The Wilder Effect And Electability
DemfromCt, the daily kos Contributing Editor, has always given pollsters a regard they simply do not deserve. This is reflected in his post on the excuse making from pollsters on their New Hampshire debacle. His post takes seriously all the excuse making they present and ignores what is obvious to anyone who can avoid buying the pollster spin - the Media Misogyny galvanized women voters to support Hillary. Instead Dem buys into this nonsense:
The "Wilder Effect (aka the Bradley effect)." This is worth a good look. Kohut raises this in his NY Times article from his own experiences a few years back with David Dinkins, running in NYC for mayor (he's the undistinguished Giuliani predecessor)More . . .
First, I take GREAT exception to Dem's ridiculous dismissal of Dinkins as undistinguished. What a crock from him. David Dinkins was a very good mayor and he faced a racist press in the hard times of the Bush 41 recession. But let's think about the Wilder Effect explanation. I am amazed that people do not understand the full implication of this excuse line form pollsters. It means, in a word, that Barack Obama is unelectable. He does not have poll leads that put the Wilder Effect out of play. If this explanation takes hold, then real doubts about Obama's electability will take hold. It is, as John Judis has stated, an incendiary argument bereft of factual support. There is something incredibly unseemly about pollsters using this unsupported rationale to cover up their own incompetence. It is wrong of Dem to humor this.
|< Hillary On MTP: Comparing The Iraq Records | New Torture Allegations at Abu Ghraib >|