Don't Overplay The "Bradley Effect"
In scrambling to scrape the egg off their faces and find out what happened to the erroneous polling that caused the media to look so foolish for their predictions in the wake of Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in New Hampshire, some are trying to ascribe a race-based explanation. They are citing the "Bradley Effect," a reference to a phenomenon in electoral polling in which some white voters lie to pollsters saying that they will vote for the black candidate on the ballot while actually voting for the opponent, as the most likely explanation for the final result. I'm not saying the Bradley Effect played no role whatsoever in the outcome, but I do believe that those who are drilling this hole are searching in the wrong place. The Bradley Effect is largely a general election, not a primary/caucus phenomenon.
The Bradley Effect has long been a reality in polling for important races featuring Black candidates. Named for former Los Angeles mayor and 1982 California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley had a double-digit lead just before his 1982 gubernatorial campaign against Republican George Deukmejian. He lost. Doug Wilder had a double-digit lead in his 1989 race against Republican J. Marshall Coleman. He won by less than one point. Harold Ford, Harvey Gantt, and David Dinkins, among others, all fell victim to this phenomenon to varying degrees.
Let me stipulate here my belief that race can never, ever be underestimated in an America election; we have a long, unfortunate history of racial voting in both parties. However, to argue that it was the reason Obama lost is to do a disservice to Clinton's victory. She won despite the fact that a significant portion of the opinion-based television and radio media were pulling for an Obama victory. Additionally, those who push this explanation seem to be arguing that Iowa Democrats are less racist that New Hampshire Democrats. Arguing that Iowa is more progressive than New Hampshire strikes me as ridiculous, given that Iowa has never elected a woman as Governor or to Congress.
Two other reasons may better explain what happened. First, the polling ended too soon. Most of the significant polls that were conducted concluded on Sunday afternoon. They likely missed the brewing animus some New Hampshire women toward Obama and John Edwards over their Saturday night debate gang up on Clinton. I think that, coupled with her emotional response to a voter question the next day, may have moved some women from the sidelines or other candidates toward Clinton. The polls never saw that.
Second, women stood up for Hillary in a big way. There was a huge gender gap between Clinton and Obama in New Hampshire. Obama beat Clinton in Iowa by five points; Clinton returned the favor in New Hampshire, winning by 10 points.
While the Bradley Effect cannot be discounted, those who cling to it may be guilty of sour grapes, particularly since Obama won Iowa. However, he's taken in more than $40 million in donations, leads in many states, and is the darling of the liberal left. A few bigots can't keep him from the nomination if he's meant to win.
Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
why do ppl keep thinking oma ganged up on her?...oba
as for the bradley effect, it can never be underestim
Thanks for this. Last night I thought I'd lost my mind. In an act of unforgivable self-abuse I turned on Hardball only to find Michael Eric Tyson with his teeth rabidly dug into the pant leg of white racism while Pat Buchanan of all people tried to call him off with the voice of reason and common sense. Pitchfork Pat was actually making the same points that the good professor is making here, only more passionately. Welcome to upside down world.
While there has been a lot of speculation on why Clinton won I have yet to see anyone articulate what I believe is one of the main reasons for her support in the Democratic Party. Unlike Obama she is not likely to forgive the Republicans for their abuse of power and position. If she gets elected every indication shows that she will quite literally toss all the Republican hacks and loyal Bushies out on the street. Many myself included, while we like Obama do not want reach an accommodation with the selfish arrogant Republicans; we want them tossed back into the gutter that they came from. This is of course is why the Republicans hate her so much, they know if she gets elected she will hold them accountable for their abuses and crimes. It is also why Democrats quietly vote for her, while they publicly say they want to get along, privately want someone who will kick some Republican butt.
Weird comments.
I agree with you, the "Bradley/Dinkins" effect is a general election phenomenon. Truly, there probably have not been enough primaries to tell if it applies in that context.
Deval Patrick's win in Mass., while a landslide, was still a 10% smaller landslide than polls predicted. I don't expect to see much Bradley Effect in "red" states; it's the blue state Democrats who make it happen.
I'm way stoked about Obama, but I'm also scared, depending on who the R candidate is. I'm sixty, and I've been hoping to spend my retirement in the U.S. Another Repo president would just about do us in, I'm afraid.
And, as an aside, who reads either Vogue or Men's Vogue (if that's the right term)? Are these well-known for their incisive political coverage? I am happy to be known as a so-called Liberal, but I've never read either Vogue, and I have no idea what lynnn is talking about. My bad.
Cheers.
In New Hampshire the entrance polls were right-on, in almost every way. They predicted the exact amount of the vote for John Edwards and Barrack Obama. They were also correct in projecting the vote for the Republican candidates. Somehow they did not record about 10 percent of the total Democratic vote. (all of those votes were cast for Clinton). Were these 'older women' who came out to support Hillary, encouraged to avoid the pollsters?
These are my questions: The polls predicted Obama would get 38%, possibly more. He got 37%. I believe they thought Edwards would get 22% - Edwards got 17%. Am I wrong to think that some of those who might have supported Edwards - poor women - moved over to Clinton?
Of course, that doesn't explain where her other 5% came from, except that there really was no bounce from Iowa for Obama, and a reduction of votes from Edwards. Edwards went from 31% in Iowa to 17% - a 14% loss - isn't that about what the polls were off by?
Isn't it that Clinton drew away from Edwards the real story? People who make less than $50,000 a year, especially poor women, went from Edwards to Clinton instead of moving to Obama?
Isn't that the story?
Iowa was a push, New Hampshire was a push. Hillery the inevitable candidate needs a knockout.
ESPECIALLY OVER SUCH A SMALL MARGIN OF WIN/ LOSS
You don't mention GOP candidates (J.C. Watts) why not? Also you do not mention Elison. However, I will not deny that there is a southern strategy being played and it sickens me. I am emailing all (yes all) my relatives. No more buck and shuck. It's not okay to diss HRC or ask any valid questions. That's sexist. Have people forgotten what feminism is? It's not me over everyone else, its I'm just as good. You can not rank oppression. YOU CANNOT RAnk Oppression. When libs do that then they become just like the people they hate.
One more thing on men, Men's Vogue has had more issue w/ African Americans on the cover then women's Vogue? Men's Vogue just started. There might be something w/ so-called Liberals. Also, look at the history. If it sucks to be a woman and it sucks to be non-white (non all white), then how will my children feel. Gawd!
Loading comments…
Posted January 9, 2008 | 08:51 PM (EST)