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.
Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MikeFauntroy
Loading comments…
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
"a few bigots can't keep him from the nomination...." all true.
What about a whole LOT of bigots?.............................tm
I still favor Kucinich/Paul coming straight from the Constitution, and cleaning house, starting with the bloated budget.
"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..."
I guess you know that feeling very well, considering you called called Obama the Howard Dean of politics, implying he would not win any states, and would fall flat with voters. And if Obama wins South Carolina, you'll be wiping more egg off your face, as you also predicted most black voters won't support him.
Bring on South Carolina and Nevada. I can't wait to see your posts after that.
Does anyone really believe if the 'ganging-up' on Clinton by Obama/Edwards would have happened to Bill Clinton that women would have come out to vote for Bill, out of sympathy?
The Clinton's are a very smart political couple, completely capable of recognizing when to play which-ever-card-will-work.
Although I think they are probably bodacious and "bi-partisan" enough to solicit relevant information from Republican data mining tomes, regarding the shuffle, the draw, and the deal, they probably don't need to go that extent, if they just parlay the generally known &/or current fears of choice onto their new product.
Lincoln may have been right when he claimed ". . . you can't fool all the people all the time", but a lot of time can pass before enough people, see enough of the truth, to make a real difference.
Bobby Zimmerman was closer: "You can't win with a loosing hand."
We will see who's in for the long haul, an eighteen wheel Peterbilt rig with a jake-brake, or the mighty Missouri.
Just heard from the Kucinich campaign that they are considering launching a re-count of the NH primary results.
I'm a Clinton supporter and I just can't buy the Bradley effect was at play here. Like you said Michael the late movers that gave Hillary a victory were primarily women, which she won anywhere from 10 to 14 points depending on what exit polls you're looking at. So are Democratic women really really that racist? Come on. And on Harold Ford last year he actually lost by less than a lot of polls were predicting. Bradley lost in 82, things have changed. If people aren't going to vote for a black candidate than they'll tell the pollsters they're voting for the white one.
I have my doubts that even Bradley was hit by the "Bradley Effect". There's a phenomenon that happens when people are told that their candidate is a shoe-in. They lose the sense of urgency to go out and support that candidate. People stay home in droves believing that everyone else will take care of electing the candidate.
No one assumes that people lied to pollsters if a white candidate is projected to win by a large margin and they end up losing. They point to that voter lethargy as the reason. That they attribute the loss of an African-American candidate to voters lying to pollsters to try to appear more liberal is just another example of systemic racism.
No candidate wants to see themselves with an "insurmountable" lead because they know that all that energy they've fired up will burn off.
In Clinton's case, I think she benefitted more from the fact that the press let people know she was going to be the loser. People who were teetering on the fence because they don't dislike any of the leaders in the field probably decided to give Clinton the extra boost. Clinton is my preferred candidate but if I were told that she was far ahead and Obama was flailing, I probably would have thrown him my vote to keep him in the race since I also think he and Edwards would do a creditable job as leader and I'd like to see the race play out fairly.
I'm a research guy and this whole thing sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. If someone calls you on the phone and asks who you're going to vote for, why would it be racist to say Clinton instead of Obama. It's not like they're saying David Duke or anything...sounds dumb to me.
I could justify based on people really hoping they can vote for Obama, but not being able to cross the hurdle at the polls. But that's not the same thing as lying to the pollster...
Mr. Fauntroy, You and I both know that there is fraud involved here.Diebold machines were used in Nashua and Manchester the largest cities), where Hillay's votes were totally unbelievable.
The Bradley effect has nothing to do with the outcome -- only why the polls were wrong. These are two separate issues! No one is, or should be, using the Bradley effect to explain why Clinton won. It's only, but absolutely, valid as an explanation for why the chattering class screwed up.
It'll be interesting to see how the campaigns adapt to it in terms of planning. It doesn't matter that Anderson Cooper was surprised. It *does* matter that, if Russert had accurate numbers, Hillary's people had her down 11 and Obama's had him up 14. It does play into strategy.
I agree that race is a factor and will become much more so in the general election, just look at the last election in Tennessee and Virginia. Ads will be subtly and not so subtly geared to deliver the race message to voters. However, I think you should look at the sexism (woman running for the top job) effect as well. Just listening to the commentators, pundits and candidates (male) it sounds like a lot of people still have a '50s conception of "woman's place" in their subconscious mind.
Have you heard the one about will Hillary Cry at the next 911? (No one is bothered by the reading of "my pet goat" at the last one by a well known chief exec? Seems to be a pretty overt double standard here as well.
Maybe it all evens up for the two of them. But how do you even it up for the general election against say John M (he is SOOOO white) or Mitt (stepford candidate)?
so, you don't really think it was the so-called bradley effect? well, i do. barack is a really electric person who inspires. however, i believe that once some people and i emphasize some, saw the picture of his grandma shucking corn over in kenya, they said hey wait a minute. ps. i'm black
All this "Bradley Effect" talk, interestingly, undercuts Obama.
Chart the polls and you see:
1. Steady lead of Clinton
2. Sudden surge by Obama followed by big reversal by Clinton.
3. Clinton reversal was simply a return to the norm, but for fact that Obama did pick up support following Iowa.
The fact that Obama won big with NH men, while losing big with NH women, can be seen as at least partial confirmation of your analysis. There's still plenty of racism in the US, but there are better explanations for the NH results.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
