No Bradley Effect Seen In Presidential Race

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ALAN FRAM | November 7, 2008 06:29 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Graphic shows presidential vote by religious affiliation and race; two sizes;

WASHINGTON — Whether whites supported Barack Obama or not, they don't seem to have lied to pollsters about it.

Obama's election triumph on Tuesday presented no evidence of the so-called Bradley effect, in which whites who oppose a black politician mislead pollsters about whom they will vote for. Instead, national and state pre-election polls were generally accurate in reflecting voters' preferences in the presidential contest.

"I certainly hope this drives a stake through the heart of that demon," Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist and polling authority, said of the Bradley effect.

The phenomenon is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who in 1982 lost the race for California governor after leading in the polls. There were similar contests over the following decade in which black candidates facing white opponents had comfortable leads in polls, only to lose or narrowly win the elections.

Critics have said such turnabouts might have been largely the product of poor polling. Others have concluded that some whites, nervous about appearing to harbor anti-black feelings, in fact misled pollsters up through the early 1990s but that such behavior has faded over time.

Obama, who will become the first African-American president, defeated Republican John McCain on Tuesday by 52 percent to 46 percent with nearly all votes counted.

If the Bradley effect were a factor, pre-election polls should have consistently overstated Obama's share of the vote, or understated McCain's. Instead, most did a solid job of previewing how the vote would go, both nationally and in crucial states.

Shortly before Election Day, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey showed Obama ahead 51 percent to 43 percent among likely voters. The Gallup Poll showed a 53 percent to 42 percent Obama lead, while CBS News had Obama up 51 percent to 42 percent.

Story continues below
advertisement

An Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in late October had Obama ahead 51 percent to 43 percent. An AP-GfK poll in mid-October showed a virtual tie, 44 percent for Obama to 43 percent for McCain.

Web sites that combine major polls to estimate support also performed well. Among some popular sites, had Obama ahead 52 percent to 44 percent, saw Obama up 52 percent to 45 percent, and gave Obama a 52 percent to 46 percent advantage.

Links:


Such accuracy was a relief to pollsters rattled last winter when widespread projections of an Obama victory in the New Hampshire primary were upended after Hillary Rodham Clinton won narrowly.

"We're getting much more sophisticated estimates," said University of Michigan political scientist and polling analyst Michael Traugott, citing improved techniques.

Among them is the increased polling of people who have cell phones but no landlines. A Pew Research Center report in September, and exit polls of voters conducted Tuesday for The Associated Press and the television networks, suggest that people who have only cells tend to vote more Democratic than people like them with only landlines.

Many state surveys were impressively accurate also.

For North Carolina, gave McCain a pre-election edge of less than 1 percentage point. That state finally was awarded to Obama on Thursday, when he had a 14,000-vote lead out of 4.2 million votes cast. http://www.realclearpolitics.com

Pre-election polls by Quinnipiac University, Mason-Dixon and AP-GfK all showed Obama ahead by 2 percentage points in Florida, which the Democrat won by 3 points. The combined estimate for Pennsylvania by put Obama up 8 points, and he won by 11. http://www.pollster.com

None of this means race was not a factor on Tuesday.

Whites nationally preferred McCain by 12 percentage points, while 95 percent of blacks backed Obama, according to exit polls. Seven percent of whites said race was important in choosing a candidate, and they backed the Republican 2-1.

Analysts said any reluctance to support Obama because he is black may have been overwhelmed this year by a desire to support the candidate people thought would fix the struggling economy. They also said the Bradley effect has faded as Americans have become used to blacks winning local elections and as the 1990s' more intense focus on crime and welfare has ebbed.

The Bradley effect was "a product of a particular political environment that seems to have passed us by," said Daniel Hopkins, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University who wrote a study this summer concluding that the phenomenon has disappeared.

WASHINGTON — Whether whites supported Barack Obama or not, they don't seem to have lied to pollsters about it. Obama's election triumph on Tuesday presented no evidence of the so-called Bradley...
WASHINGTON — Whether whites supported Barack Obama or not, they don't seem to have lied to pollsters about it. Obama's election triumph on Tuesday presented no evidence of the so-called Bradley...
 
Comments
21
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

The Bradley effect was never real, so of course we didn't see it in this election. Since when have racists/white supremacists been shy about speaking their hate? I'll be so glad not to have to hear pundits jabbering away about this BS in 2012 ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 11/07/2008

This is a MISNOMER... Bradley was defeated in '82 because of a wildly unpopular anti-gun initiative on the ballot. Bradley lost by less than 75,000 votes. The anti-gun initiative lost by several hundred thousand votes. Anytime there's a Gun, God or Gay issue right-wing nuts come to the polls in droves. Those people also did NOT vote for Bradley... An indirect gun effect but certainly no such thing as a Bradley Effect. This year's anomaly is the yes on hate = 8 in California. Same people elected Obama.

The Obamas are Moving On UP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf3uGsMxsoQ

A sublime Moms Mabley version of Abraham, Martin & John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge32xtm23rQ

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 11/07/2008

The "Bradley effect" was nothing more than a myth that was used to keep hope with revolting rascist, McCain supporters that he could pull this election victory off. Shameful peopl;e, aren't they?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 11/07/2008

We shall overcome We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

Oh, deep in my heart I do believe
We shall overcome some day

We'll walk hand in hand We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand some day

We shall all be free We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day

We are not afraid We are not afraid
We are not afraid some day

We are not alone We are not alone
We are not alone some day

The whole wide world around The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around some day

We shall overcome We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 11/07/2008
photo

There was a Bradley Effect when comparing the state polls numbers to how Obama actually won in some states. It was offset by the 18-30 yr old vote when you look at the "by age" voting block on MSNBC's site. Obama won by less percentage points than the polls had him at in IA, NC, OH, PA, and VA. But he did outperform polls in FL.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 11/07/2008

That was not a Bradley effect" it is called a result that was not exact, but was off within margin of error. Get facts right b4 perpetuating myths on this reputable site.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 11/07/2008
photo

Get some information before attacking others because you're offended. You apparently don't like the fact made public that some older whites voted against Obama substantially compared to polls. Stop whining, face reality and read THIS reputable site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 11/07/2008
photo

There was NEVER this so-called "Bradley Effect" as far as am concern. It NEVER happened! There was rather an election, STOLEN from Bradley which he never knew and noticed! Bush did the same years later!

PS: CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT-ELECT BARAK H.OBAMA

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 AM on 11/07/2008

Can we please put this urban myth to sleep? There was never a Bradley effect. That race was a toss up in the closing weeks and never in the bag for Bradley. Only one pollster had Bradley up by 6 points and his polling data and methods were flawed. Bradley lost by 100,000 votes or so because he didn't mobilize his base. Black people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 AM on 11/07/2008
photo

A Different Type of Bradley Effect

As a young child, in Los Angeles, I experienced a different type of "Bradley Effect".

I was in 2nd grade, when Tom Bradley, newly elected mayor of Los Angeles, visited my elementary school.

The enthusiasm amongst the parents and teachers, and most especially the children, was astounding.

I remember all us kids were clambering to get close to Mayor Bradley, to shake his hand, give him a hug, and get his autograph (I still have his autograph that he signed for me!). His security patrol was overwhelmed. Us kids were way too enthusiastic and exciting to be held back!

This was a very profound and positive experience for myself and the other kids there that day. Something which I know we have carried forward through our lives.

And it's something which I think about every time I see "The Bradley Effect" being brought up in the media--because *MY* experience of the Bradley effect, as a young child, was different--and it was incredibly positive. It invoked a sense of hope and enthusiasm which I have not experienced for many years... until now. Until Barack Obama. And for that, I am most grateful and appreciative.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 11/07/2008

On Election Day I worked all day as a sidekick alongside our Democratic committeeman at our Washington Township, PA voting precinct. Our township is an overwhelmingly white rural community in the red "T" of Pennsylvania. The party registration is almost even with Republicans having a slight edge. Possibly that is why we were chosen to be part of the national exit polling. At the end the day the exit poll results were 36 for Obama and 36 for McCain. Our totals for the official vote count were 2589 for Obama and 2765 for McCain. Fellow Obama supporters stood with us outside the polls after casting their voting to mingle with other like minded supporters. However many voters whispered their Obama choice to us. And others showed no inkling of their presidential choice. The lack of feedback led my seasoned committeeman to think we would do worse then the outcome indicated. Were white voters in our township afraid to let their white neighbors know who they voted for on Election Day? Was this a reverse Bradley effect? Hopefully 4 years from now voters will be less afraid to verbalize their support for a black man.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 11/07/2008

Maybe no bradley effect, but here in western Pa we are suffering from the 'Palin effect"
Today all people can talk about, after two whole days of feeling cheerful and excited about the new president, is that last night someone went to the home of a black family that lives in a small town here, (their family has lived there for four generations)... and spray painted Obama on their car and set it on fire.
*sigh* It makes me sad for our generation.
Oh, here is the link...(for those that doubt)
http://kdka.com/local/ethnic.arson.intimidation.2.858169.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 AM on 11/07/2008

You havent been keeping up because the GOP have a new argument as to why whites voted for Obama. Are your eady for this you might want to sit down. Obama guilt them into voting for him by implying if they didnt they would be seen as racist and since no one wants to be seen as racist they voted for him. I kid you not.

No it couldnt be because he ran a great campaign, they identified with him more, Sarah Palin scared the dikens out of them, McCain was erratic, The GOP disastrous 8 years. All those are NOT factors they voted for Obama because they didnt want to seem racist.

Trust the rethugs to blame others for their screw up.

Carol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 11/07/2008
photo

I think that GOP talking point has been extricated from someone's nether regions simply because they do not want to talk about what really happened in the booths.. The Reverse Bradley Effect.. I believe that people who indicated they were voting for the McCain/Palin ticket for what seems to be an increasingly irrelevant ideological GOP position actually had a moment of Clarity and irrepressible Hope and cast their vote for Obama.. Something inside of Them wanted to be a Part of History and if they did hold a Prejudiced View outside of that booth.. Inside that booth, They let their Better Angels do the talking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 11/07/2008
photo

Finally. How can anyone have thought that people would lie to a complete stranger on a political poll when people were pretty open about their opinions about Obama's race, positive or negative.

My favorite story on this was:

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-western-pennsylvania.html

When people harboring racists attitudes allow issues to trump prejudice, then you know that a real conversation about race has started in this country. It won't sound comfortable all the time (okay - MOST of the time) but at least it's happening.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:20 AM on 11/07/2008

Teeny steps for ignorami

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 11/07/2008

The Bradley Effect had nothing to do with the NH primary, and neither did bad polling. It was unreasonably warm the day of the NH primary (60 degrees, which as anyone familiar with the state will agree is downright freakish for January). Consequently, older voters, who had of course consistently broken for Clinton, came out in much greater droves than could have otherwise been expected for an early January primary. As a NH native, I feel this also had a major role in McCain's primary win there as well (although I'm not certain, but as the most pro-war candidate even in the GOP primary, he shouldn't have been able to win the state).

So basically a brief January thaw floated Clinton's campaign and possibly created McCain's. Most people not from the Granite State don't realize that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 11/07/2008

You make a good point about the weather factor. Same happened on Nov. 4th. In my NH town Obama won by only 40 votes (not exact figure). I truly feel that if we had bad weather he would have won by many more. I'm not young and I was not looking forward to the possibility of waiting in a long line. I would have done it because I felt so strongly about the prospect of an Obama administration, but I must say I was very relieved that there was no wait.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 11/07/2008

i fail to see how it could be the Bradley effect when they got Obama's percentage PERFECTLY. If it was the Bradley effect wouldnt his numbers have dropped but it didnt it was Edwards numbers that dropped and the undecideds went to Hilary. They call them undecideds for a reason. The Bradely efect is whites who say they will vote for Obama change their minds well they DIDNT they voted for him cause his numbers was identical to what the pollsters said he would get. There was no Bradley effect in NH. Maybe the undecideds didnt like when Obama said Hilary is likable enough, maybe they were touched by Hilary's tears. Whatever the reason it was NOT the Bradley effect and I get so frustrated when they keep insisting that it was.

Carol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 AM on 11/07/2008

After I posted that I remembered that Edwards (as well as other Dem candidates, as Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel were still running then, even though Biden and Dodd had dropped out) all underperformed their polls. In short, yet another factor that is not the defunct Bradley Effect that changed the outcome of the NH primary

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 11/07/2008
- ccmd I'm a Fan of ccmd permalink



if anything it was a reversed Bradley effect

u know u tell ur repub buddies ur for the GOPer but noone can step on that votin booth with ya!!!

ha!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 11/07/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect