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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oy, such bad writing (none / 0) (#1)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    what is obvious to anyone who can avoid buying the pollster spin

    This bullying people into agreement (If you don't agree with me, you are buying pollster spin) is such a weak form of explication. It's at best bad writing, a defensive way that implies a lack of creative thinking. It even bullies the writer into non-creativity. I easily came up with alternate explanations entirely independently of pollster spin. Which explanation is true would require closer investigation than I have done, but that's beside the point.

    It is bad writing TO YOU (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    because you do not agree with it.

    Should ANYTHING EVER be obvious in your mind? No? Because you are doing precisely what you are condemning.

    What HORRIBLE writing from you.


    eh, overblown complaints (none / 0) (#3)
    by DemFromCT on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:19:56 PM EST
    I tend to agree with Judis and that's why I posted it. My piece was a round-up, and ignoring something that Kohut placed in the NY Times, prominently seen, would have been negligent. I can't find anyone to agree with Kohut on this one.

    your opinion of "what people deserve regard" is, of course, your opinion. You are entitled to it.

    Dinkins wasn't the best mayor NYC ever had, and he wasn't the worst. Note, btw, there's not been a Dem mayor in NYC since Dinkins (so politically, he had an unimpressive legacy at a time NYC was hurting). Click his wikipedia file and there'll be little there to impress. he won in 1989 and lost in 1993.  he did some good things and some bad things. I would have much preferred him to Rudy. Undistinguished sounds about right.

    Rudy was distinguished? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    As for what you agreed with, you gave Kohut major play.

    You also give pollster way too much respect imo.

    and of course, my words, my opinion.

    Hope all is well with you.


    things is good (none / 0) (#6)
    by DemFromCT on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    what on earth do my comments have to do with that lying hypocrite, Rudy?

    you know what you are really saying? You would have written it differently.

    And I believe you would have, too. ;-)

    cheers and be well.


    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    Of course. But I would have written something different too.

    I hate the deification of pollsters.


    maybe, maybe not: (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    the Media Misogyny galvanized women voters to support Hillary.

    aside from anecdotal evidence, commonly known as hearsay, what, of a tangible nature, do you have to support your assertion?

    i thought so.

    i have no clue why the polls were all wrong. neither do you, or anyone else. ok, there is god, should you be a believer. aside from him/her/it, no one.

    one problem with polls is that they are themselves intangible, making any analysis a crapshoot at best.

    geez BTD, there are times i wonder how you actually walk, with that foot shoved so far in your mouth.