Posted on 10/14/2008 2:55:27 PM PDT by LS
Recently there has been a phenomenal amount of analysis and discussions of polls, pollsters, and polling---virtually all of which show McCain behind, whether in national polls or in key statewide polls.
One of the silver linings conservatives cling to is a "Bradley Effect" or a "Wilder Effect," named respectively for the 1982 California governor candidate, Tom Bradley or for Virginia governor Doug Wilder. Bradley lost the race after every poll showed him with a lead, and post-election polls showed that white voters voted in heavier numbers for George Deukmejian than polling had indicated. In the 1989 Virginia governor's race, Doug Wilder, a black, barely beat Marshall Coleman, a white, despite averaging a 9% lead in the polls leading up to the election. That same year, David Dinkins, a black, held a 14% lead in the NY Mayor's race over Rudy Giuliani, yet won by only 2%. Harold Washington, in 1983, had repeated polls showing him with a 14 point lead, but he won by only four.
In 1990, black senate candidate Harvey Gantt lost to Jesse Helms by six points, after leading in the last polls by 4-6% (with one exception showing a Helms victory).
In 1992, Carol Moseley Braun defeated white candidate Richard Williamson for the Illinois Senate by 10 points, but most polls had her winning by 20.
In 2006, black Republican Ken Blackwell trailed Dem Ted Strickland in polls by 8-14% in the last week, but lost by 25%.
More questionable are the 2006 Senate race in Maryland, where Michael Steele lost to a white Democrat by a larger margin than predicted by the last polls; and Pennsylvania's governor's race, where Republican Lynn Swann lost by 21.8, even though two of the top pollsters, Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon, both had him losing by only 18%.
Further complicating the "effect" is the fact that sometimes a black candidate will perform in line with polls, but the white candidate will overperform. Pew's Andrwe Kohut argues that the phenomenon is not due to white voters lying to pollsters but instead not participating in the polling process at all, skewing the results. [Personal comment: This, I find, screwy.] Peter Brodnitz of The Polling Report suggests that later-deciding voters tend to be more moderate-to-conservative and it is blacks "liberalism" that causes the Bradley Effect. This, of course, would be completely invalid in the cases of Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell, and Michael Steele.
POLITICAL BIAS AND THE ANALYSTS OF THE BRADLEY EFFECT
It goes without saying that the battle over the "BE" is as heated as the elections themselves, for different reasons. Some pollsters (on both sides of the aisle) want to argue that race is not a factor in American politics, and they point to Bobby Jindal's election in Louisiana in 2007, which was in line with pre-election polls. Harold Ford, in Tennessee's 2006 Senate race, lost, but the percentages of whites who voted for him was unchanged from pre-election polls. Liberals, on the one hand, want the presence of a BE as evidence of America's racism---except in this election, where they do not want to think that their current candidate may actually be behind if he is "only" leading by 4-5 points.
Most of the time, a Bradley Effect can be observed. It is real. Its significance varies, based on other factors in the campaign, especially the liberalism of the black candidate in more moderate states.
There are certainly examples where it appears the Bradley Effect was minimal, if non-existent. Swann's defeat was well in line with pre-election polls, and some had him losing by an even bigger margin. The preponderance of the evidence suggests, however, that there is a discrepancy between what whites tell pollsters to be politically correct and how they actually vote---or the aforementioned example of whites not inclined to vote for a black simply not responding to polls at all.
Finally, my own take is that it is not just race in this election, but "foreignness" of Obama's Arabic/quasi-Muslim past that scares blue-collar whites, particularly Dems from rust-belt areas.
Take it for what it's worth, but my view is that the Bradley Effect may well account for 5-7% in SE OH, many sections of PA, W VA, parts of VA, MO, and KY.
Especially in a national election...
Contrary to claims that there was no Bradley Effect during the primaries, Obama almost never performed as well as the polls predicted he would. In this case, it might not simply be race that’s the issue but that little voice in the back of people’s head that make them realize, as they are about to actually cast their vote that this guy is an empty suit with no experience.
Just to play devil’s advocate, Wikipedia says of that that in the primaries, Hillary “overperformed.” I wonder.
I'd say that's a reasonable assessment. The "Bradly effect" may not be widespread, but we are certain to see it in some places. We have seen it before here in VA. If I remember correctly, Hussein was only down 7 points for the PA exit polls during the primary, and he lost by nearly double that amount in the real vote.
This year there would be reverse-bradley effect, especially in the south.
I have a very hard time believing that the Bradley effect will truly be in force. I rather think that many Democrats tell their friends, family, and pollsters, that OF COURSE they support Obama, but deep down are unhappy with some quality or problem with Obama, and may not vote for him in the booth.
I sincerely doubt that his skin color figures greatly with people who aren’t voting for him. It appears to be one of the top three reasons TO vote for him though.
I also think that there is a countervailing force this time - a 50+ woman I know, who has almost always voted Republican, said that if Obama won, it would mean blacks would no longer be able to claim they were discriminated against and would have to get their acts together. I suspect a lot of people truly hope this clown Obama will help the country to become less racially polarized, yet I think it will have the opposite effect. When ordinary citizens see radical leftist blacks swaggering about Washington, the reaction will not be pretty. Even Southerners who wished the Freedmen well in the aftermath of The War were appalled at the corruption of the carpetbagger governments in the South, and gave their support (at least tacitly) to the more unreconstructed Southerners who led the original Klan.
The post coronation primaries were interesting. Methinks too that it ain’t just race, it’s that foreign/Muslim/somethinain’tright thingy. Me, it ain’t race. It’s because 0bama is an arrogant, anti-American, gimmestater, socialist, opportunistic, Chicago pol, Soros puppet, never did anything productive hack....
In fact the only way Obama won the primary was he was selected by the DNC super delegates, after they kicked the girl to the curb. He never won anything outright in the last half of the primary race.
Saying that Hillary Clinton overperformed is another way of saying that the undecided mostly broke for Hillary. If the undecided mostly break for McCain like that, that’s probably enough for him to win.
The Washington Post ran a campaign against George's mother accusing her of being a Jew during WWII, and teaching young George to call dark people "macacas".
It was very effective. Webb even wrote books with gratuitous pornography and child molestation and still there was a certain, but substantial percentage of voters in Virginia (mostly historically white Democrats) who just couldn't get themselves to vote for a "Jew".
They are not likely to vote for a Negro either.
Interesting that we have so many clear cut examples of the Bradley effect ~ someone could get a doctoral thesis and a job with any one of a number of major polling firms by analyzing the existing information.
I agree that the Bradley effect is real, but it shows a post-racial outlook in many Americans. In essence, when the pollster calls, the voter doesn’t want to be perceived as racist, so he or she selects the black candidate. I’ve seen this at work in this election, where many of my pigment-challenged friends are more than willing to crow about their support for Obama in a way that makes me think they protest too much.
There’s a wonderful book on this by Shelby Steele called “White Guilt,” which I read when I was traveling two years ago in South Africa. Interestingly, when I shared Steele’s ideas with Afrikaaners, they expressed no “white guilt” whatsoever and expressed pride in their accomplishments and history. As a result, also interestingly, there was respect for Afrikaners from the black South Africans I spoke with - not much like, mind you, but a grudging acknowledgement about Afrikaner achievements and group spirit. What I see now is a black American race-based fascism based on the idea that whites should be the target of revenge for past wrongs - and whites simply lying down and taking it out of guilt. And we get from this toxic mix Obama.
My take in this race is that Obama and his MSM promoters are farther to the left than the populace at large.
Well, no... that's electoral urban legend.
In fact aggregate polling indicated that the race was within the margin of error, and trending Deukmejian:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html
Uh, no, see the analysis of this analysis at Wiki.
Agree. Not saying it IS a sign of racism-—quite the contrary. And many white voters won’t vote for a Dinkins or Bradley because they aren’t perceived as sharing “white” values. And rightly so.
Yes, on the countervailing, I think that is 75% of the “yout” vote-—the notion that they can assuage their white guilt by being “hip.”
Don’t forget the Palin Effect...
There are some blacks who will vote for Obama because he is black. And there are some whites who will vote for McCain because he is white.
There are also some women who will vote for Palin simply because she is a woman.
Between the Bradley Effect and the Palin Effect, methinks McCain has a very good chance of winning.
Don’t forget the Palin Effect...
There are some blacks who will vote for Obama because he is black. And there are some whites who will vote for McCain because he is white.
There are also some women who will vote for Palin simply because she is a woman.
Between the Bradley Effect and the Palin Effect, methinks McCain has a very good chance of winning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.