J.J. (aka Rich Karlgaard from Forbes): The Bradley-effect will return this year!

[J. J.]

First, I think was a Bradley Effect, i.e. people lying to pollster because of race, in the 1980's and 1990's, but it was dwindling over time.  It arguably was there in some statewide races in the 2000's but it was not strong.

Second, the states where I though it would be pronounced, PA, OH, it was not there.  The PA numbers were right on.

Third, there were states where it looked like it happened, IA, where I never would have expected it.  There also seem to be cases where voters lied to the pollsters, but they said they were voting for McCain and voted for Obama.  That seemed to be in AZ and NM, and may be tied to voters of Mexican ancestry.  (A study from Harvard indicated that during the primaries, Obama underpolled with African-American voters.  Basically, they didn't want to look like they were voting for Obama just because he was black.)

Fourth, in trying to see if there were more states where Obama underpolled, there is the problem that a several large states were not polled.  I had found one poll within a month of the election in NY.  Obama overpolled and overpolled outside of the MOE.  The poll was not in a week of the election, and it was not a major polling firm.  Was that because of the electorate shifting toward the end?  Was it because the methodology of poll was bad?  Was it because a significant number of people didn't want the pollster to think they were voting for McCain because Obama was black?

The only thing that we can say is that Obama overpolled on some normally good nation polls, like Gallup, but didn't on some others, Rasmussen and PPP.  (And 2008 made PPP.)

[J. J.]

First, I think was a Bradley Effect, i.e. people lying to pollster because of race, in the 1980's and 1990's, but it was dwindling over time.  It arguably was there in some statewide races in the 2000's but it was not strong.

Second, the states where I though it would be pronounced, PA, OH, it was not there.  The PA numbers were right on.

Third, there were states where it looked like it happened, IA, where I never would have expected it.  There also seem to be cases where voters lied to the pollsters, but they said they were voting for McCain and voted for Obama.  That seemed to be in AZ and NM, and may be tied to voters of Mexican ancestry.  (A study from Harvard indicated that during the primaries, Obama underpolled with African-American voters.  Basically, they didn't want to look like they were voting for Obama just because he was black.)

Fourth, in trying to see if there were more states where Obama underpolled, there is the problem that a several large states were not polled.  I had found one poll within a month of the election in NY.  Obama overpolled and overpolled outside of the MOE.  The poll was not in a week of the election, and it was not a major polling firm.  Was that because of the electorate shifting toward the end?  Was it because the methodology of poll was bad?  Was it because a significant number of people didn't want the pollster to think they were voting for McCain because Obama was black?

The only thing that we can say is that Obama overpolled on some normally good nation polls, like Gallup, but didn't on some others, Rasmussen and PPP.  (And 2008 made PPP.)

In other words, you suck.

No, in other words Obama sucks.

[J. J.]

First, I think was a Bradley Effect, i.e. people lying to pollster because of race, in the 1980's and 1990's, but it was dwindling over time.  It arguably was there in some statewide races in the 2000's but it was not strong.

Second, the states where I though it would be pronounced, PA, OH, it was not there.  The PA numbers were right on.

Third, there were states where it looked like it happened, IA, where I never would have expected it.  There also seem to be cases where voters lied to the pollsters, but they said they were voting for McCain and voted for Obama.  That seemed to be in AZ and NM, and may be tied to voters of Mexican ancestry.  (A study from Harvard indicated that during the primaries, Obama underpolled with African-American voters.  Basically, they didn't want to look like they were voting for Obama just because he was black.)

Fourth, in trying to see if there were more states where Obama underpolled, there is the problem that a several large states were not polled.  I had found one poll within a month of the election in NY.  Obama overpolled and overpolled outside of the MOE.  The poll was not in a week of the election, and it was not a major polling firm.  Was that because of the electorate shifting toward the end?  Was it because the methodology of poll was bad?  Was it because a significant number of people didn't want the pollster to think they were voting for McCain because Obama was black?

The only thing that we can say is that Obama overpolled on some normally good nation polls, like Gallup, but didn't on some others, Rasmussen and PPP.  (And 2008 made PPP.)

Summarized: If a black candidate ever overpolls, it must be assumed that the reason is the Bradley Effect and not any other plausible explanation (even it simply being a bad poll), even if there is plenty of evidence toward a different explanation.

BRTD, did you even bother to read the bolded parts?

[J. J.]

The first bolded part is a complete myth, Bradley led by double digits...a few weeks before the election. The election was obviously tightening and he had only a single point lead in the final poll. Furthermore Bradley actually won amongst voters that day, he was defeated by absentees, and it's easy to see that absentee polling in 1982 wouldn't have been too good. It's possible in the 1982 Gubernatorial race there was nothing wrong with the polls at all, and Bradley was simply done in by a flukish surge against him caused by an NRA-backed absentee GOTV campaign against a defeated gun control measure on the ballot.

And it was repeated with Wilder in 1989, though it was a bit under 10 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, I don't recall MV and CO, but I don't think there were any late polls in two states with a relatively high percentage of Mexican ancestry population, CA and TX.  It isn't that I wouldn't want to look there, but that nobody was looking there.  I'd love to see a breakdown by ethnicity, but we don't have it.

Well, we have the national poll that overcounted Obama's support, Gallup that was well outside of the MOE.  Was that a problem with Gallup (the first one 60 years) or something else, like people lying to pollsters. 

Ironically, David Axelrod agrees with me.

[J. J.]

Gallup was also wildly off in 2010. Gallup just isn't a very good polling firm anymore.

And that is a possibility, but it was first election since 1948 where they were out of the MOE.

How were they that much off in 2010?

[J. J.]

Republicans won the House popular vote by 6.6%. Gallup said they were going to win by 15%.

I'm not too sure that would be comparable, and, even if it would, it would show a bias opposite to that of the 2008 presidential election numbers.