53% of people Gallup polled disapprove of Obama’s handling on the economy.
57% disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy.
70% of the people polled say we are on the wrong track.
Yet Obama’s job approval is 51%.
So what is going on here? One possible answer is the “Bradley effect”. The Bradley effect was named after Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, and African-American or lost the election for governor of California after being ahead in the polls going into the election. [1]
It is a social phenomenon where respondents to a poll give the answer they think the caller wants to hear rather than their actual feelings. In this case, if the caller had a female African-American accent the respondent would more likely give a positive approval rating to Obama then would usually be the case.
This is not necessarily a racial problem. Its root is the human’s innate desire to please other people. This is a natural trait that is important to the formation of social groups.
It occurs when a perceive social stigma is attached to one of the answers. In Barack Obama’s case that stigma is racism (or race betrayal if you are black). In Hillary Clinton's case, that stigma is misogamy (or gender betrayal if you’re a women).
In addition, the media has so demonized Donald Trump as a racist, xenophobic, misogamist, insane man that there is a stigma to telling a poster that you will vote for him.
So the question is how much is it shewing the polls? We can interpolate from Obama job approval ratings. The effect looks like about 5 to 10%.
1. Wikipedia
12 comments:
You could be right.
However, I think a lot of it is the Gruber effect.
Trump has the same issue. There are people who will vote for him but don't admit it because they don't want the hassle or argument.
No off topic spam or childish name calling Opie.
"Trump has the same issue. There are people who will vote for him but don't admit it because they don't want the hassle or argument."
Agreed
No
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-conversation-about-skewed-polls-is-back/
You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.
Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.
No again via RCP
The final problem is one everyone knows: the uniqueness of Trump himself. All of political science is based on history, on the idea that patterns in the past will continue in the future. It makes sense: People who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 are unlikely to vote for Trump this year. But Trump is so different from every other candidate in the recent past that pundits fear he could break out of the historic patterns of voting.
That’s pretty much what happened in the primaries, when so many experts said with great conviction that Trump couldn’t win. Their reasoning was strong: He had no ground game, no field operation working to get his supporters to the polls on election day; he had no TV ads, which candidates all consider essential; he wasn’t raising money, or spending it. He had no real campaign organization and no experience in politics. In the past, candidates like that never won. But, of course, the Republican primaries were different this time.
But here’s the thing: The problem with the predictions about the Republican primaries wasn’t actually the polls. The polls’ predictions were largely borne out by the results. In fact, the problem was that the pundits were ignoring the polls. “Trump led in the vast majority of polls,” Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight wrote at the end of the primaries. FiveThirtyEight had 549 polls in their national primary polling database during the primaries; Trump led in 500—in 91 percent. Most if not all of those polls used conventional definitions of “likely voters,” and any “social desirability bias” didn’t end up making the pollsters wrong about the extent of Trump’s support.
So for all the hand-wringing over the polls, maybe the best way to predict the results in November is not to discount the polls. Instead, maybe we should rely less on the pundits who say the polls could be wrong, and more on the polls themselves, which have been pretty accurate about Trump’s support so far this election season. Of course things could change in the next 90 days, but the polls right now are clear: Our next president is Hillary Clinton.
OMG! NOW you're spamming CS????????
This irresponsible and ignorant man should never be our President. This isn't a joke gone bad. He said that if Clinton is elected, the Second Amendment People should assassinate the President of the United States. Dan Rather made the clearest statement that we cannot elect this man.
He faces almost universal condemnation for this speech. The Secret Service did post on their Twitter account, that they are aware of this statement. If I said that, I would be in handcuffs.
---------
"No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that "The Second Amendment People" can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.
This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do.
We are a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. We are an honest, fair and decent people. In trying to come to terms with today's discouraging development the best I can do is to summon our greatest political poet Abraham Lincoln for perspective:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lincoln used these stirring words to end his First Inaugural Address. It was the eve of the Civil War and sadly his call for sanity, cohesion and peace was met with horrific violence that almost left our precious Union asunder. We cannot let that happen again."
Dan Rather.
Dan Rather.......BWAAAAHAAA!
Or rather Roger has not logged in.
Duplicate comments and spam have been deleted from this thread.
(Yes, James your comments can be deleted.)
He has been warned, I cleaned up his mess. Next time I will lodge a complaint to blogger and will include his spam in the screenshot.
I'm not kidding around and I will not moderate comments as CH was forced to do.
I really don't care about the number of pageviews or the number of comments I get.
This is my blog, my rules.
OMG! NOW you're spamming CS????????
Post a Comment