Bradley Effect

[Texsox]

 

 

The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,^[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain 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 theory proposes that some voters tend to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his white opponent. It was named after 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.

 

Some analysts have dismissed the theory of the Bradley effect,^[9] while others argue that it may have existed in past elections, but not in more recent ones. One analysis of 133 senate and gubernatorial elections between 1989 and 2006 suggests that "before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points."^[10]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

 

 

[Steve9347]

It's been discussed throughout the above pinned threads quite a bit, actually.

[NorthSideSox72]

We've discussed this at length.

 

And I've been saying all along, this plus the general fear factor seem likely to give McCain a few extra points.

 

The other X factor I had mentioned though, Obama's ground game, has been HUGE. So the effect may not be felt at all.

 

[StrangeSox]

We've discussed this at length.

 

And I've been saying all along, this plus the general fear factor seem likely to give McCain a few extra points.

 

The other X factor I had mentioned though, Obama's ground game, has been HUGE. So the effect may not be felt at all.

 

It also wasn't really present in the primaries, and hasn't really been all that present since Bradley. It's even debatable if there really was a "Bradley Effect" in that race or if it was just bad polling, because IIRC Bradley's campaign's internal numbers showed the race much closer than what the media polls showed.

 

There's also the cell phone effect. Polls that are including cell phones are polling several points more in Obama's favor than landline-only polls.

[bmags]

and the case of Harold Ford Jr. So I just don't think it exists. If anything it will be the unknown factor with Obama and name recognition for McCain.

[Reddy]

it. does. not. exist.

 

end of story

[NorthSideSox72]

it. does. not. exist.

 

end of story

You are welcome to feel that way, but, others disagree. Not the end of the story.

 

The effect didn't show up in the primaries for what I think is an obvious reason - the Hillary effect. Just as some folks are more racist than they let on, the same goes for sexism.

 

Also, in the case of Ford Jr or even Bradley himself, we aren't talking about the Presidency here. The thought process associated with it is vastly different. Fear of the unknown is much more in play.

 

But, as others have pointed out, there are all sorts of other potential X factors in play that may not be accurately reflected in the polls - larger than expected turnout, age band turnout changes, last minute ground games, and cell phone user rates. And all of those would seem to favor Obama. So, if there IS a Bradley effect (or a fear effect), then it may be buried in the noise. We may never know.

 

[Reddy]

You are welcome to feel that way, but, others disagree. Not the end of the story.

 

The effect didn't show up in the primaries for what I think is an obvious reason - the Hillary effect. Just as some folks are more racist than they let on, the same goes for sexism.

 

Also, in the case of Ford Jr or even Bradley himself, we aren't talking about the Presidency here. The thought process associated with it is vastly different. Fear of the unknown is much more in play.

 

But, as others have pointed out, there are all sorts of other potential X factors in play that may not be accurately reflected in the polls - larger than expected turnout, age band turnout changes, last minute ground games, and cell phone user rates. And all of those would seem to favor Obama. So, if there IS a Bradley effect (or a fear effect), then it may be buried in the noise. We may never know.

i'm just saying time and time again it's been proven that it doesn't exist, and even if it DID happen once it can't be a theory - it's an anomaly.

[BigSqwert]

The effect didn't show up in the primaries for what I think is an obvious reason - the Hillary effect. Just as some folks are more racist than they let on, the same goes for sexism.

 

I'm highly skeptical that sexists would cancel out racists evenly.

[NorthSideSox72]

i'm just saying time and time again it's been proven that it doesn't exist, and even if it DID happen once it can't be a theory - it's an anomaly.

Time and time again? OK first, there have been very few elections with an african american and a white person at a high level office that has been well-polled, so, it cannot have been "proved" to exist or not exist in any complete way. Second, a theory does not have to have any sort of proven event. A theory can be just that - a theory - which may have never been truly tested. And that is the case here, IMO. We simply have not had anything like this before. So really, there cannot be any proof one way or the other. Thus, it is in fact a theory.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm highly skeptical that sexists would cancel out racists evenly.

Who knows? Can't really be modeled well.

 

[Reddy]

Time and time again? OK first, there have been very few elections with an african american and a white person at a high level office that has been well-polled, so, it cannot have been "proved" to exist or not exist in any complete way. Second, a theory does not have to have any sort of proven event. A theory can be just that - a theory - which may have never been truly tested. And that is the case here, IMO. We simply have not had anything like this before. So really, there cannot be any proof one way or the other. Thus, it is in fact a theory.

depends on our definition of the word theory i guess. but alright, i'll concede and let y'all debate.

[Balta1701]

Here's one of Silver's Bradley Effect hit pieces.

 

[bmags]

Plus, with Hillary more than being a woman you are talking about a HUGE advantage in name recognition that led, what I believe, what happened in New Hampshire.

[lostfan]

Can I get out my shovel to bury the Bradley Effect?

[bmags]

It sold some papers and ads that's for sure.

[BigSqwert]

Bob Cesca

 

Exit polling from the NY Times:

 

• Nationally, five percent MORE white people voted for President-elect Obama than voted for Senator Kerry.

 

• +7 in the rural vote for the president-elect over Kerry.

 

• In Indiana, the white vote was +22 over Kerry. And, get this, Kerry was +4 better among African Americans four years ago in Indiana.

 

• Whites +7 in Ohio. +15 in Virginia. +17 in North Carolina.

 

This kills any assumptions from the right that Obama won just because of the African American vote (the Limbaugh "totally about race" argument). It was a powerful coalition of all races that led to victory.

[Steve9347]

Can I get out my shovel to bury the Bradley Effect?

Yes, it is dead.

[Middle Buffalo]

Jon Stewart asked Obama if his white half would have trouble voting for a black guy when it came time to cast his ballot. http://vodpod.com/watch/1124803-barack-oba...-the-daily-show It's at the 5 minute mark in the video.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Middle Buffalo

[whitesoxfan101]

Yes, it is dead.

 

A lot of commonly believed racial stereotypes and theories died yesterday, and it was long overdue.

[Texsox]

Can I get out my shovel to bury the Bradley Effect?

 

No. The effect is there as long as it applies to someone. What gets added to the information is the number of voters is insignificant, thus the effect is not a factor in National Elections.

[BigSqwert]

No. The effect is there as long as it applies to someone. What gets added to the information is the number of voters is insignificant, thus the effect is not a factor in National Elections.

 

So how many examples have there been that we could actually point to? The election Bradley was in did not necessarily even have a Bradley effect.

[lostfan]

No. The effect is there as long as it applies to someone. What gets added to the information is the number of voters is insignificant, thus the effect is not a factor in National Elections.

The poll predictions on 538 were all close to dead-on, all over the country. The only state he missed on predicting was Indiana and even then it was only by a couple of points (it was predicted to go barely red, ended up going barely blue).

 

The actual election Bradley was in was a result of poor polling, furthermore, this year's GE polls were done nationally with different demographics all over the region, and to my knowledge none of them showed any significant anomalies.

[Texsox]

The poll predictions on 538 were all close to dead-on, all over the country. The only state he missed on predicting was Indiana and even then it was only by a couple of points (it was predicted to go barely red, ended up going barely blue).

 

The actual election Bradley was in was a result of poor polling, furthermore, this year's GE polls were done nationally with different demographics all over the region, and to my knowledge none of them showed any significant anomalies.

 

OK. Which proves that in national elections the "bradley effect" is negligible, it doesn't prove there is no bradley effect. To prove a negative, that it doesn't exist, you basically have to prove that no where is there a single person that tells a pollster they are voting for the black candidate and insteads votes for the white. To prove it does exist, you would need to find one person who did. Basically it is usually impossible to prove a negative in an academic sense.

[lostfan]

OK. Which proves that in national elections the "bradley effect" is negligible, it doesn't prove there is no bradley effect. To prove a negative, that it doesn't exist, you basically have to prove that no where is there a single person that tells a pollster they are voting for the black candidate and insteads votes for the white. To prove it does exist, you would need to find one person who did. Basically it is usually impossible to prove a negative in an academic sense.

I think it's fair to say that while it's possible there may be a "Bradley Effect," it clearly did not have any significant impact on the total polling across the country.