Inside The "Bradley Effect"
Will the "Bradley effect" bring down Barack Obama, seen here after his Wednesday night debate win?
Barack Obama has won all three presidential debates over John McCain. He has a solid lead in the polls. What could go wrong for him? Well, many say the polls could be wrong, skewed by a hidden racist vote.
The "Bradley effect" -- the notion that white voters lie to pollsters when a black candidate is in the race -- has become widely known. But what you think you know from the campaign that gave rise to the phrase, then Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley's ultimately near-miss race for governor of California in 1982, isn't so.
I was in the middle of that, doing opposition research for Bradley's campaign. I vividly recall election day that November, as reports from the exit polling done by California's leading polling organization, the Field Poll, circulated. It seemed that Bradley, the first black mayor of Los Angeles, was headed for a big win as California's first black governor. A girlfriend advised me -- in my kid, pre-Armani days -- to get a better tie to go along with my blue blazer and slacks to better impress the high command at the victory party that night in downtown LA's Biltmore Hotel.
Tom Bradley was the first African American mayor west of the Mississippi. He served as mayor of Los Angeles for 20 years.
When eight o'clock rolled around, with my spiffy new tie firmly in place, the formal projection of the Field Poll based on its exit polling came onto TV screens across California: Tom Bradley over Republican Attorney General George Deukmejian, by a whopping 10 points!
But it quickly became apparent that something was wrong. The raw vote coming in didn't reflect this projected Bradley landslide. As the night dragged on, it seemed shockingly apparent that Bradley could end up losing.
Which Bradley ultimately did, losing by one point, with Deukmejian the victor, 49% to 48%. How could Field's exit poll have been so wrong? It must have been racism, right?
Well, only if California voters also thought that two-term Governor Jerry Brown was black, too.
The Field Poll made two big projections based on its exit polling that fateful November night. Bradley as the next governor of California. And Brown as the next U.S. senator.
But Brown lost, too. And pretty much everyone knew he was white. Brown's race actually wasn't as close as Bradley's, with then San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson defeating Brown, 51% to 45%.
Talking with Brown yesterday, he said that he had trailed Wilson pretty much throughout the campaign. And had been surprised by the election night projection of a relatively easy win for him.
Brown had been a controversial if shrewd governor, winning re-election by 20 points. But he ran for president twice during his governorship. The first time entering late and finishing a distant runner-up for the Democratic nomination to Jimmy Carter. The second time encountering what John Edwards found this year, a race in which two bigger stars left no room for him, in Brown's case having to contend with President Carter and the return of the Kennedys in the form of Senator Ted Kennedy. To maintain traction in the race, Brown adopted less mainstream positions, which did not help him in California. Brown realized after running the Senate race that California voters had simply seen too much of him as a candidate in the '70s and early '80s.
Clearly, the famous exit poll was simply wrong. No racial factor was involved in Jerry Brown's loss to Pete Wilson.
So what went wrong for Tom Bradley?
First, there was a hotly controversial initiative on the ballot, Proposition 15, which would have banned new handgun sales in California. Anyone who didn't have his or her pistol or revolver by April 1983 was out of luck when it came to handgun ownership. This proved to be wildly unpopular, and went down to a massive defeat, 63% to 37%. Deukmejian, helped by a huge campaign by the National Rifle Association, targeted rural and suburban voters heavily on this issue.
Second, the Deukmejian campaign was much more aggressive than the Bradley campaign. Bradley, a stately mayor of Los Angeles, ran a stately campaign. He was the front-runner and he acted like he was the winner.
Some damaging information was uncovered on Deukmejian. But Bradley refused to use most of it, insisting on a high-minded campaign. Mindful of his perceived need not to appear too aggressive as a black man, Bradley employed a kid gloves approach with Deukmejian in debate.
And on the campaign trail, well, on the campaign trail Bradley spent the final weekend of the election traveling around California thanking people for supporting him.
Meanwhile, the attack ads and mailers by Deukmejian and the NRA whirred away all the while.
That doesn't sound like Barack Obama's campaign, does it?
Bradley actually did win in the vote cast in polling places around the state on election day, though not by 10 points. But he lost badly in the absentee ballots, which Republicans targeted heavily.
Were there voters who simply would not vote for a black man, even a former police lieutenant and successful mayor of one of the nation's largest cities, in that 1982 California election? Undoubtedly. But it's clear that the problem lay not with significant numbers of voters lying to pollsters, but with the nature of the campaign itself. Whatever anti-black vote existed, Deukmejian already had it. The event that gave rise to the famous "Bradley effect" was created by faulty polling.
Bradley went on serve another nine years as LA's mayor, a record 20 years in all, before passing away in 1998. Bradley ran again for governor against Deukmejian in 1986, but lost in a landslide. Brown, of course, following his own perception of voter exhaustion with him, withdrew from public life for a time, though he ran a think tank, before returning as chairman of the California Democratic Party, runner-up to Bill Clinton for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination, a two-term mayor of Oakland, and now California's attorney general.
You can check things out throughout the day on my blog, New West Notes.
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
Being from the deep South, I am not afraid to be outspoken in my support for Obama, but, I have witnessed first hand many who support Obama, yet are afraid to say so.
I personally believe that it will be just the opposite, many who don't say so, yet secretly support Obama, will vote for him in the privacy of the voting booth.
My fear, being from a traditionally Republican state, is that the votes will not be counted. We are one of 29 states who do not have a paper back up and I would not be surprised if some of Obama's votes "get lost" between the voting booth and the final tally.
See William Bradley's Profile
As may be, but that's separate from anny Bradley effect or anti-Bradley effect, which is, again, about people lying to pollsters.
See William Bradley's Profile
Important point for paranoiacs of the left.
Read what I actually wrote.
Personally, I think the "reverse" Bradley effect is a very real possibility. I.e., people who won't admit to pollsters or their friends/family that they would vote for a black man, but once inside the voting booth they will cast their vote for Obama.
See William Bradley's Profile
Perhaps wishful thinking? I can see lying to racist neighbors, but not to the Gallup Poll.
I think the Bradley effect will be neutralized by the "Closet Dem-supporter"effect. There's plenty of staunch conservatives who would never admit they're going to vote Obama.
See William Bradley's Profile
Even to pollsters? Which is the point.
"Absentee ballot's targeted heavily by Republicans" or perhaps created? Now we have electronic voting and tabulation. Maybe we should be worried about the "Connely effect" as in the man who has still refused his subpoena's regarding the electronic shenanigans that took place in Ohio in 2004
It has been said repeatedly that exit polling has been accurate in it's predictions until the last two presidential election's, see: Randypalast.com or blackboxvoting.com or stealingamerica.org
See William Bradley's Profile
No.
Absentee ballots were not "created" in the 1982 California elections. The Bradley campaign did not account for them, nor did pollsters.
My belief is that there is little-to-no Bradley effect among people WHO RESPOND to the pollsters. However, pollsters this year are seeing more and more people refusing to answer period. That's the group the dems should be worried about..
I think the Bradley effect is nothing but a way to prepare America to another
Florida shock when they hear about the unexpected results of the election.
..........................
i agree.i keep thinking that "they're" gearing up to steal another election,and need an excuse we'll buy.
See William Bradley's Profile
Unfortunately, the "Bradley effect" is a theory dating back to 1982, apparently invented by a Berkeley sociology professor.
See William Bradley's Profile
Most of the evidence suggests that there is no conservative bias if avoiding pollsters.
See William Bradley's Profile
Capt. Stormfield, I notice that the moderators deleted your latest post.
Which I had already personally approved.
Folks, it looked fine to me.
Hey thanks Bill. Not to worry.
See William Bradley's Profile
You're welcome.
The fact of the matter is that people don't care that Joe the Plumber is a fraud or that Palin's husband is tied to separatist extremists (who usually are the source of most domestic terrorism a la Timothy McVeigh.)
Everyone should be concerned about what has stuck to Obama. He's still referred to as Barack HUSSEIN Obama.....Ayers is still an issue and nobody cares that he was okay enough to work for the University of Illinois....Obama's still questioned about whether or not he's Muslim, whether or not he's an American citizen (obviously, no one's heard of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution), whether or not he's a terrorist....
You don't think any of this will matter to Average Joe standing alone in a ballot booth?
I think so.
The obvious softballs regarding McCain-the Keating 5 scandal, his waffling on various issues throughout the years(think immigration, his position on the right-wing fringe in 2000). The whole Palin issue-did he prefer Lieberman? Jets auctioning on eBay....ex-brother-in-laws and ethics violations....having the state pay you per diem for staying in your own house....None of this capitalized on....
My 11 y/o daughter text messaged me the other day-"Obama used marijuana and cocaine".....Where did she hear that? At school....
The smears are everywhere, coming from every direction
As Biden said today.. its going to get ugly. That should make you wonder. It get uglier than this?
Ben Smith at Politico said he received a note from a Republican consultant he knows.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall
This is very interesting. Regan democrats and independents in a focus group don't care.
One guy said he would hate Obama but would never vote for a goddam republican again?
Of course he doesnt say which state this was in. The negative adds will have an effect I'm sure.
But how much? And thanks to Mr. Bradley for another great column.
See William Bradley's Profile
You're welcome. It can actually get a lot uglier, and this is hardly the ugliest campaign in history.
The fact is that Sarah Palin has become the biggest punchline in this campaign.
But if you want to wring your hands, have a ball.
I loathe to point this out, but Obama DID use pot and probably coke. He admits it in "Dreams from My Father." He has not, however, used drugs since the early 1980's. He regrets the drug use and in fact gave a speech to a high school to that effect. My concern is that an 11 year old girl is hearing about all of this. What else are they telling the kids? Have the Republicans sunk so low that they are willing to use schoolchildren to spread their filth?
See William Bradley's Profile
Who in American life has not used drugs or alchol at this point. President Bush is an acknowledged alcoholic.
See William Bradley's Profile
Sarah Palin has been heavily discredited amongst most voters.
I would expect that Joe Biden has his facts right, but I don't recall Gore having a double-digit lead in October 2000. I have tried to look it up but can't find the facts. Does anyone know? This has me worried.
It's something conservatives have been touting lately (and also the Campaign, to fight complacency). That particular poll Joe refers to was a Gallup poll where Gore had I think about a 8-9 point lead. It was at the very beginning of October and Nate Silver says that Gallup was doing weird things that year anyway. It doesn't mean that Bush came back - it means he wasn't that far back to begin with. This article may help you worry a bit less.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/another-way-to-look-at-mccains-odds.html
Thanks Mike, I'll sleep better tonight!
See William Bradley's Profile
I don't think Gore ever had a double digit lead.
I think its counterproductive for democrats to be talking about race at this point. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy and you are just putting this on some voters minds who may not be inclined to think about race at all. What we should be concentrating on is a counter punch to these robocalls, ACORN investigation and Joe plumber. That's where the voters are being distracted while the election is stolen.
See William Bradley's Profile
My role is not be politically correct, but to write about what is happening, or not, and why.
Sure wish someone would mention "white guilt" once in awhile
Another part of the problem was that Los Angeles was tired of him by then, he'd been in office a long time>
Hey, I live in Los Angeles. I think he was a great mayor and I'm sorry he didn't make it as governor. He would have been a good one. Instead we got a dirty Republican. We have one now. Can't win, can we.
See William Bradley's Profile
LA didn't really get tired of Tom Bradley till later. He was first elected in 1973. This was the election of 1982.
Come November 4th I think we will find that the McCain/Palin view of America will be very much out of step, out of touch, out of date and out of gas. I see Americans of all colors, ideals and ideologies stepping up to the booth and voting for change. They want and will demand a new way of thinking on how to run our nation. Sen Obama's color will be last on their list of pros and cons. People are ready for a wise and steady heady hand to lead us in a time of crisis unprecedented in the history of the world. The time is right and we as Americans are ready to vote for a new direction. As Dr King dreamed, we are ready to judge a man, not on the color of his skin, but the content of his character. We are ready for change, not political change, but a life affirming change that is going to make America and ultimately the world a better place. It won't be easy, it won't be quick, but it is now or never. Good luck to us all, we will need it.
DREAM, DREAM, DREAM ALONG WITH ME!
Dreams, and Day Dreamers, don't get the job done. What is going to change? How is it going to change? Is Nancy Pelosi still going to be the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency? Is Harry Reid still going to be the Senate Majority Leader? Are we still going have a majority party still (18%) effective against the Minority Party? Will the Washington Bureaucrats still be the one's Karl Rove put in place with no way to root them out? Will the Justice Department still have loyal Republicans stopping the appointment of Special Proscutors? Will voting disticts still be set for no contest victories? Will there be term limits? Will there be accountability? Will K-street still right the laws? Dream, Dream, Dream, its better the the nightmare of reality.
You have got to start somewhere. Most change for the better started with people who were told such change was impossible.
See William Bradley's Profile
Not sure I'm following here.
CALIFORNIA VS NEW HAMPSHIRE VS PENNSYLVANIA (PART ONE)
Bill maybe you should get out of that Armani Suit, come down to San Diego, County put on a tee-shirt, flip-flops, jeans long now its getting that nip in the air, cowboy hat, sunglass's.There has to be something to the "Bradley Effect" or what happened in New Hampshire? You could say that there was a lot of hanky-panky done with the voting machines, and Sheehans Machine, along with the Clinton Pollster Mark Penn, and I'll buy that. But, away from the urban areas and the black populations, there had to be a touch of the "Bradley Effect", and I know for a fact that in Upstate New York it's working right now, my mother-in-law, and alot of Upstate New Yorkers really believe that the (DNIP) the Democratic Nominee for the Imperial Presidency is a Muslim, and outside of Schenectady, and Albany north the "Bradley Effect" is a factor.
In San Diego County, can the rich Republicans trust a community activist Imperial President? Can the La Jolla Jewish Community really trust that this guy is on board with the (51st) State of Israel (99.9%), against Islamic Nations? Can Koreans trust a Black Activist Imperial President to be fair, if another Watts occurs, or not to try to reverse the California Affirmative Action which has passed every step of the way? Are the "Chickens Gong to Come Home to Rooste" feed by his former pastors help?
It is a dead fact you cannot trust McCain... Ask Dave Lettterman, McCain may not even show up for a crisis, or show up at the wrong place, at the wrong time... And you can count on this.
Read the Chicago Tribune, a highly conservative paper... They know Obama, they have not endorsed a Democrat for many, many years and they proudly stand up and vouch for his integrity and his honor.
IN WHAT LIFE TIME IS COOK COUNTY GOING REPUBLICAN?
Give me a break, in just what life time is Cook County, Chicago, Illinois the (312) phone area code ever going to go Republican, not in my life-time. You wanted a job you when an saw the Alterman the Democratic Alterman, the Irish one, and you were working the next day. Like (WJJD, WCFL, WIND), the Suntimes, or the Chicago Tribune really matter, get real. Like Richard J's son is not going to deliver Chicago to the Democratics, ya right! Ask Dave Letterman a New Yorker, you can't trust any New York City State idiot to tell you anything you can trust. Ron Regan said it right Trust but Verify. Hillary came from Park Ridge, and SHE WAS A REPUBLICAN. Chicago Tribune Get Real!
See William Bradley's Profile
The Chicago Tribune endorsement of Obama was no surprise.
CALIFORNIA VS NEW HAMPSHIRE VS PENNSYLVANIA (PART TWO)
How long is the (DNIP) going to keep troop in Afghanistan? Will this lead to Mission Creep, and the fall of Pakistan? Will the (DNIP) abandon the Grand Chessboard (FSWD) Full Spectrum World Domination Theory of his military advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski? Is this community activist really ready to handle a full blown Wall St., melt down, (FDR) was raised to power and from money and market savy family roots?
Bill think this one over again, are you really, really sure that your not the one who is really in denial? What happened in New Hampshire, if not the "Bradley Effect", what happened in Pennsylavnia if not the "Bradley Effect" East European Roman Catholics are going to vote for a Black?
See William Bradley's Profile
I'm simply reporting the facts of what happened in the 1982 election.
Bradley also waffled on the gun control issue relatively close to the election when he talked about it. Considering it was highly unpopular, his waffle turned alot of people off.
See William Bradley's Profile
Bradley didn't want to alienate left voters who were all for the anti-handgun initiative.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
