The Island of Logic

This was the most accurate pollster in the 2004 election……

In 1982, Tom Bradley a candidate for governor in the state of California lost by the narrowest of margins after having polled ahead of his opponent. In the 1983 mayoral race in Chicago, Harold Washington polled as high as 14 points a few days before the election, but won the election by only 4 points. In 1989, David Dinkins running for mayor of New York against Rudy Giuliani, polled about 14 points ahead of Rudy a few days before the election, but only prevailed by about 2 points on the day of the election. The thing all of these candidates had in common was they were black and they were running against white opponents. Since that 1982 race this has become known as the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect states that for sociological reasons white voters will often tell pollsters that they are for a black candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth will vote for the white candidate. Now there could be several reasons for this phenomenon. However, I believe that the two primary ones are that either these white voters are actually racist and would never vote black, or they are simply afraid of opening themselves up to criticism even though they prefer the white candidate for policy and ideological reasons. I would call this reverse racism. I believe that the latter is more often true then the former for being the cause of the Bradley Effect. There are more white people today that are trying to overcorrect the past problems of racism then those that are actually racist. White racism against blacks is not dead, but it has by no means the strength that it had in the 50′s and 60′s. Now some studies have shown that since 1996 that the Bradley Effect seems to have faded, and it no longer has an effect on elections. I contend however that it will have an effect on the coming Presidential election and I will tell you why. The University of Washington professor Anthony Greenwald conducted a study that found that the Bradley Effect was at play in the 2008 Democratic primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Greenwald noticed that the margins between the polls and the actual results depended on the number of blacks living in a state. The polls taken in states with a small black population tended to overestimate his performance and states with large black populations actually underestimated his performance. This indicated that there may be a Reverse Bradley Effect in play. The Reverse Bradley Effect would mean that blacks would tell pollsters that they were not voting for the black candidate even though they would pull the lever for the black candidate in the voting booth. The reason for this would not be the same as for the white voters in the Bradley Effect, but the absolute antithesis. The cause of the Reverse Bradley Effect would be that black voters would not want pollsters to think that they are simply voting for a candidate because he or she is black, but because they agree with that particular candidates policies. They want to appear as informed voters to the pollster. Ok, now you’re going to say that won’t the Reverse Bradley Effect and the Bradley Effect simply eliminate each other and create a zero sum game. In the Democratic Primaries that may be true however black voters are a minority so the Reverse Bradley Effect won’t completely eliminate the Bradley Effect, but I don’t think that is going to be the reason that the Bradley Effect will be at play in the General Election. First of all the Reverse Bradley Effect will not apply to the General Election because blacks traditionally vote more than 90% for the Democratic candidate. They will have more social pressure of being called an Uncle Tom if they would say that they are going with the Republican candidate than the pressure of appearing uninformed because they are saying they will vote for the black candidate. The Reverse Bradley Effect did apply to the Democratic primary because all the choices were obviously Democrat. In the General Election however many white independents and moderates will poll that they are voting for Obama even when they agree more with McCain’s policies. When it comes down to actually voting they will vote for policies and ideological beliefs rather than social pressure. I don’t know yet how much this is going to effect the November 4^th election, but I am going to guess that the Bradley Effect is probably giving Obama anywhere from 5-8% in the polls. Heads up Conservatives!! It isn’t over till the fat lady sings.

I was recently reading an essay by Stan J. Liebowitz in my fall issue of the National Review entitled Anatomy of a Train Wreck. I decided that I had to post it here because this should be required reading for all voters going to the polls on November 4th. Stan breaks down the facts behind the housing and mortgage crisis in our market. This is a must read, please take the time. Print it off and grab a cup of coffee. (http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf)

Whose fault is it that we have the current government in place? Whose fault is it that it looks like we are going to elect a Socialist as President? Whose fault is it that our politicians seem to be interested in spouting populist viewpoints rather than speaking the truth? Is it the integrity of our elected officials or is it the integrity of the electorate? I constantly hear people complaining about politicians, but I don’t see much complaining or blame being placed on ourselves. I am actually including myself in this. The reason that I am writing about this is because of a business networking luncheon that I attended yesterday. The controversial topic of “What’s Bothering You” came up. I was amazed that I kept hearing the refreshing viewpoint that the lack of personal responsibility is what has got this nation to its current point, and the people speaking were even speaking about themselves. The reason that our nation is at its current point is not the fault of the politicians but the electorate of which they are a reflection. Our founding Fathers designed a government by the people for the people and that is exactly what it is. The reason our nation’s government is in its current state is the fault of us as the electorate. We no longer take responsibility for ourselves, and we have removed God from our lives. If we want to change this country we need to start by changing ourselves and encouraging those around us to change. We need to start by turning back to God, and taking responsibility for ourselves. If this happens among us; that is when we will start seeing our government began to reflect the founding values upon which this great nation was built. Currently the way that it stands, the reason that our “Conservative” candidates seem to take on a more populist viewpoint is because the electorate is demanding it. The flaw with a government, by the people for the people, is that when 51% of the people start to believe that the other 49% owe them something, it will happen. Now I believe that the form of government that our founding Fathers put together and signed on September 17, 1787 is the best form of government on the face of the earth, but it is only as good as the people backing it. When the values and morals of the people degrade we cannot expect anything less from the government. We often hear the statement that Washington changes people, and I believe that is true. We need to however look a little deeper and see why this is true. Why is it that seemingly principled people capitulate after they have been elected? Well first of all, politicians are people just like we are. They base their personal value and worth on their jobs and careers, just like we do. We will do almost anything at times to keep our own careers and jobs; maybe even shifting our principles and values a little. It’s because our careers identify who we are and give us a feeling of self worth. When a politician, arriving in Washington, feels that he needs to give in a little to the principles that he was elected for in order to keep his job; his constituents need to take action. We need to start making them realize that their careers are in jeopardy if they violate their principles; however we need to hold ourselves to that same standard. Washington will never change if we don’t change first.

I am formally declaring Conservatism to be dead. After watching parts of the debate last night and seeing a Liberal Socialist debate a Big Government Leftist, I am slowly coming to the realization that the small, non-intrusive government championed by our founding fathers is dead. Our “right wing, conservative” candidates now are just big government leftists that will simply grow the size of government at a little slower rate than what a full blown liberal socialist will. John McCain proposed, in last night’s debate, that the government buy up all the bad sub-prime mortgages and renegotiate all sub-prime mortgages to the current value of the homes. The tax payers swallowing the difference of course. I had predicted, that with the bailout bill getting passed, that in two years we would see Democrats promising government sponsored affordable housing to everyone. Well, McCain outdid me, he is actually proposing it in this election cycle. We know the Liberals will have to one up this one, because they can’t have a “conservative” being more of a socialist then they are. Soon we will see proposals from both sides giving government mortgages to those that cannot qualify for mortgages from the private sector. Democrats will then start whining and crying about the poor people that are getting foreclosed on and evicted from their homes when they can’t even make payments on their government sponsored loans. Politicians will not want the negative press with the government evicting people from their homes, and will pass legislation that no one can be evicted by faulting on a mortgage. It is just a backdoor method of redistributing wealth and implementing socialism without ever calling it socialism. No one is talking about the real reason for the current crisis. Everybody says that it is a “lack of regulation” and not “enough government control” that is the cause of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. I digress, it is actually to much government control and regulation that is the cause of the crisis. What lending institution in their right mind would have given mortgages to many of the current sub-prime mortgages holders? The answer is none, unless you conclude that all mortgage lenders really are insane. The reason that these lenders engaged in these seemingly insane lending practices was because of pressure from organizations like ACORN, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), and the Attorney General’s office. The activists group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) pressures lending institutions into sub-prime mortgages through cries of racism and promises of lawsuits. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), requires that the federal regulators of banks and thrifts encourage those institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered. The CRA directs the regulatory agencies to assess each institution’s record in meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Attorney General Janet Reno from the Clinton era said in reference to lending institutions accused of racism and bigotry “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune, For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.” All of these liberal, socialist policies and practices have resulted in the current crisis, and to make matters worse Fannie Mae (Fannie Mae founded in 1938 as a part of FDR’s New Deal) and Freddie Mack bought out these bad sub-prime securities in order to pack their books. When all the sub-prime mortgage holders began to fault on these loans as anyone could have predicted, Fannie Mae and Freddia Mack took a nose dive. Now we as the tax payers are again stuck with bailing them out. Since conservatism is dead, there will be no proposals to completely privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (put them up for the highest bidder) and to eliminate the capital gains tax in order to encourage investment and bring the 13 – 15 trillion dollars in off shore investments back into our market. No, all we will see is plans for the government to grow larger and to take over more of the private sector; while the American people sit dumbly and watch it go by. The American people are incapable of stopping America from going down the current path, because 50 years of liberal indoctrination in our schools and media is finally paying off. Government is now the answer to everything, health care, housing, food stamps, welfare, etc. etc. American’s no longer need to be personally responsible, after all as Americans aren’t we entitled to everything even if we don’t work for it. The reason that socialism has never worked wherever it has been tried is because it takes away a very crucial part of the human experience, “incentive”. If people no longer need to work in order to get everything that they need, people will do exactly that, “no longer work”. The incentive of the American Dream has been the driving force behind our economy and ingenuity. When that goes away so does our way of life. Sorry for being so negative. I am not usually that way, but I see the writing on the wall.