Reverse Bradley Effect?

[Virginia Dare]

Michele Norris just discussed a reverse Bradley effect on Hardball, the idea that there are actually people out there who will ultimately vote for Obama, but won't admit it publicly. I'm thinking there are quite a few out there like that, especially conservative women.

[rucky]

1. The more obnoxious the McPalin neighbors are, the better chance of it happening.

[x-g.o.p.er]

2. The Bradley Effect is a canard

The California electorate is nothing like it was when Bradley ran for Governor in 1982. Same goes for the US electorate as whole.

But I also don't think the demographics have shifted to the point that there is a "Reverse" or "Negative" Bradley effect, either.

[Mrs. Overall]

3. If anything, I think republicans are saying they will be voting for McCain, but in reality will vote

Obama.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Yes, it's been called "the Obama Effect"

It even had a wikipedia entry but was disputed and removed for lack of having an established track record...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obama_effect
____________________________________
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Jump to: navigation, search

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Obama effect

Obama effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

* For some reason, there's a page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Effect with different content than this one, and that page is linked to from the article. Someone who knows what's going on should fix this, please? --Rividian (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
o I fixed it, and will post what the user said in that AFD below this comment. But review to make sure I did it right is welcome. --Rividian (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* This is a perfectly valid entry for inclusion on Wikipedia.

The "Obama Effect" is a term that has been used and, though new to the political lexicon, has every right to exist.
There is no justification for deletion, if there improvement in the article is required, then this can be done.
Censorship, however, of a new term, is nonsensical.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) — Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note Your summary when creating the article sums it up: A potential difference between the way voters in the 2008 presidential election respond to surveys and polls and the way they might actually vote which screams original research. And censorship??? PaLEESE. Go ahead and call us racists, too, while you are at it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

* Delete. It's utterly unreferenced, and purely speculative anyway... it refers to something that might be a term if a certain thing happens. This is not encyclopedic topic, based on facts in evidence. --Rividian (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete per WP:NEO. And I swear I'll pistol whip the next person who says "shenanigans". MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete as pure wp:neo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete Unproven speculation. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete poitical sh... sh... stuff. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete using the Wikipedia isn't for this kind of stuff effect. Just because a neologism is used doesn't make it notable or inclusion worthy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete as the article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase. In fact all but one of the articles sourced seem to simply use it as a general descriptor. No prejudice against recreation if time reveals that the term "Obama Effect" actually picks up some equity, and there might be something worth merging with the main Obama article and/or the article on his campaign (I assume there is one), but I don't sense any viability as a separate article at this time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* Conceeded the the term is not yet well enough established to warrant an entry. I noticed that similar political terms, for example "Reagan Democrat", have come to earn an entry and so we might expect that, in time, "Obama Effect" will likewise have a wikipedia entry that meets the standards. Bscottbscott (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
o That is a good point. The fact is, most similar terms never rise to notability beyond the moment. Your conclusion is also correct that the term *might* rise in notability, if he wins, and if the term continues to be used. It just isn't there *yet* (if ever). PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
* Delete, neologism, unlikely to be ever seen again after the election. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
* Strong keep: The article is not outstanding, but it does not violate WP:NEO, which states, "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). This article, weak as its current draft is, is thoroughly sourced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

:patriot:

[zingaro]

5. my best friend voted Obama but would die before admitting it to her husband. nt

[Virginia Dare]

9. I know my conservative neighbor is the same way..

she admitted to me that she'll be voting Obama, but begged me not to tell anyone.

[BluegrassDem]

6. This reverse Bradley is more likely to happen in the South

where whites won't admit publicly they'll vote for Obama. So that gives me hope for Georgia, Virginia, and N.C!

[Virginia Dare]

10. I heard a pundit make that comment this weekend..

that it will be more of an effect in the northeast where racial issues haven't been addressed as openly.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

7. A lady friend of mine confided in me that she won't be voting for McSame/Palin, and she

was ashamed of what Bush has done. Her family is republican, they all vote republican, she has always voted republican - that's just what they do.

[Sheepshank]

8. I think...no I know

there are many republicans that would not state so out loud, but Palin would never get their vote.

[Virginia Dare]

12. Yep, there are lots of them out there, their thinking is the same as Colin Powell's..

they just aren't brave enough to articulate it in a public setting.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

16. Considering the family backlash, I don't blame them for not verbalizing their

disappointment with the republicans, the possibility that they won't be voting at all, or (horrors) that they might be voting for a Democrat.

[rucky]

11. The cellphone effect is more likely than either...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/cellphone-effect-continued.html

Bars in gold show Obama's lead in polls that include cellphone users.

[GreenEyedLefty]

13. Like Laura Bush? Bwa ha ha

She's a closet Democrat if I ever saw one.

[Virginia Dare]

15. It wouldn't surprise me at all if somebody from the Bush family voted Obama..

didn't Jenna say she was undecided a while back?

Obama has on board:

an Eisenhower
a Nixon
a chief of staff to Reagan
a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs/Secretary of State to Bush I and Bush II

[Mad_Dem_X]

14. I agree with that possibility

I am sure there are people who, to their firends and neighbors, proclaim themselves McPalin supporters, but when they get in the voting booth, they will vote with their conscience, for Obama.