How Can Any DU'ers STILL Not Know The "Bradley Effect" Is Totally Debunked?

[KittyWampus]

HOW?

DU'ers will post umpteen threads discussing whatever bullshit du jour is being served but something as important as this gets one or two threads, sinks and people on this forum are still mentioning the "Bradley Effect" as if it has any validation.

Bradley lost because his Armenian opponent mobilized Armenians and got them to vote... many absentee.

So this was a group of motivated voters who had gone unpolled before the election and weren't available for Exit Polls on Election Day.

If you see anyone on DU talking about this bullshit Bradley Effect, please kindly set them straight.

This is important.

There are no facts whatsoever that support the Bradley Effect as it is mistakenly understood.

If anything, Obama would be the WINNER in a similar scenario, as he has mobilized various groups of under-utilized voters.

[Jennicut]

1. Yup, its crap. Obama performed well in the primaries, no bradley effect there

Some polls were inaccurate but not because of the so called "bradley effect". I think the thing is we have never had a African American run for president so people are nervous about people changing their votes in the voting booth but I don't see it happening.

[KittyWampus]

3. My point is, there is no Bradley Effect. PERIOD. There're no actual facts to indicate many people

tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Don't know...I'll have to mole that over...

:evilgrin: