread:
1. The poll was not primarily about race. The part where Obama was whooping McCain by 4 or 5 points was not included. (I am not sure which one is RV or LV).
2. Very few whites strongly agreed with the negative statements about black people, but did agree, at least somewhat with the positive statements.
3. In fact at least 67% of respondents felt admiration for black people "moderately often".
4. 62% of white people feel that black leaders are pushing at the right speed.
5. Even if Ron Fournier spurious and sensational conclusions were based on anything substantive, which they do not seem to be, and there are whites who have a negative impression of black people, it does not necessarily hurt Obama, unless he is viewed as a typical black person.
On a personal note, this story sort of offended me. These tools Fournier and Thompson used the responses of a few white people to characterize the whole group, which is what they are saying those few white people are doing also.
You can see the questions and breakdowns of responses:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
Then click on full poll results to come to your own conclusions.
(I did edit one thing that I felt was not stated very clearly.)
"sperricar: So is a third-generation immigrant from Algeria still an "Africa immigrant" or can he become a Frenchmen at some point finally?"
I think they are.
My point is that history of blacks in US and Europe (France) is different. That's all.
sperricar: It's different, but mostly because European slavery remained for the most part confined to the European colonies and was never wide-spread on the actual continent. Also the whole "nation of immigrants" angle is missing, obvious.
sperricar said...
"smitty: Did they mean racism in the USA had little in common with racism in other nations, or that AA have little in common with other nationalities?.."
racism is a bit different in US as black are US citizen. In European countries, black are african immigrants. Story is not the same.
That is correct, sperricar. Our friends are black, Christian, and highly educated. The USA version of racism amuses them. For the most part, they live their lives just like an average American citizen and ignore the "noise".
Still no confirmation on that PPP number. Might be a bit like the false MO report earlier.
Yeah I'm assuming that's a fake number.
Would be nice though :)
Nate just posted the new Senate races.
"I'm wondering about one of the methods used here. It sounds like respondents were asked which words describe African-Americans as a whole or in general, and then given a list of possible attributes. The thing is, IMO it's impossible to give any answer that isn't racist to that question. I don't think ALL African-Americans are nice any more than I think ALL African-Americans are violent."
________________________
The wording in the question was "most" not "all".
That being said, if I were the one being asked I would have said "don't know" since I don't know most black people only the ones I have met.
I do think many liberals would decline to answer so it may have skewed things a little.
Thanks for your coverage of this. I was in California during the (first) Bradley-Deukmejian election, so this surely prejudices my judgment, but I’m going to wait until November 5 (the day after) before jumping on the “Bradley Effect is dead” bandwagon. I suspect that if it still exists, it’s going to be felt more in the more liberal, Blue, states, where there is more social stigma attached to racism on the part of Democratic and independent voters. That was certainly the case in California in 1982, where both the pre-election Field Poll and the exit polls overstated Bradley’s numbers by a few percent. This leads me to be less sanguine about projecting the experience of Ford’s loss in a place like Tennessee (where Nate says there was no Bradley Effect) to a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania, where I expect there’s more social taboo associated with racial prejudice (or the appearance thereof). Pennsylvania particularly concerns me from the perspective of an Obama supporter, given its particular demographics. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s the working-class Italians in a place like Philadelphia that I’m thinking of. I’m less familiar with Michigan, having spent less time in that part of the country.
I’m assuming that it’s in face-to-face interviews and in live phone interviews that you’d see the most overcounting of a Black candidate’s support. That’s the context in which someone might be ashamed to admit voting, perhaps across party lines, for the White candidate. In an anonymous poll with no human interaction (like an automated phone poll) I’d expect to see little or no such effect.
Also, it’s when people get into a private voting booth, as in primary elections, that you’ll see the Bradley Effect, not in a caucuses where you make your choice in plain view in front of your family and neighbors.
So the cynical view would be to contrast Obama’s performance in caucuses to his performance in primaries. And yes, I’m remaining cynical in hopes of being proven wrong by the morning of the first Wednesday in November. I’d be interested to know if Nate or anyone else has found, or dismissed, any bias in Obama support between “interactive” and “anonymous” polls.
I wonder if there might be another, compensating, factor this time around, namely, the presence of a woman on the Republican ticket. Might this provide a fig leaf for a few McCain-supporting poll respondents who might otherwise be reluctant to appear prejudiced? After all, either way they’d be seen as supporting a “minority” candidate.
Anyone believe this "white racism" article is a last ditch effort by the right backed by Karl Rove to get some folks to think oh i guess it's okay since there's a lot of us to not vote for theblack guy just cause he's black? I just really don't trust the right wing nuts at all. That's actually a new low.
Consider this: 88% of Blacks already vote Dem - so Obama even if he got 100% would not be getting that many more votes.
What this ignors is turnout. US turnout is usually around 50%(ish). IF 30% more black voters came out and voted - that haven't voted before - that would make a BIG difference.
Obviously, racists will vote against Obama. People like Palin who think the world is 7000 years old and people who like the way McCain and Pailin LIE everytime they open their mouth - are equally as repugnant as racists - and we have to overcome them as well.
We shall overcome. Gee - that's got a nice ring to it.
I'm glad that the issue of racist voters is being addressed, and that researchers are trying to measure their potential impact on this election. However, I agree with Nate that the methodology in this study is a little suspect.
I think the best way to assess how many points a Democratic candidate loses by being black is to run an experiment where likely voters are asked to read "voter pamphlet" statements from a Republican and a Democrat in a hypothetical election and then tell which candidate they would most likely vote for.
All participants would be given the same pair of statements. For half of them, however, the Democrat would have a distinctly black-sounding name. For the other half, the Democrat would have a clearly white-sounding name. Then, when studying the results, we look to see how much better does the hypothetical white Democrat do, compared to the hypothetical black Democrat? That would give us a much better idea of the scope of the racism problem.
There really isn't much discussion about gender issues, either. There are voters who aren't ready to take that leap. I suspect...no data other than noticing tabs in some polls...that some males and perhaps a stray female, will have an issue.
Perhaps race and gender voters will cancel each other out?
The Bradley Effect is pure racism, not an "effect". Racism is not an "effect".
People who vote against one canidate because is black or another else is an ignorant stupid.
@Engaged
""Wait, so blacks have been voting 85% Democrat just for race all these years?
It's funny 40 years of blacks voting 80% democrat but now this year is must be *only* because Obama is black, how convenient.""
You seem confused. First you say 85% then you say 80%...either way, it doesn't matter, it is something like 95% this year. And I personally know A LOT of blacks who ARE voting for Obama when they have never voted before. Guess why.
My point was simple: Just as there are whites who will vote against Obama because he is black, there are also blacks who will vote for Obama because he is black...some goes to voting for/against a woman b/c she is a woman. You can argue about the impact of blacks voting for Obama because he is black wrt the population numbers, but that was not my point. There is no denying that there are many blacks who are voting for Obama because he is black.
Amen!
I for one am a white guy in my 30's who is voting for Barack BECAUSE of who he is!
Turn out is going to be the issue.
And my husband, (old white blue collar male), and I are voting for Barack Obama for who he is, too.
We genuinely believe he is the best of the best.
Matt: You cant compare black which are excited to vote for a black for the first time in american history, and white voters which would never vote for for a black man.
@Engaged
And not only was my point simple, it is obvious, which is why I found it strange that Nate only hinted at it while, on the other hand, making it very clear that some whites would not vote for Obama. Nate brought up all these points about a more compelling bio, an easier to sell 'change' message, and the advancement of racial equality, but he left out one of the a very OBVIOUS other cause: some blacks will vote for Obama because he is black.
Again, why was this left out? My belief is that Nate didn't want to say it.
@sperricar
I am not equating racism with excitement. Don't be stupid. The debate is whether blacks may also be voting based on race, and the answer is clearly 'yes'.
"And i think democrats (not only) are more racists than republicans. You can see that in some Hillary supporters (not PUMAS). The Obama´s plan is more likely than Hillary plan than McCain plan, and the Hillary plan is more likely than Obama´s plan.
Hillary supporters who vote for McCain are racist, that´s true."
Dario- Why do you exclude "PUMA"? I think PUMA's are either racist or sexist for the most part.
Obama's and Clinton's policy positions are remarkably similar. You can't vote for McCain on experience since he picked a totally inexperienced VP candidate, plus, I do not see how being the first lady constitutes experience.
It seems to me it either Obama's lack of a vagina or skin color that makes him truly different than Hillary.
Any thoughts?
Matt, whites too.
And not all blacks voted for Obama.
@Dario
You should delete your comment as it only shows that you respond without reading prior comments. I *did* say that whites were included and *never* did I imply that all blacks were voting for Obama.
Ok, Matt you´re right.
I was excited to have the opportunity to vote for a viable candidate that was not a white guy. If I am honest, Obama being black probably helped him a little with me and probably other voters like me.
Obama being black has certainly helped make his "change" mantra more believable.
Okay, so the Bradley effect means that polls might be incorrect in how many whites are voting FOR Obama because some people might feel put on the spot by pollsters, and are uncomfortable admitting they aren't voting for the black candidate. So they say they're voting for Obama, when in fact, they'll be voting for McCain.
But I'm wondering... couldn't the reverse be true as well? White voters telling pollsters they're voting for McCain because they don't want their bigoted buddies down at the plant to know they're voting for the black guy. Just a thought.
@esmith
I'm glad you deleted your ridiculous comment. I will go ahead and delete my response. But I will have to repost it, if others quote it.
Esmith is onto something, in that having Barack Obama as president won't end racism or charges of racism.
Already, we're seeing rampant speculation that if he doesn't win it must be because of racism. If his popularity is low people will say it is because of racism. When people criticize him, many will see it as a confirmation of racism.
I'm voting for him, but I have not deluded myself that it will do much of anything to change people's views about racism.
Wow nothing like a nate silver post to generate a load of crap. Sean has a lot to learn.
Blacks are incredibly racist. White voters who don't or won't vote for Obama have good reasons: years of being terrified by the black underclass.
Don't be a fool.
""
Matt said...
Blacks are incredibly racist. White voters who don't or won't vote for Obama have good reasons: years of being terrified by the black underclass.
Don't be a fool.
""
Lovely, another "Matt" posting a comment full of vitriol, intending to give readers the impression I was the one who posted that crap.
There are (at least) two "Matt"s:
The moron who posted the above crap:
05854628169409421831
And me:
05597972409207597481
Note that these profile IDs are different.
The more sensible,
Matt
McCain is ahead 48-42 in the first Ohio Newspaper Poll available at cincinnati.com (however it is spelled). Taken 9/12 to 9/16.
PPP is a Democrat-affiliated pollster (that's why it is often listed as PPP (D)). Even though it is based in Raleigh it was way off in the NC primary by like 9 or 10 points (underestimating Barack's final margin).
NC will go to McCain, especially with the Bradley effect.
1. Jeffrey is right that the Bradley effect does not just involve racists bt also involves regular voters who don't want the pollster to think they are racist because they are not voting for a black candidate. This will surely be true this year with all the recent claims by some Democrats in the media that only a racist could oppose Obama.
2. The most shocking example of the Bradley effect to date was in VA where Doug Wilder became the first black Governor of VA by less than 7,000 votes even though the final polls had Wilder ahead by 15 points. Obama will not become the first Dem nominee to win VA since LBJ.
I don't even think conservatives really believe this "media hates us" lie anymore. I think they know it drives rational people crazy when they say it, so they just keep saying it.
Asking tough questions of a potential President is not 'bias'. It's what the media is supposed to do. Conservatives discredit themselves with their whining.
Pacific moderate's post on the bradley effect is quite thoughtful.
The true PPP NC poll is a 46-46 tie with the creepy Bob Barr getting 5%.
The poll itself has rampant misspecification and the conclusions are completely made up. Fournier and his handler Dean Singleton are complete GOP hacks.
Hagen has a 5 point lead in the new PPP NC poll as well. Either the GOP is completely collapsing in NC or the poll likely has a few points of error. I'm thinking the latter despite the fact I would like to think it is the former.
@Bill P.
I don't think conservatives are discrediting themselves by saying the media is biased any more liberals discredit themselves talking about how Fox News is biased.
Anyway, both sides think the media is biased. In my opinion the really partisan people are just confusing sensationalism, poor reporting and laziness with bias. Conservatives are hardly the only ones who think the bias is against them, look at media matters! There's no shortage of liberals who are happy to whine about the media all day and night, nonstop.
Then you had the media fawning over McCain back in 2000, to the point that he said "The media is my base" now that he's taking a more conservative line they're dumping on him. NYT endorsed him, then once he won the primary released a poor article about him maybe having an affair that not even his opponents have bothered highlighting. US weekly ran that idiotic title after Palin was announced that said "Guns, Babies, Scandal!" - again, in my opinion that's just the media being sensationalist, but some conservatives take all of this as examples of bias.
The occasional gaffes by CNN and others confusing Obama with Osama (Where's Obama?) have lead some liberals to pound on the topic of a bias against Obama.
The point is, that people on either side will believe the media is biased if they look for bias. That's not going to change, and will only get worse as the media degenerates more and more into sensationalism. Blogs and all this stuff have only made it worse, since reporters feel like they don't have time to confirm anything lest it get broken on some blog first.
The "Bradley Effect" is a misnomer. It's a euphemism for, "The pollster was unable to ferret out false answers." Every pollster has to deal with people who, for political or smartassical reasons, give them incorrect information; they have questions in the poll designed to identify those persons so their responses won't pollute the figures. People who say they'll vote for a black candidate but do not intend to do so are in that group, and if the pollster cannot identify and nullify those responses, that's a failure on the part of the pollster, not any "Bradley Effect." I presume the people who are conducting the polls know what they're doing, and the figures we're seeing reflect people's actual voting intentions.
Baring some major change in how the media reports things, some equivalent to going back to careful 1950s journalism, this talk about bias is not going to go away or even be reduced. Especially with all these watch dogs like news busters and media matters. If you think the media is biased against liberals, spend fifteen minutes on media matters and you'll be sure it is!
Nate:
First, the blasted signup is damned inconsiderate! (Some of us do not possess keen eyesight and the "code" is really hurtful) Also, any way to enlarge this window? Or at least copy/paste from Word?
Now, from the pov of a social scientist who interprets stats (as opposed to a statistician):
1) It is true that "expressions of prejudice" are inversely correlated with educaton level. However, as any sociologist of race relations will tell you, this is only because "lower class" people talk straight up--they are not necessarily MORE prejudiced (think Trading Places).
2) How many people will vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black? Gee, are they not already called liberals--who already vote Democratic? And are not African-Americans already the most reliable Democratic voting bloc? The real question may be, how many African Americans will vote for Obama who would not vote at all were Obama not the candidate.
3) Bradley Effect: You may have a point--to a point. What happened in the NH Primary was not an example of it (bad demographic: pollsters polled 52% women, when they were 58% of the actual turnout). But think of this when you cite Tennessee. When one votes for senator, they are voting for their representative; when one votes for president, they're voting for their LEADER. I supect that there are more than a few clowns who have a black accountant, or even a black doctor ("they're not like the 'other' ones"), but they still can not vote with an open mind or heart.
Your thoughts?
Here's my theory ... My belief is that much of it is now baked into (the racism that is)the polls:
I posted this before, I'll post it again ...
To be honest, I believe the Palin pick was great for us for the following reasons.
1) Energized our base even more, solidified the dems, energized earnest, accomplished women who have not been engaged since the ... Read More60s and 70s .. I know this first hand
2) Flushed the biggots out into the light, they were looking for every reason "not" to vote for Barack, they got it with the "exciting, one-of-them" Palin. I think this is terrific. It reduces the "privacy of the voting booth" disaster that may have been looming (run strong in polls, lose on election day) - eg, the bradley effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
3) Given 2, gives us a truer picture of where we are competitive and let's us marshall resources where there actually _are_ voters who can come our way and are not just saying that so they "don't sound racist"
Thank you, Johnny Mac.
Conspicuous by its absense in that story is any discussion of hispanic attitudes toward black candidates, or of black attitudes toward white candidates. Undoubtedly, those results would be far more polarizing.
Also, if "images" were shown to elicit response, were they showing people pictures of the Huxtables or of militants? I seriously can't imagine a picture of Obama or of any clean and articulate black person drawing such a high level of disdain. Sure, there's going to be some bigoted response, but not at those ridiculous levels.
This just seems like a setup to elicit more white guilt rather than being an accurate characterization of attitudes.
The Bradley Effect may not be in play anymore - but I do have a question: does this also account for voters who are currently not saying who they are going to vote for (so called undecided voters) where race is actually a huge factor in why they are still undecided? This means that they are not lying, but rather in a situation where they could not imagine voting for someone who supports most of Bush's policies but also are having a hard time bringing themselves to cross the threshold and vote for a black man.
And God only knows how people in this situation would break on election day. Any thoughts?
i take it that the study leaves out the structural disenfranchisement of many blacks by voter ID and felony laws. Andrew Hacker reminds us of this in a gloomy piece in the NYRB.
Indeed, James, felons are systemically disenfranchised. That's a consequence of being a felon.
I can't understand why anyone would be against needing to prove you're a real, eligible person before being allowed to vote. Identity proof is a natural occurence in everyday life; why should that not be true for voting? To not do so disenfranchises all legitimate voters.
I am very worried by the implications of this study despite Nate's analysis. What brings me back is the fact that obama lost texas and ohio
in the primaries even with so much
head wind. I do feel that racism
was probably an issue there.
Note to NJ Moderate (and I realize it's been a while since you originally posted)-
The reason that Obama is behind here in South Carolina is not that he's African-American. It's that he's a Democrat.
The vast majority of right-thinkin' white folks here bought into Nixon's Southern strategy and have mostly continued in that pattern.
But I think that in the highly unlikely situation that the (post-convention) Republican presidential candidate were an evangelical Protestant Christian African-American who was pro-life and pro school vouchers, whites here in SC would vote Republican.
Me, I only live here, but I'm not from around here.
Nate, please consider the following:
1) I reiterate the obvious: Most liberals are not voting for Obama BECAUSE" of his race. I admit that it may make us feel good to do so, but we were going to vote for any Democrat. The only questions here are: How many young people would not vote, and how many African Americans would not vote, were Obama not the Democratic candidate. (And I am not suggesting that these two demographics support Obama for identical reasons!)
2) Bradley Effect: WHO and WHERE is the Bradley effect purported to measure? "Lunchpail" Democrats? You mean the union/gun-owning Democrat in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri? Is it not already clear that many of these people, who voted for Bill Clinton twice, did NOT vote for Gore or Kerry? I never heard an Obama strategist say their plan is "We win the election by winning back THESE guys."
It is a statistical FACT that Democrats have lost the white vote in EVERY election since 1964.
THE BRADLEY EFFECT WOULD SCARE ME ONLY WHEN/WHERE Obama clearly underperforms Gore or Kerry (e.g, Obama only wins Rhode Island or New York by 52-47). If there really are people out there who voted for Clinton AND Gore AND Kerry, but are not going to vote for Obama--then sadly, I can come to only one conclusion about such people. Let's hope there are only 16 of them
:-)
4) RUDY may be on to something: Why are we talking only about rednecks (let's be honest here)? Is there a potential Bradley effect among Latinos? Why assume either way?
5) And how about the erstwhile Hillary supporter, the PUMA? It seems that any real effect Palin may have on them is overstated; they are only loud, not influential. But how come no one ever accuses THEM of racism?
Many former Democrats who vote Republican really do so because of guns, gay rights or evolution. They may be wrong. (Okay, I think they're morons.) But this does not BY ITSELF make them racists!
Again, there are some of these "cultural conservatives" who will vote for a Democrat that is THEIR homeboy (e.g., Southern whites voting for Clinton) But I also know--and I do not know why this is hard--that there are whole regions of this country that, when the day comes, were never going to vote for ANY Democrat. Oh, they might stay home, but they are not voting Democratic AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL.
Why is 100% of Blacks voting for Obama not considered racism, but a White voting for McCain is? In my opinion Blacks are much more racist than Whites are according to this study. Why is that OK? Do you not think that many Blacks are voting for Obama because of the color of his skin? Is that not racism? Are these people bigots?
For every vote Obama loses because of race, he gains 2. His campaign is registering TONS on new voters, and newly registered voters never get polled.
The Wright hit is coming. Very soon. Probably Monday.
http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/22835/the-mccain-campaigns-next-negative-attack-rev-wright/
It is not necessarily racist for a black voter to support Obama because of his race - it is certainly racist for a white voter *not* to support him because of it.
To quote The Wire's Norman Wilson, “Black folk been voting white for a long time. You come correct, we listen. It’s y’all that don’t never vote black.”
Well, then likewise it is not racist for a white voter to support McCain because of his race--it is certainly racist for a black voter not to support McCain because of it.
These polls are of adults, many of them elderly and retired who can spend 20 minutes or more on the phone. They do not poll people with cell phones -- a huge and growing demographic as more and more people use a cell as their only phone. Also, it does not take into account the huge number of young people jazzed about Obama and who will vote. It also doesn't take into account the many millions of new Democratic voters registered during the long primary campaign and after. What about Obama's 2.5 million web supporters?
@ katt -
you're playing with semantics but your reversal of my statement has no basis in fact. You'd be hard pressed to find black voters who would vote McCain if not for his race. Hillary Clinton would have had similarly uniform support in the Af/Am community had Obama not run. "George Bush doesn't care about black people" sold a lot of t-shirts and bumper stickers up here in Harlem. Katrina was a big deal. What little support Republicans had in the Af/Am community was significantly eroded over the last 8 years.
jonny--what a bunch of leftist crap. You are advocating different rules for whites. Katrina was a disaster, first and foremost, because of an inept mayor. Blacks voted overwhemingly for Obama over Clinton.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
Post a Comment