Can we put the kibosh on the Bradley effect?

[MarkWarner08]

WITH only two weeks to go before the election, talk has turned to the Bradley effect. The phenomenon is named for Tom Bradley, the African-American mayor of Los Angeles, who lost the 1982 California governor’s race even though exit polls predicted he’d defeat his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian. Some white people, the theory goes, tell pollsters they will vote for black candidates and then, once in the voting booth, don’t.
...

But he wasn’t losing because of race. He was losing because an unpopular gun control initiative and an aggressive Republican absentee ballot program generated hundreds of thousands of Republican votes no pollster anticipated, giving Mr. Deukmejian a narrow victory.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20levin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Isn't it time to put this misnomer to rest? Recent example: Harold Ford performing at or above pre-election polls in a Southern state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not a fair poll, but yes, proponents of this usually ignore other factors. And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

[Keystone Phil]

And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

Democratic primary

Welcome to the other 60% of the electorate.

[© tweed]

why did Obama lose NH?  (serious question, not rhetorical)

[Keystone Phil]

why did Obama lose NH?  (serious question, not rhetorical)

That wasn't the Bradley Effect. Obama didn't underpoll there.

[Reaganfan]

Can we not use the word 'kibosh'?

[MarkWarner08]

why did Obama lose NH?  (serious question, not rhetorical)

1. Voters in NH wanted to continue to the race (NHers are fickle and take their votes seriously).

2. Hillary connected with voters after Iowa. While Obama was enjoying his newly awarded media halo, Hillary was finally taking questions from voters and began to connect with her audiences. E.g., the famous (near) crying moment.

3. Obama was always stronger in Iowa, than he was in NH. The record short gap between the two states' elections made it difficult for Obama to barnstorm the state. 

4. Race was the possible factor in the rural areas.

Race was the fourth most  important factor.

[cinyc]

why did Obama lose NH?  (serious question, not rhetorical)

That wasn't the Bradley Effect. Obama didn't underpoll there.

Yes he did.  The RCP average had Obama at 38.3%.  Obama only won 36.4% of the New Hampshire vote.  Hillary polled at 30.0% and won 39.0%.

Some Obama voters had cold feet.  Undecideds broke to Clinton.  

[MarkWarner08]

And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

Democratic primary

Welcome to the other 60% of the electorate.

Gross generalization there, pal. Obama also didn't connect socially with many of those voters. You can't ascribe racial motivations to why Hillary won in Ohio, for example. She had a longer track record of supporting pro-union issues and she was popular with older women, who voted in record numbers.

[Keystone Phil]

And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

Democratic primary

Welcome to the other 60% of the electorate.

Gross generalization there, pal.

It's not. I'm definitely not saying that race is the only reason why Hillary did so well in the primaries.

[MarkWarner08]

And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

Democratic primary

Welcome to the other 60% of the electorate.

Gross generalization there, pal.

It's not. I'm definitely not saying that race is the only reason why Hillary did so well in the primaries.

Race as a political issue was most salient to a small sliver of the electorate. It may have been decisive in NH, but Hillary likely would've won Ohio and PA without the racial vote. Alas, there's no reliable way to poll this question. In the border region of Texas, older Hispanic women voted heavily for HRC.

Was it identity politics, fear of a black man in the White House, support for Hillary's crusade for universal health care, or all of the above? Who knows.

[TheresNoMoney]

why did Obama lose NH?  (serious question, not rhetorical)

I've answered this about 10 times on this board before, but here are the really basic explantions:

1) Hillary gained momentum in the final days of the campaign with her crying episode, which gained her a lot of sympathy (especially among female voters)
2) Clinton spent more time campaigning in the state
3) THe Clinton campaign had a superior field operation and targeted GOTV strategy
4) The vast majority of undecideds broke to Clinton in the final 2-3 days of the campaign

There was NO Bradley Effect in NH. No black people live in this state (kind of like Maine and Vermont) and there is very little racism here.

[TheresNoMoney]

Race was the fourth most  important factor.

It had nothing to do with the rural vs. suburban areas. Western NH (which is very rural) went strongly for Obama. 

[MarkWarner08]

Race was the fourth most  important factor.

It had nothing to do with the rural vs. suburban areas. Western NH (which is very rural) went strongly for Obama. 

Well, thanks for refreshing my memory about that.

[HardRCafé]

Sure, once we have vote totals.

[Stranger in a strange land]

And there's also the fact it was no problem for Obama in the primaries.

Democratic primary

Welcome to the other 60% of the electorate.

why would Republicans need to hide behind the Bradley Effect when wouldn't be voting for a white candidate with similar views?

[Lunar]

Obama has a 50% chance of being overpolled and a 50% chance of being underpolled, before we even look at the methodological errors of the polls involved and ground game.  Odds are any average that includes R2K, CBS, LAT, etc. is going favor Obama.


What pains me the most about this debate is that I know there is no way to win it against people who say the effect will be 0.5-1.5%.

[Sam Spade]

4. Race was the possible factor in the rural areas.

Race was the fourth most  important factor.

If race is a factor in *polling issues* (through *blackness*), it almost always occurs in white flight suburban areas, not rural areas.  As Al has pointed out many times, only the Boston suburbs that extend into New Hampshire have this characteristic.

There may be an offset for *blackness* that occurs in rural areas of the South, but I'm somewhat unsure there.

Utilizing the 2008 primaries to judge whether the Bradley effect is still in *effect* is questionable in my mind.  For a whole host of reasons. 

I'm not really a big believer in the Bradley effect for many reasons.  I do think it affects the *undecideds*, but I'm not sure exactly how.

Anyway, this is a real big test of it.  Let's see what happens.

[Torie]

I think it might play in some states, but not enough. It won't play at all in places like Colorado, or New Mexico. or Iowa, except in the reverse, and thus in the end won't matter. PA is not going to have a GOP bias in this election, or at least much of one. The end. Ohio however is another matter.

NOVA is going to tank McCain in VA by the way. I suspect VA will have a zero or negative GOP bias now.

[Lunar]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/race_and_late_deciders_lessons.php

[MR maverick]

Yes the Bradley effect is real.

I once saw a white guy talking to 2 other black guys about this years election. The funny thing was before he was about to spew out typical gop talking points, he changed because he must have figured the black guys were for Obama - saying he was a "undecided". I of course knew this to be BS since he's a Republican and voted for Bush even.  So that is the example of it because this very same guy during this chat was saying good things about Obama etc.. while in front of the 2 black guys knowing full well he was going to vote McCain.  Now just think if a pollster had polled him.

Its not the Bradley effect that i would be worried about.  From what i have saw is southern whites don't really care for McCain, most don't like him.  But these people don't want Obama to win.   Question is will they show up at the voting booth to cast anti Obama votes or just stay at home?   Thats what Obama should be worried about, however if young kids and blacks turnout like they did on super Tues, Iowa  then that anti vote might be stumped out.

Turnout among those 2 groups make any Bradley effect ineffective.

[Lunar]

Personal interviews by black people != telephone calls by anonymous pollsters.

Maybe if a black [or white?] Obama supporter was talking to some fundamentalist Christians he knew would support McCain, he might claim he was undecided too.

Apples to oranges.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You got to remember this is the clown who claims the Secret Service has banned Obama from campaigning in West Virginia out of fear that would result in instant assassination.

[MR maverick]

Personal interviews by black people != telephone calls by anonymous pollsters.

Maybe if a black [or white?] Obama supporter was talking to some fundamentalist Christians he knew would support McCain, he might claim he was undecided too.

Apples to oranges.

Its actually not. This guy most likely would have told the pollster  Obama or undecided its not popular to say McCain because HERE in my state they don't  like the man ( see 2000 vs Bush).

West Va ... Yea it could be the case whens the last time Obama campaigned in the state?  The secret service remembers Dallas and how  Adlai had problems there during his campaign. 

Notice no rallies in deep south states and I bet he could draw alot of people in places like Atl.

[HardRCafé]

NOVA is going to tank McCain in VA by the way. I suspect VA will have a zero or negative GOP bias now.

Once upon a time, I would have been skeptical, but the fact they voted in kiddie porn author Jim Webb feels a lot like foreshadowing.