[Vision2020] EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER

[No Weatherman]

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER
October 15, 2008

With an African-American running for president this year, there has
been a lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media
to wail about institutional racism in America.

Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor
in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect
says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual
election results.

First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of
being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more
terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier
than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To
some, it's even scarier than "food insecurity."

Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather
than be forced to explain why they're not voting for the
African-American.

This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question:
"Whom do you support for president?"

Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey Mouse.")

Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just
about the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were
a little more moderate — hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my
convictions force me to vote for the candidate who just happens to be
white. Say, do you know where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?"

In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a
racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're
not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to
sound cool.

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington
Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I
found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans.
When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support
for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48
percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks
before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup
Poll by 6 percentage points — down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead
in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984,
I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to
41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct.
27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, —
the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The
New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a
4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll
about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct.
19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13
points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of
victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4
percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had
Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2
points — 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it
became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was
considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later — or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the
story — on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times
Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to
15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of
error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7
percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On
Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent,
and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by
only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet
on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton
leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October
polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either
Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of
the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New
York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45
percent to 39 percent.

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate
— not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In
the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004.
Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with
Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better
starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than
we even realized.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
http://www.anncoulter.com/