Politics News

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


Bradley-Wilder effect asserts that some white voters when they reveal their political preferences state the black candidate as their preference (lest they be misconstrued to be closed-minded) in a white-black candidates race though the real preference of the said voters may be the white candidate.

So we have the situation of the publicly expressed polls overstating the support for a black candidate in a black-white candidates political race. The two political choices that are cited as examples of this effect are the 1981 California gubernatorial race between Dukemajian (white candidate) and Bradley (black candidate), and the 1989 Virgina gubernatorial race between Wilder (black candidate) and Coleman (white candidate.)

The question now is: is the Bradley-Wilder effect is still alive? And is it showing up in Obama-Clinton Democratic party presidential contest?

The most compelling data to assert that Bradley-Wilder effect may be operational comes from the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the five television networks and The Associated Press, asked voters if the race of the candidate was important: 19 percent said yes, while 80 percent said no. Of those who said yes, 59 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 41 percent voted for Senator Barack Obama. Of those who said no, 53 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama. Broken down by race, 13 percent of whites said race was important to them, and 75 percent of those voters sided with Mrs. Clinton. Of the 66 percent of whites who said race was not important to them, 58 percent voted for her.

Further, a recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black president. (The actual percentage is probably higher because voters are shy about admitting a racial prejudice to pollsters.)

So are we watching Bradley-Wilder effect? May be but there are some serious confounding elements. Here is one. Unlike pre-election polls, the exit polls do not involve a “face to face” interview. Rather, the exit poll interviewer’s task is to randomly select and recruit respondents, hand them a paper questionnaire, a pencil and a clipboard and allow the respondents to privately fill out the questionnaire and deposit it into a large “ballot box.” (Note that the “Bradley/Wilder effect” pertained less to exit polls but to pre-election telephone surveys. The underlying theory was that white respondents were sometimes unwilling to reveal their preference for the white candidate in a bi-racial contest when they felt some “social discomfort” in doing so. That is, respondents would be less likely to reveal their true preference in a telephone interview if they believed the interviewer supported a different candidate.)

HT asked:


She heckled President Hu Jintao during a White House appearance this week. The below article says she was charged with willfully intimidating, coercing threatening and harassing a foreign official.

Is it just me or does that sound like something China would do? I think W was doing it to show China we’re on their side, and I think that’s nuts. No, scary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/hu_protester_22;_ylt=AnVyFiD9PKmt5dBXMQC6zJhPzWQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
For the responses supporting the prosecution in the name of law & order, I’d be interested in hearing why simply removing her wasn’t enough, that it is right for the administration to go the extra step and actually prosecute her.

It’s that extra step — actually prosecuting her for offending or interrupting a politician — that I find indefensible. Sure, the President has got to be able to take her away, you’ve got to have some order. But once she has been taken away, you’ve already solved the problem. So what is to be gained by taking that extra step? The only purposes I can think of are (i) to make a point (show China we won’t stand for this kind of demonstration when they come to the White House) or (ii) make an example of her so noone else tries the same thing. Either purpose is, in my opinion, indefensible when all you have to do is remove the heckler.

zclifton2 asked:


“Lady Premier Merkel of Germany?” Yahoo Search