Here are some pretty interesting insights about the “Bradley Effect” — known in these parts as the “Wilder Effect.“
At first glance, it looks perhaps kaput:
The data are in. White voters in New Hampshire did not pretend to be for Barack Obama and then quietly vote for Hillary Clinton. David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has found that Mr. Obama’s poll numbers before and after the voting match up. The discrepancy was in Mrs. Clinton’s poll numbers: she attracted a surge of voters on top of those who had been polled.
I call that one for the black history books, even though Mr. Obama lost. It means that the Bradley Effect, named after the mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, who lost the California election for governor in 1992 despite polls suggesting he would win, “has no power here,“ as Glinda the good witch said about her evil sister.
The Bradley Effect, we can assume, was real then: a significant number of white voters dutifully claimed to be for Mr. Bradley on the phone with a pollster but their inner voice told them to vote for George Deukmejian when alone in the booth.
However, there was no Bradley Effect last week. We would appear to have gotten past it.
But then there’s this, from the poll-savvy Mickey Kaus:
Emailer Z, who knows his or her polls, argues the Mason-Dixon poll might not have such good news for Obama after all—given the more-often discussed tendency of white voters to occasionally mislead pollsters:
Here’s how the Bradley Effect works: A stranger calls you to ask how you intend to vote. You do NOT intend to vote for the African American, but you don’t want to get a lot of guff from this stranger about how you must be a racist if you won’t vote for the African American. So you answer, “Not sure.“ In all the classic Bradley Effect elections (and NH fit the pattern), the polls got the vote for the African American about right, but OVERREPORTED not sure and UNDERREPORTED the other candidate’s vote.
So when the brand new MSNBC-McClatchy-Mason Dixon poll in SC says there are twice as many undecided in the Dem race (15%) than in the GOP race (8%), you might suspect Bradley-ism in that poll.
Bottom line: Look for the hidden Bradley/Wilder effect not in the black candidate’s poll numbers but in the “undecided” category. Fascinating.
Reader Comments:
If liberals hate being Swift boated then why do they support being Micheal J Foxed ?
Stem cell never got a proper debate and the Fox adds just shut everyone right the hell up.
So then you ask youself why all of this outrage and partisan bickering in America today?
The same reason why Cho went on his rampage and shot up his classmates.
He was probably told all of his life, like so many young kids are to shut up sit down, be quiet, go to your room, your opinion is not needed in this place.
It is in human nature to have some say so about your own destiny and to help choose those people who will lord over us.
If that natural desire is shut down by force and isnt allowed to vent in a civilized way.
It will surely fester inside until that person rationalizes to themselves a way to get their message out to the world.
This is why you have your David Koresh and you Cho’s.
The rest of us angry people still try to work the political system but do harbor resentment towards politicians and the press [MSM] who are supposed to protect everyones right to speach and representation.
Its very frustrating to be an American these days.
Don’t think for a minute that self censorship doesn’t choke off debate in America. And that has been the intention of the people who create the environment in which it thrives.
Larry’s example of gun control only barely applies. Race and gender…crossing those lines (ill defined) will get you fired, literally. Just ask the editor of the golf magazine who was just fired for putting a noose on the cover of the current issue of his magazine. It wasn’t meant to be a “hate crime”...it was meant to draw attention to the issue which covered the story of the sportscaster chick who made a remark about Tiger Woods being lynched and the ensuing Sharpton-Williams exploitation of it. (Woods has accepted her apology and refused to jump on the race bait wagon so, now he’s a Uncle Tom)
In today’s TD theres an unsigned editorial tsk tsking the editor who ok’d the cover for being insensitive so, I assume the ed staff at the dispatch is ok with someone being fired for “insensitivity”.
And this from the same great minds who found the Ezra Levant defense of free speech so laudable. BTW…Mr. Levant is being persecuted for ...you guessed it…running offensive pictures. (The cartoon mohammads of blasphemy!)
And why do you think the anti gun crowd is so eager to exploit the parents of Tech victims? Because they know it will deflect criticism and debate over their agenda. ANyone who tries to discuss the issue will be charged with insensitivity and shouted down with fake moral outrage.
What’s funny is that, while using “sensitivity” as a weapon to shut down critics, whether it’s guns or nooses or voting for canidate X, might give temporary advantage to short sighted hacks, it doesn’t do anything to bring people together. It just papers over the problem and takes debate and open discussion off the table as a means of solving the problem.
And remember, next Halloween, anyone who uses a noose as part of their decorations is a racist and deserves any vandalism or even physical assault that may ensue. Fake moral outrage is a great excuse when the mob gets rolling.
Bob, are you refering to the DEM debate last night?
I would expect less of the effect in the
Democratic Party which is supposedly more liberal. But you never know. There are conservatives who are not racists and people on the left who are not as liberal as they think they are.
But I seriously doubt that racism or sexism or anti-gay bias is a dead item in American politics. Some Swift boat type operation will be on the internet, TV or in the mailboxes before the election is over.
I don’t believe that this Bradley/Wilder Effect even exists. Americans are not that darn Chicken! For example, do Gun Rights Advocates sheepishly tell pollsters that they are FOR gun control—to avoid a perceived ridicule?
I think not. This is America, not Uganda.
Sure, Doug Wilder just barely squeaked-by Marshall Coleman in 1985 (was it 1985?) even after polls showed Wilder being immensely popular. I just think the polls had it wrong—probably for a variety of unrelated reasons. Coleman handily won many precincts in Chesterfield, for example. And Chesterfield precincts carry a whole lot of votes.
I happened to live in Chesterfield for quite a few of my growing-up years. I can assure not that the people there would not be intimidated by a skinny pollster holding a microphone.
I think the Bradley/Wilder Effect was the brainchild of a psychologist desperately in need of a publication.
What’s sad is that people feel the need to self censor at all. It’s means they’re either afraid or they’re superficial. Neither is a sign of strong character.
Sometimes I think the media wants to turn the elections into horse races because that way they don’t have to do difficult analysis on positions and matters of substance.
They can just report on numbers, like bookies, analyzing which horse has long legs and which looks sparky and alert. Ol’ Stewball looks good in the 5th, or might get delegates in So. Carolina.
I advocate the Ed Effect. Purposely misrepresent who you will vote for in an election in order to subvert the polls and the lightweight media altogether.
Polls tend to minimize the value of debate but maximize cynicism. Let the candidates hang on their delusions until voting time same as we do with ours.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
