Can Obama win if he drops below McCain in the polls?

[hansel]

@C3

If someone doesn’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black, why would they tell a pollster that they were going to vote for him, when they could just make up some other reason for not voting for him?

Add to this the fact that, in primary polling there were significant percentages in some states who had no problem at all saying that race was a key factor in their vote. I think the tendency for someone who is conscious of the fact that they don’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black, wouldn’t be particularly embarassed about saying to a pollster’s face (or rather, their presence on the phone).

[MovieMogul]

I think McCain still needs to watch out for third party intrusions into his base.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

I hate to be the naysayer, but if McCain is even or ahead in national polls in early November, Obama is cooked. I say this for two reasons.

First, Obama is generally polling pretty well in red states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgia, and probably doing better than I’d otherwise think in Texas. McCain is going to win those states and get their EVs, even if Obama draws in millions more votes from all of those red states (and others). So in essence, Obama’s national numbers are probably a wee bit inflated, non-landline voters notwithstanding. (And on that point, I’ll believe young cell-phone only voters will vote in large numbers when they actually head to the polls, and not a minute before.)

Furthermore, I believe race is still an issue when people answer polls. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that, just like in the Harold Ford-Bob Corker race in Tennessee in 06, some white voters are simply going to change their mind once they get in the booth. Not because they will say to themselves they can’t vote for a black man, but because they’ll come up with an excuse why voting for Obama isn’t a safe choice for them.

I’m still optimistic that Obama will win, but if McCain is even or ahead in national polls at election day, I’m not sure how Obama can pull off a Bush-Gore kind of lose the national vote and squeak by in the key states.

I pretty much agree with you, but I think you need to go back and look at what happened to Ford. IIRC, he got slightly more votes in the election than the polls were showing. He was not ahead in the polls leading up to election day.

[Captain_Amazing]

@C3

I really don’t understand the logic behind the Bradley Effect, or whatever you want to call it. If someone doesn’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black, why would they tell a pollster that they were going to vote for him, when they could just make up some other reason for not voting for him?

It’s because people don’t want to seem racist, so they’ll say to the pollster they’ll vote for the black candidate, even if they won’t, because they’re afraid that if they tell the pollster they’re not voting for the black candidate, the pollster will think they’re racist.

The Bradley effect isn’t about racists. It’s about people who are concerned that they’ll be seen as racist.

[John_Mace]

@Captain_Amazing

It’s because people don’t want to seem racist, so they’ll say to the pollster they’ll vote for the black candidate, even if they won’t, because they’re afraid that if they tell the pollster they’re not voting for the black candidate, the pollster will think they’re racist.

The Bradley effect isn’t about racists. It’s about people who are concerned that they’ll be seen as racist.

I think where you get that most is that pollsters will often ask which party you are registered with. If you are registered with party A and are asked if you will be voting for that party’s candidate, and the candidate is Black, you might say you plan to vote for him even if you aren’t planning to. Whether this effect is about racists or not, I don’t know. If I had to guess, I would say it was.

[C3]

@Captain_Amazing

It’s because people don’t want to seem racist, so they’ll say to the pollster they’ll vote for the black candidate, even if they won’t, because they’re afraid that if they tell the pollster they’re not voting for the black candidate, the pollster will think they’re racist.

The Bradley effect isn’t about racists. It’s about people who are concerned that they’ll be seen as racist.

I understand that it’s about people concerned they’ll be seen as racists. It just seems more likely to me that they’d say they plan to vote for the white candidate and throw in a couple lines about his policies if they feel they need justification, rather than saying they’ll vote for the black candidate.
**
John Mace’s** scenario seems a little more plausible to me. Is that how the poll questions are set up? If so, maybe that needs a little tweaking.

[Phlosphr]

I was polled by Qunnipiac during the primaries, and it was 25 minutes of answering detailed questions about a specific persons record and experience. I knew exactly who I was talking about, but he was never mentioned by name. So, I’m not sure if general election pollsters are different, but I think that line of questioning was to lessen the instance of the Bradley Effect. Of course, someone could out and out lie about their positions for 25 minutes I suppose, but I doubt that enough would go through that to make a statistical difference.