Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty »

Friday, January 18, 2008

The Reverse Bradley Effect

posted by on January 18 at 9:10 AM

As Eli linked in Morning News, the NYT is reporting that Southern blacks are split over Obama vs. Clinton.

Yeah, good luck with that bit of analysis. The Times story isn’t riffing off any polling they’ve done, but rather they’re talking about splits on black newspaper boards and splits among prominent black leaders. But even if they were talking about polling, their reporting would be just as naive.

Fact: When blacks go to vote, they will overwhelmingly vote for Obama over Clinton. Duh. Don’t know if pollsters will be able to prove it with exit polling, but the actual vote count will make it clear that blacks who say they voted for Clinton will be fibbing the pollster.

RSS icon Comments


Josh, I did not know you were black. Of course you must be to have some sort of inside track on how we vote, no?

Posted by Ginger | January 18, 2008 9:15 AM

Ginger @1,
Yeah, me and Lou Reed. Like, totally black.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 18, 2008 9:18 AM

At least you said "blacks".

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 18, 2008 9:24 AM

Josh is right on this. The NYT piece is just about where the "leaders" are on this, and they ( the leaders) never really have delivered any votes. This piece is just typical journalists looking for a "story". The black public will go with senator Obama. Where Obama is going to have trouble is with the Latino vote which tends to be older, centrist Latinos, if he does win the nominationhe can fix this if he chooses Richardson as his running mate in the general election.

my understanding is that he won a big chunk of the Latino vote from Chicago. He should get a lot of those progressive Latinos from Illi to go out for him.

Posted by SeMe | January 18, 2008 9:24 AM

There is no auto black for black vote. Please....just as there is no auto woman for woman vote. Who can be a woman's greatest critic? The same is true of blacks. I think the split in this case is valid. I do believe that evangelical will almost always vote like kind. Peace.

Posted by Lynneland | January 18, 2008 9:28 AM

Meanwhile, white men like Josh Feit will vote for Mitt Romney.

Posted by Duh | January 18, 2008 9:29 AM


1. Male writers talk about female voters.
2. Female writers talk about male voters.
3. Southern writers talk about Northern voters.
4. PNW writers talk about SC voters.
5. Black writers talk about white voters.
6. White writers talk about black voters.
7. Pro tax cut writers talk about anti tax cut voters.
8. Anti tax cut writers talk about pro tax cut voters. just #5 an issue -- whites can't talk about blacks ?
Or is the rule that no one can talk about anyone else who is of a different race or gender or belief (##1-8)?

Posted by unPC | January 18, 2008 9:31 AM

Sounds more like Josh is trying to cover his pro-HRC ass in case the state goes for Obama. Remember what happened in New Hampshire? The polls looked like an Obama slam dunk but it didn't go that way. One popular explanation was the way NH voters responded to pollsters versus they way they actually voted. He's just getting ahead of the curve here.

Posted by heywhatsit | January 18, 2008 9:31 AM

I dont think is automatic either. What people fail to point out is that Obama EARNED IT, despite what the black "leadership" says.

For the record, Im still for that soon to be declared loser Edwards.

Posted by SeMe | January 18, 2008 9:32 AM

The real question is whether Obama will be able to get new voters to the polls. If he can bring in a significant number of historical non-voters the Democrats might be able to take back some southern states.

Posted by thequestion | January 18, 2008 9:43 AM

You know, the odd thing about the press is that any asshole with an opinion can spout off any inane bullshit they want to (like this post), and we're supposed to genuflect before their great wisdom. Josh doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and neither do the "experts."

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 18, 2008 9:58 AM

Josh, you're being an asshat again!

Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 18, 2008 10:41 AM

"Josh doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and neither do the "experts." "

Yeah, but at least the NYT is talking to black leaders. The only black person Josh talks to is Mudede.

Posted by tomcat98109 | January 18, 2008 11:04 AM

Josh, normally I got your back. Even if I disagree with you, at least you usually have some valid backing or research for your assertions.

But this statement is pure unadulterated speculation. On what basis do you make this assertion, this "Fact", that blacks will overwhelmingly vote for Obama?

You may be right. You may be wrong. But if you're going to pretend to be a reporter, I'd like to see some data that at least vaguely supports this assertion. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | January 18, 2008 11:33 AM


Josh says: Blacks will vote for Obama.

No one actually disagrees with that observation -- But what a shitstorm for his temerity in saying it!


Posted by unPC | January 18, 2008 11:37 AM

@15... you are completely wrong.

out of 15, only 2 or 3 even didn't agree with his temerity in saying it.

every other comment either agrees with josh, or disagrees with his logic, not with him making what you consider a bold statement.

Posted by infrequent | January 18, 2008 11:53 AM

Is it National Brotherhood Week already?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 18, 2008 1:06 PM

Ssshhh. Don't wake the MSM. They have to pretend Sen Clinton is black.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 18, 2008 1:27 PM

black people may vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama, but will those votes count? I read the other day that South Carolina has ok'd the use of touch screen voting machines-the sure fire method of electing republican, or democrats that stand the best chance of losing to republicans.

Posted by neo-realist | January 18, 2008 10:19 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).