Serious question for Bradley Effect believers

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1.  It occurred in placed where I didn't expect it (IA) and didn't occur in places where I expected it (PA). 

And this is why everyone laughs at you. Why would it happen in Iowa? Why was race such a big factor in Iowa but not in other states with histories of racial tension?

Was Iowa polling a bit off because Iowans were afraid of appearing racist? Is that the only explanation? Is there NO OTHER explanations as to why polls can be off? Does margin of error not exist? The Bradley Effect is effectively being treated by anyone who believes in it as sort of a polling "God of the gaps" rather than the rather bold statement of dubious veracity that it is. Essentially, citing the Bradley Effect is saying that the reason WAS without a doubt because of people lying to avoid appearing racist, NOT any other possible reason. One needs to cite why it's a better explanation than others. If someone can explain why Iowa supposedly discoverd racism at a time when plenty of other states apparentely forgot it (including states humorously cited as examples of the Bradley Effect in 2006 by this kool-aid drinker), then you've got some evidence, but so far I've yet to hear any valid evidence for the Bradley Effect, including the historical evidence which is rather weak (see my bit on the 1982 CA Gubernatorial election above.) But that's not the point really.

Actually this sums up the problem altogether:

Actually, the underpolling is the Bradley Effect

So essentially, a phenoma as common in politcs as air (underpolling or polls being off) is being cited here as something that MUST be the Bradley Effect. When it happens in races not involving black candidates, there's a ton of explanations. But if it happens involving a black one, it can ONLY be the Bradley Effect and can be absolutely NOTHING else. Is that plausible?

[Keystone Phil]

Just stop feeding into this, J.J.

BRTD is a sad OCD case. You're never going to get through to him. We can only pray that he finds the help he so desperately needs.

[Franzl]

The one question with Bradley Effect is "Who is effectively lying to the pollster."  It could be that people that are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate are more likely to lie to a pollster in a race where one candidate is black.

That said, I really expected three things:

1.  McCain would underpoll nationally by 1-2 points (I think he more greatly underpolled, but not by much).

2.  The underpolling would not be even state to state (It wasn't).

3.  While Obama would carry PA, McCain would underpoll strongly here (on that I was dead wrong).  PA and IA were the two stated that stunned me in terms of under/over polling.

It is kind of cool the way the "underpoll" effect largely erased the Bradley Effect, except of course where there was no Bradley Effect, the location of the perimeters of which may have been nowhere, somewhere, or everywhere, depending on the scope and reach of the "underpoll" counter riptide. It is sort of like positive and negative mass; the relationship between the two is hard to describe.

And there you have it. 

Actually, the underpolling is the Bradley Effect, though it has diminished over time.  Nationally it looked like 2-3 points.  I was expecting 1-2 points.

Two points: 

1.  It occurred in placed where I didn't expect it (IA) and didn't occur in places where I expected it (PA). 

2.  Obama underpolled (meaning he did better in voting that the polls showed) in states with a high Mexican descent population.  (Now that isn't exactly good for the GOP.)

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

[jamestroll]

No doubt Hillary would have been better, but Obama is far better then a president palin! (J. J.'s political hero) If Palin is elected president, I will move out of the country.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just stop feeding into this, J.J.

BRTD is a sad OCD case. You're never going to get through to him. We can only pray that he finds the help he so desperately needs.

Get through to me? Have you read his argument? Do you really believe there was a Bradley Effect in Iowa?

The one question with Bradley Effect is "Who is effectively lying to the pollster."  It could be that people that are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate are more likely to lie to a pollster in a race where one candidate is black.

That said, I really expected three things:

1.  McCain would underpoll nationally by 1-2 points (I think he more greatly underpolled, but not by much).

2.  The underpolling would not be even state to state (It wasn't).

3.  While Obama would carry PA, McCain would underpoll strongly here (on that I was dead wrong).  PA and IA were the two stated that stunned me in terms of under/over polling.

It is kind of cool the way the "underpoll" effect largely erased the Bradley Effect, except of course where there was no Bradley Effect, the location of the perimeters of which may have been nowhere, somewhere, or everywhere, depending on the scope and reach of the "underpoll" counter riptide. It is sort of like positive and negative mass; the relationship between the two is hard to describe.

And there you have it. 

Actually, the underpolling is the Bradley Effect, though it has diminished over time.  Nationally it looked like 2-3 points.  I was expecting 1-2 points.

Two points: 

1.  It occurred in placed where I didn't expect it (IA) and didn't occur in places where I expected it (PA). 

2.  Obama underpolled (meaning he did better in voting that the polls showed) in states with a high Mexican descent population.  (Now that isn't exactly good for the GOP.)

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

You actually just put my earlier post into fewer words and said it much more succinctly.

[TeePee4Prez]

That said, even if McCain would have won all of the above 4 Wards by a 5-10 point margin, Obama would have still won the state of PA pretty handily.     

No, he wouldn't have. If he had won more wards, he would have ran a lot better elsewhere in the state. It would have been close here.

Obama won the 66th with 53% of the vote. He definitely would not have won it if the collapse didn't happen. He receieved 53% in the 64th, too. He barely won the 63rd (51%). That would have flipped, too. He did surprisingly poorly in the 58th (53%) so that would have probably gone for McCain, too.

McCain already won the 26th with a low double digit margin. He would have broken 60% without the collapse. This isn't even mentioning several other wards that are very blue collar that went for Obama with about 60% of the vote that would have probably been much closer if it wasn't for the downturn.

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

Also, I think the parts Obama did well in such as the suburbs and even some exurbs, would have trended that way anyway.  That's why Obama would have still won the state comfortably.

[Keystone Phil]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

[Smash255]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

[Keystone Phil]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

[Smash255]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

I doubt it.  Obama (despite not doing as well as expected in the Primary) is a better fit than Kerry in the area, also it has continued to move left since 2004.   McCain circa 2000 was obviously a better fit for the area than Bush, however that difference is much smaller with the John McCain of 2008 especially one with Palin attached to it.

[Franzl]

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

I'd still like an answer from J.J.

[Keystone Phil]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

I doubt it.

Of course, Smash. 

 

[Sbane]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

I doubt it.

Of course, Smash. 

 

I thought he made a pretty good point and your attitude is unwarranted. Even you have to admit that there is a world of difference between the Mccain of 2000 and 2008, especially with Sarah "real america" Palin around his neck. In addition Kerry did not do so well in these areas as is assumed. Obama did about as well as Kerry in rural and hyper liberal urban areas, but the real difference was in suburban areas like Montco and Chester. The economic meltdown probably earned Obama more votes in ethnic working class neighborhoods than in rich suburban areas.

[Keystone Phil]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

I doubt it.

Of course, Smash. 

 

I thought he made a pretty good point and your attitude is unwarranted. Even you have to admit that there is a world of difference between the Mccain of 2000 and 2008, especially with Sarah "real america" Palin around his neck. In addition Kerry did not do so well in these areas as is assumed. Obama did about as well as Kerry in rural and hyper liberal urban areas, but the real difference was in suburban areas like Montco and Chester. The economic meltdown probably earned Obama more votes in ethnic working class neighborhoods than in rich suburban areas.

Sure there was a difference in perception. I'm not really that shocked that he did worse than Bush. It's just ironic. That being said, McCain would have done better if things didn't get bad in the final weeks.

[Sbane]

Hmm... I don't think the racial effects would have been as strong in the 58th and 63rd as they were in some of the other Wards plus economics wouldn't be as much of an issue.  The 55th and 64th.. yeah, not exactly Berkeley so I kinda agree with you.  (Damn, do I sound like Jack Murtha?)

The race issue isn't as strong in those wards but I think there were others reasons that those voters would have leaned towards McCain. Economics is definitely an issue in the 63rd. You know the area, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not by nearly as much though. The people in those areas might not have found Obama's solutions ideal but please recall McCain's perceived weakness on economics.

I think Obama still wins suburban Philly in a cakewalk even without the collapse.  Suburban Philly is in much better financial shape than the rest of the state so the impact there was likely less than other areas.  It helped him no question, but McCain didn't have much of a chance to keep in close even without the complete collapse.

I never said he wouldn't win easily. However, I think McCain would have at least matched Bush's numbers in a place like Montco.

It's funny, yet so sad, to know that a candidate like Bush did better in Montco and in other areas of the SE than McCain did.

I doubt it.

Of course, Smash. 

 

I thought he made a pretty good point and your attitude is unwarranted. Even you have to admit that there is a world of difference between the Mccain of 2000 and 2008, especially with Sarah "real america" Palin around his neck. In addition Kerry did not do so well in these areas as is assumed. Obama did about as well as Kerry in rural and hyper liberal urban areas, but the real difference was in suburban areas like Montco and Chester. The economic meltdown probably earned Obama more votes in ethnic working class neighborhoods than in rich suburban areas.

Sure there was a difference in perception. I'm not really that shocked that he did worse than Bush. It's just ironic. That being said, McCain would have done better if things didn't get bad in the final weeks.

Well there were new issues like the war which would have soured many people towards him who would have otherwise voted for him in 2000. And you are correct that if the economy didn't tank Mccain would have done better throughout the country and especially in PA. But the areas he would have done much better in does not include the suburbs of Philly. Rather Mccain would have done better in Western PA, NE PA as well as other ethnic working class areas throughout the state.

[Keystone Phil]

But the areas he would have done much better in does not include the suburbs of Philly. Rather Mccain would have done better in Western PA, NE PA as well as other ethnic working class areas throughout the state.

He could have done a bit better in the suburbs. He was perceived as being far too weak on economics for many of the old time establishment Republican types out in Montco and Bucks. It wouldn't have been some huge turn around but it wouldn't have been as bad.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

I'd still like an answer from J.J.

I don't think he's even attempted to answer this, despite it being the foundation of his entire argument and one of the many holes in it.

[Franzl]

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

I'd still like an answer from J.J.

I don't think he's even attempted to answer this, despite it being the foundation of his entire argument and one of the many holes in it.

and I'm still waiting.

I feel he owes us all an explanation on this matter, otherwise he's just a mindless hack that keeps repeating the same s**t over and over again hoping that it'll become fact one day.

I honestly would like to hear some reasoning.

[TeePee4Prez]

But the areas he would have done much better in does not include the suburbs of Philly. Rather Mccain would have done better in Western PA, NE PA as well as other ethnic working class areas throughout the state.

He could have done a bit better in the suburbs. He was perceived as being far too weak on economics for many of the old time establishment Republican types out in Montco and Bucks. It wouldn't have been some huge turn around but it wouldn't have been as bad.

Key is COULD have.  Are there really any vote getters in the suburbs for the GOP besides Bruce Castor though?  It's true the economic meltdown hit the Philly suburbs the least in the state and it was trending DEM/Obama anyway.  I think someone in another thread said it best-  There was a Reverse Bradley Effect this election in what little polling was done.  It makes perfect sense that people didn't want to admit their economic shortcomings and be "the stinking lib on the block."  Therefore some people in say that one poll with the 55th/63rd Wards probably told the pollster they were voting for McCain thinking it might be a neighbor and didn't want to be perceived as a race coddler/selling out the neighborhood, etc.  The economic meltdown did have an effect, but not once did I think they would be worse than the Reagan-Mondale numbers of 1984 in those Wards.     

[Keystone Phil]

Key is COULD have.

Right. That's the whole premise of this discussion.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Relevance?


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It did affect the suburbs the least and these areas were trending Obama's way but I still think McCain's perceived weakness as a result of the crisis made it a lot easier for the old style, establishment, elite Republicans to either vote for Obama (when they probably would have voted for McCain) or just stay home.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I agree with that as well. I even mentioned that possibility before Election day.

[J. J.]

1.  It occurred in placed where I didn't expect it (IA) and didn't occur in places where I expected it (PA). 

And this is why everyone laughs at you. Why would it happen in Iowa? Why was race such a big factor in Iowa but not in other states with histories of racial tension?

If you have ask about "racial tension" then you are just too stupid to understand.  It has to do with the person being polled thinking, "If I this answer, [whatever "this answer" is], the pollster will think I'm racist.  I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist, so I won't this answer."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We didn't have this in the last election, not to this extent.  Now, isn't a giant effect, and it's diminished over the years, but it was still present in 2008.

[J. J.]

WHY THE HELL IS EVERY CASE OF UNDERPOLLING AUTOMATICALLY THE GODDAMN BRADLEY EFFECT YOU HACK???

I'd still like an answer from J.J.

Because it seems to be more prevalent in cases where one candidate is black.

Generally, a good polling firm will get it right (okay, within the MOE).  We don't seem to be getting this with two white candidates.

[Lunar]

But why is it normal statistics when a white candidate gets under/outside the MoE?  But every single fucking case of a black candidate underpolling even the slightest amount is because he's black?

Oh, right, it's because you're ridiculous.  I forgot since it's been so long.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1.  It occurred in placed where I didn't expect it (IA) and didn't occur in places where I expected it (PA). 

And this is why everyone laughs at you. Why would it happen in Iowa? Why was race such a big factor in Iowa but not in other states with histories of racial tension?

If you have ask about "racial tension" then you are just too stupid to understand.  It has to do with the person being polled thinking, "If I this answer, [whatever "this answer" is], the pollster will think I'm racist.  I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist, so I won't this answer."

OK so why is this more likely to happen in Iowa than other states? There has to be a reason. You basically seem to think the Bradley Effect is because of some Polling God throwing darts at a map and then cursing each state that he hits with it. It doesn't happen that way. Unless one can explain why Iowans would be more likely to lie for racial reasons, it seems more likely that something else was at work as Lunar has explained.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We didn't have this in the last election, not to this extent.  Now, isn't a giant effect, and it's diminished over the years, but it was still present in 2008.

Yeah because polling has never been off in an election involving white candidates before. And of course there never was any poll off in Obama's favor (Nate Silver pointed out that the error in many southern states in Obama's favor was greater than the polling error in favor of Hillary in New Hampshire.)

[Stranger in a strange land]

Okay guys, here's the thing: with respect to the 2008 election, in the set of states where one candidate or the other underpolled, Obama should underpoll roughly half the time. There are any number of reasons the polls could be off, the Bradley Effect is just one of them. Now, if say Obama had underpolled in 35 or 40 states, you might have a case, but he didn't. And the Bradley and Reverse Bradley Effects really don't explain why, for example, Obama would overpoll in Wisconsin but underpoll in Iowa.