Apostolic Friends Forum - What you were never intended to know in this elect

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Political Talk (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - What you were never intended to know in this elect (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=19850)

What you were never intended to know in this elect

Quote:

What you were never intended to know in this election

A Hillary staffer comes clean

After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction.

1. Hillary voters
2. Sarah Palin
3. Obama’s radical connections
4. The Bradley Effect

Very interesting. After going through so many numerous news links, video clips, etc., this article confirms what I have known all along and so have many of us - Deacon Blues! :thumbsup

Read on......

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/anon...-know-in-this/

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

If this is true, it is quite interesting.

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 619848)

If this is true, it is quite interesting.

Very interesting, indeed! What I find so interesting is that all of my research aligns itself with what this woman has written.

This is a post from another forum. You can see by her first sentence the thread I started caused a bit of angst (:D) among the Democrats, except from this woman:

Quote:

You can write most of this off if you want. But I'll tell you that living in NYC I know many people who were all-in for Hillary and they are not going to vote for Obama. I'm not trying to start anything by saying that because there's no way in **** he can lose New York. It's a done deal for him, but this person at least got that one right. I'm talking about A LOT of people that I know personally who are just going to stay home.

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

that is interesting, i think she was being honest, lol

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

Wow - this is interesting!!!

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

Quote:

Originally Posted by DividedThigh (Post 619923)

that is interesting, i think she was being honest, lol

I couldn't view that as anything else.

Another poster had this to say:

Quote:

Blowing someone off just because they want to remain anonymous is also a mistake. There are plenty of people who work closely in situations they consider dirty and want to get it out in the open without trashing the rest of their career.

Anonymous doesn't necessarily = false

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 619938)

Wow - this is interesting!!!

Yes, it is!!!

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

i find it completely understandable that they obama people hope that people believe the polls, some may say who cares and not vote then, lol

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

You are right that anonymous doesn't mean it is false. My gut feeling is the girl is being honest.

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

Seems to line up with my understanding of the election. Although I'm not really that familiar with the Bradley effect.

Re: What you were never intended to know in this e

The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a proposed explanation for observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The effect refers to a supposed tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his or her white opponent. It was named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6]

The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[7][8] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers.