<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: N.Y. Times/CBS Poll: Obama 51%, McCain 39%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/</link>
	<description>Essays on politics, culture and ideas about Israeli-Arab peace and world music</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: LanceThruster</title>
		<link>http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/comment-page-1/#comment-103396</link>
		<dc:creator>LanceThruster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/?p=4418#comment-103396</guid>
		<description>I heard them talking about the reverse-Bradley effect the other day (BBC radio I think) saying that the pollsters may be missing a considerable number of Obama voters who fall through the cracks of their pollign samples (young people with only cell phone numbers, etc.). I'm more concerned about the "Diebold effect" (hacked voting and other vote irregularities) that I think can also be argued to be a major factor (in NH, Clinton's numbers seemed to do much better than polled in predominantly electronic voting districts whereas they mirrored the poll numbers more accurately where unverifiable electronic voting was not used).

More Bradley efect info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard them talking about the reverse-Bradley effect the other day (BBC radio I think) saying that the pollsters may be missing a considerable number of Obama voters who fall through the cracks of their pollign samples (young people with only cell phone numbers, etc.). I&#8217;m more concerned about the &#8220;Diebold effect&#8221; (hacked voting and other vote irregularities) that I think can also be argued to be a major factor (in NH, Clinton&#8217;s numbers seemed to do much better than polled in predominantly electronic voting districts whereas they mirrored the poll numbers more accurately where unverifiable electronic voting was not used).</p>
<p>More Bradley efect info here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect');">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Silverstein</title>
		<link>http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/comment-page-1/#comment-103389</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Silverstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/?p=4418#comment-103389</guid>
		<description>@perry: I think that pollsters have learned how to compensate for the "Bradley effect."  Also, remember that election happened in 1982 nearly 30 yrs ago.  Times have changed.  Yes, there still is racism &#038; there are whites who will never vote for Obama.  There may even be whites who say they will &#038; then won't.  But it beggars belief that every undecided voter will break for McCain.  I simply don't believe it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@perry: I think that pollsters have learned how to compensate for the &#8220;Bradley effect.&#8221;  Also, remember that election happened in 1982 nearly 30 yrs ago.  Times have changed.  Yes, there still is racism &#038; there are whites who will never vote for Obama.  There may even be whites who say they will &#038; then won&#8217;t.  But it beggars belief that every undecided voter will break for McCain.  I simply don&#8217;t believe it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: perry</title>
		<link>http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/comment-page-1/#comment-103381</link>
		<dc:creator>perry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/?p=4418#comment-103381</guid>
		<description>It's really very difficult to see how Obama will win. This image shows the Bradley Effect in major elections: http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/408-3.gif

You can see that for all but one of the examples, the white candidate captures all of the previously undecided in the actual votes, and so gains about 10%. 
Added to this is the certainty that the Republicans will indulge in their usual minority voter suppression.

So Obama will need approx 55% in the pre-election polls to have any chance. The complacency of Obama supporters is really heartbreaking. The campaign is just coasting along now, believing they have won, where instead they should be mopping up McCain supporters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s really very difficult to see how Obama will win. This image shows the Bradley Effect in major elections: <a href="http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/408-3.gif" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/408-3.gif');">http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/408-3.gif</a></p>
<p>You can see that for all but one of the examples, the white candidate captures all of the previously undecided in the actual votes, and so gains about 10%.<br />
Added to this is the certainty that the Republicans will indulge in their usual minority voter suppression.</p>
<p>So Obama will need approx 55% in the pre-election polls to have any chance. The complacency of Obama supporters is really heartbreaking. The campaign is just coasting along now, believing they have won, where instead they should be mopping up McCain supporters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LanceThruster</title>
		<link>http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/14/ny-times-poll-obama-51-mccain-39/comment-page-1/#comment-103379</link>
		<dc:creator>LanceThruster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:52:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/?p=4418#comment-103379</guid>
		<description>I'm convinced that the numbers are even worse for McSame/Mooselini but that the same sort of shenanigans are at play with the polls that were in previous stolen elections. By making it seem as the election could go either way, it provides cover for the lazy, shiftless, incurious and corrupt MSM should it be stolen again. The memes have been planted and the '180 rule' is in play which is blame the other side for those things you commit (FOX Noise complaining about dirty campaigns and vote fraud).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m convinced that the numbers are even worse for McSame/Mooselini but that the same sort of shenanigans are at play with the polls that were in previous stolen elections. By making it seem as the election could go either way, it provides cover for the lazy, shiftless, incurious and corrupt MSM should it be stolen again. The memes have been planted and the &#8216;180 rule&#8217; is in play which is blame the other side for those things you commit (FOX Noise complaining about dirty campaigns and vote fraud).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
