Forget the Bradley effect, what about the Byner effect?
Much talk in recent weeks about the so-called Bradley effect.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982. Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.
But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian. The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.
Maybe I’m grasping at straws, but I feel like there could be another phenomenon this year in addition to the Bradley effect. The media has been so completely in the tank for Barack Obama, protecting him and attacking his critics, that I think a certain percentage of the population resents it. Add in the fact that for weeks now they have been saying Obama has a big lead and the race is over, yet we continually see polls within the margin of error. Some show a 1 point race even this week. The final factor to consider is the behavior of the Obama campaign. Don’t these headlines rub voters, especially independents, the wrong way,
UK Guardian: Confident Obama takes presidential tone in talk of post-election plans
The Atlantic: Obama Team Begins Work On Presidential Transition
CBS Chicago: Election Night In Grant Park: Construction Begins: City Vows To Bill Obama Campaign For All Costs Associated With Massive Outdoor Bash
“Browns running back Earnest Byner took a handoff and appeared to be on his way to score the game-tying touchdown. But he was stripped of the ball by Broncos defensive back Jeremiah Castille, and fumbled at the 3-yard line. The Broncos recovered the ball, gave the Browns an intentional safety, and went on to win 38-33.”-Wikipedia
Here’s what I’m saying. In a close race, potentially, small percentages mean a lot. How many people will be casting a vote against the media and against the presumptuousness and arrogance of the Obama campaign for acting as if he has already won the election before we’ve had a chance to vote?
Could Obama be a victim of the Byner effect and fumble at the goal line?
October 24, 2008 8:29 am 
You could always go with the Doug Flutie Hail Mary- that analogy has the added advantage of showing an extreme underdog conquering Florida (U Miami).
But really– I hope that’s not the McCain campaign’s strategy, because the Earnest Byners of the world are pretty rare.
(I watched that game and remember it well. I was aghast. The old Cleveland Browns were really cursed back then)
I never trust polls. I have a suspicion that they get slanted by the polling organizations. Plus, I have never been asked my opinion.
I don’t think the Bradley (Byner) effect is relevant because we don’t know who is being polled.
I consider myself one of the silent majority. I don’t put bumper stickers on my car or lawn signs on my lawn. I’m able to make up my own mind and am not influences by stickers and signs. The only time my opinion counts is on November 4th.
Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
PK,
That’s what I was trying to get at, the silent majority, or whatever percentage it is. The silent 10%, 15%, I don’t know. I just know that I have heard from and spoken to many people who resent the media coverage and Obama’s presumption that he is already POTUS.
Kevin
[...] the most respected pundits in Washington, he knows what he is talking about. Here it is, arriving a tad bit early if you ask me, the Obama Thugocracy, via DRUDGE, The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three [...]
Just don’t forget the “evil” effect!
THE MUCH LESSER OF TWO EVILS
That old saw, “the lesser of two evils,” works fine when it comes to choosing between that calorie-laden creme brulee or that filling amaretto cheesecake at your favorite eatery. Either way, you’ll enjoy.
It works well in deciding between two horses in the seventh at Pimlico when you have to place a final bet with five minutes to post time and it works with political candidates for minor offices when you know both are bums but one is more bummy than the other.
Where choosing between two evils doesn’t cut it is when you’re choosing for whom to vote in a presidential election.
If a voter believes both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama are evil, he would be better off going with Bob Barr or Ralph Nader or writing in some nonentity not on the ballot, or your mother-in-law.
Being an old fashioned senior, seasoned citizen, I still have the quaint notion that voting is a sacred privilege. I may vote for some clod for dog catcher despite the fact that he plays the ponies, whether he’s good at catching dogs or not, over the guy who beats his wife, but my vote for the man or woman running for president is still a sacrosanct privilege.
Because of that firm belief, I don’t abide these “Get-out-the-vote” drives and efforts to register people to vote when those same people would much rather chug a quart of Ripple in a back alley or walk their dog than drag themselves to a voting machine.
If that be deemed un-American, then so be it.
I just don’t think that being coerced to vote or being bribed to vote, whether that coercion involves warnings that if I don’t get myself to a polling location my welfare checks would be reduced, or whether it involves being furtively slipped a couple Marlboros if I registered, is the American ideal.
I happen to be a guy who seriously weighs my presidential options. I research the candidates, listen to or read their speeches, and arrive at what I feel is a considered and reasoned decision.
I don’t see how Howie the Hobo or Marvin the Marlboro Man should get to cancel out my vote…
(Read the rest of this article @ http://genelalor.com/.)