How many of J.J.'s election rules............

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

came true and how many more did he create?

Here are real rules:

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:  "If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."
 
J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections: "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."
 
J. J.'s Third Rule of Elections:  "Supposed indicators, crowd size, signs and bumper stickers, letters to the editor, are meaningless in terms of actual voter support, though might be an indicator of campaign organization."

Sorry, J.J., couldn't resist. 

[memphis]

These actually aren't bad statements. McCain was definately guilty of number one, though it's not like a candidate is going to concede defeat before election day. Number two was absolutely true on JJ's home state of PA and it seems strange to me that he would produce this rule and then insist on a a mythic core of people who were telling pollsters one thing and voting another way. I'm not quite sure about the third statement. It's a very locally based statement that is hard to compare with national results.

[John Dibble]

These actually aren't bad statements. McCain was definately guilty of number one, though it's not like a candidate is going to concede defeat before election day. Number two was absolutely true on JJ's home state of PA and it seems strange to me that he would produce this rule and then insist on a a mythic core of people who were telling pollsters one thing and voting another way. I'm not quite sure about the third statement. It's a very locally based statement that is hard to compare with national results.

On the third statement you might look at the crowds that Palin could draw - she drew a lot of people to her rallies, but obviously the support for her VP candidacy wasn't as strong as would be indicated just by those crowds.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I loved how J. J.'s absolute religious-like worship of the Bradley Effect basically violated his own rules. Then again he tossed those out the window in regards to Hillary in the primary (and was basically wrong every time.)

[J. J.]

I loved how J. J.'s absolute religious-like worship of the Bradley Effect basically violated his own rules. Then again he tossed those out the window in regards to Hillary in the primary (and was basically wrong every time.)

Actually, I was right, on the 1-2 point Bradley Effect, except it might have been 1-3 points.

On the first one, no, McCain actually didn't violate it.  He said repeatedly that he was behind.  The rule is that the candidate who said it would lose, so there was no violation (though I was waiting).

#2 proved correct as well.  No new group, though turnout of people was good.  The "Youth surge" never materialized.  (I was watching that one too.)

The newest rule, #3, seemed to work, nationally.  Remember the Palin crowds and the St. Louis rally for Obama?

They held.

[J. J.]

NBC Nightly News just announced that if NO voter under age 30 voted, it would have flipped two states, IN and NC.

The rules held.

[Sarnstrom]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

The guy is also still arguing Obama had a lousy GOTV operation.

[tokar]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

He is drinking the kool-aid...has been for a while now.

Most pundits have been saying that there was an ANTI-BRADLEY EFFECT...

[??????????]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

Unprovable either way IMHO. The margins in the states may have been wide enough were any such effect would have just been seen as static.

[J. J.]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

I've said that I expected a 1-2 point Bradley Effect nationally.  We have two of the tracking polls that follow (neither of which is Zogby) that well over predicted the margin outside of the MOE, Gallup and ABC/WP.  We have a third, TIPP that over counted Obama, but within the MOE.  (It could be a 1-3 point Bradley Effect.)

We have two good polls that undercounted, Rasmussen and Hotline, but within the MOE.  R2Kos did as well.

We've known a few things about Rasmussen, it uses the 'bots and it pushes.  Does Hotline do either?

And, though it did not occur in every state, it did occur in some (Iowa, ironically, was one and New York).  It didn't make a difference and in some states where I thought it would occur greatly, OH and PA, it didn't.

[Edu]

If a candidate underpolled i don't know how you can exactly say it was because of the "Bradley effect". Maybe there were other reasons.

Wasn't Kerry polling better in North Carolina in 2004 than what it finally turned out to be the results? And i'm sure a lot of candidates in the past years have been underpolled in some places and overpolled in others. How exactly do you know why that happened?

Maybe the Bradley effect happened somewhere, maybe not, but i still can't figure out how you can be so sure J.J.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There are dozens of reasons polls can be off, the Bradley Effect being only one, and one often most ignored (considering there are no rock solid examples of it, the case of Bradley himself is actually rather weak.) J. J. is basically simply assuming the Bradley Effect takes top priority and must be the reason and ignores everything else. I don't think I need to comment on how downright idiotic this is.

[J. J.]

If a candidate underpolled i don't know how you can exactly say it was because of the "Bradley effect". Maybe there were other reasons.

Wasn't Kerry polling better in North Carolina in 2004 than what it finally turned out to be the results? And i'm sure a lot of candidates in the past years have been underpolled in some places and overpolled in others. How exactly do you know why that happened?

Maybe the Bradley effect happened somewhere, maybe not, but i still can't figure out how you can be so sure J.J.

First of all, it has to occur across polls; it can not be just one bad poll.

Second, in some of the examples, it has to be consistently outside of the MOE or at least consistently at the upper end of the MOE.  CA is an example.  McCain did slightly better than expected than several late polls, but in the MOE.  There were others IA, AR, GA, WV, and even NY, where McCain's result was better than the MOE.  (It did occur in UT as well, though it wasn't great polling)

Third, it seems to be more likely to occur in races where one candidate is black and the other is white, more so than in a white/white or black/black candidates race.  It occurs across party and on the ultimate winner, but it doesn't occur in all cases.

Fourth, in 2006, the pattern was the undecided vote looking like it would break heavily to the white candidate.  In other words, the undecideds tended either to make up their minds for the white candidate, or they said to the pollster, "I'm undecided," but secretly thought, "I'm voting for the white guy."

That pattern occurred in 3 out 4 black/white candidate races in 2006 and seems to have occurred in some state polls and certainly in good national polls (and a bad one, Zogby).

My question is, did the polls that got it closer, in the MOE, do something that corrected for this?  We know that Rasmussen uses robocalling and Hotline and TIPP doesn't so that's it.

[minionofmidas]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

Unprovable either way IMHO. The margins in the states may have been wide enough were any such effect would have just been seen as static.

Unprovable beyond reasonable doubt...

The results certainly imply something though.

Namely that there was a localized [/notices he isn't quite on message, as he was going to talk about race affecting vote decisions rather than the mythical Bradley Effect itself. Cuts self short]

[J. J.]

You must be the only human on the planet that believes there was a "Bradley Effect" in the election.

Unprovable either way IMHO. The margins in the states may have been wide enough were any such effect would have just been seen as static.

Unprovable beyond reasonable doubt...

The results certainly imply something though.

Namely that there was a localized [/notices he isn't quite on message, as he was going to talk about race affecting vote decisions rather than the mythical Bradley Effect itself. Cuts self short]

Good Lord, Lewis.  I said I expected it to be a 1-2 point Bradley Effect nationally and it looks like a 1-3 point range.  I've also cited a half dozen states where it looks like it occurred, though most were big, one way or the other.  :rolleyes: