Now that polls indicate Senator Barack Obama is the favorite to win, some analysts predict a racially biased “Bradley Effect” could prevent Obama from winning a majority on November 4th. That is a pernicious canard and is unworthy of 21st century political narratives. I should know. I was there in 1982 at “ground zero” in California when I served George Deukmejian as his general election pollster and as a member of his strategy team when he defeated African-American Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley, not once but twice, in 1982 and again in 1986.
Bradley Effect believers assume that there is an undetectable tendency in the behavior of some white voters who tell pollsters that they are “undecided” when in fact their true preference is to vote against the black candidate…However, it is indeed a “theory in search of data.”
The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor’s race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call…The Field Poll inaugurated the speculation that led to the baseless Bradley Effect theory when, after the 1982 election, Field said “race was a factor in the Bradley loss” (AP 11-4-82). Mervin Field cited no data, but only speculated that white conservative voters of both parties were more undecided and that he may have over-represented minority voters in his polling. Thus, the Bradley Effect was born amidst some major polling errors and a confusing array of mixed predictions, hardly a firm foundation to construct a theory.
The Deukmejian campaign tracking polls did not confirm any Bradley Effect and to interject this type of speculation into the 2008 presidential election is not only folly, but insulting to the political maturity of our nation’s voters. To allow this theory to continue to persist anymore than 25 years is to damage our democracy, no matter who wins.
RTFA. The data is in the details. The “conclusions” live on in the minds of those looking for excuses.
Thanks, VoteMaster
I think that “some analysts predict a racially biased “Bradley Effect” ” are mere GRASPING AT STRAWS AND WHISTLING BY THE GRAVEYARD !!! Obama has CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEMS FACING THE US, WHILE MCSAME IS CLINGING TO BUSH’S ***MISERABLE FAILURE*** ADMINISTRATION POLICIES !!! The people understand this, while the Repuke “Pundits” and LIARS are trying to decern some “Figures” to supoort their lies !!!
The Bradley effect is reasonable assumption but does not factor the that younger voters are largely non-racists.
This group is also enthusiastic, are independent thinkers and have a desire to bridge the US into the 21st century.
JimD, there may not be a Bradley factor. I don’t think there is, because as time goes on people seem to be less inhibited about being called a racist in this election. After all, Obama’s main appeal is racist.
But your reasoning is filtered through your obvious political bias, which has no effect on the Bradley factor, or vice versa.
Dallas, I’m not sure about your statement about younger voters not being racist, but assuming that they are not, how many younger voters will there be? Many of us Paul supporters were disappointed to find that younger people simply did not vote. I suspect that will be more or less the case in November.
JimD…Do you have Turretts? or is you CapsLock getting stuck?
All this being said, Bradley still lost.
I remember that election. Reagan had taking the vote in the earlier Pres election and was endorsing Duke.
Bradley was a VERY weak candidate and not liked by the majority of voters in the state. He probably took the LA City vote.
A story about race and voting from a different era in and of itself means nothing. The intent behind the story is interesting, because it means…
1. The left really does think the majority of the country is racist, and/or they don’t know what to do with such a large lead weeks before the election. (Note the use of the term “Now that…”. They don’t even realize he’s been in the lead the whole time.)
2. The left is afraid of another 2000 outcome, where their guy gets the majority of the popular vote but not the electoral vote, and knows that the “They cheated!” reaction hurt them in the subsequent congressional election. They don’t want history to repeat itself based as much on the damage to the congressional election as the fact they lost the Presidency.
Which is it, Liberals? Is it both?
People keep claiming that younger voters are not racist, but when the time comes, they aren’t choosing to live in the black neighborhoods.
The narrative is coming down from the media(and Barack OBama) that a vote for McCain is a vote for racism.
Jammer4876 wrote: “After all, Obama’s main appeal is racist.”
Huh? On what do you base that assertion?
That some people are excited about the possibility of a black making it through the racial glass ceiling? I’m no pollster, but I’ll bet the number of people voting for Obama *only* because he’s black is roughly equal to the number of people who won’t vote for him *because* he’s black.
Dumb statement.
Don’t underestimate the eejit effect. In order to conduct a survey, pollsters must be able to have a coherent conversation with the individual they are speaking too (either in person or on the phone).
The typical “eejit” voter is easily confused by that magic talking box that rings and is often baffled by questions by fast-talking strangers.
And yet these “eejits” manage to somehow get out and vote. Sure, many eejit voters will be drunk when voting and will mark their ballot with a vomit stain instead of an X. But some will still, against all odds, successfully cast a ballot.
I have heard a lot of talk about the “Bradley Effect” I feels like it is a grasping concept from both sides of the isle. Either way, this will be an election making history.
#10 EdB
“Jammer4876 wrote: “After all, Obama’s main appeal is racist.”
Huh? On what do you base that assertion?”
I believe that Jammer4876 was referring to the bloc-voting enthusiasm in which African-americans injected into Obama’s primary campaign. I would need some time to find some stats to support the theory that in many states, Obama’s margin of victory over H. Clinton in the primaries was African-americans who have historically not voted and therefore coul assume that the candidate’s race inspired them to register/vote. Obama’s appeal has crossed racial and generational lines for sure, but his opponents have made few attempts to pry these single issue (race) African-american voters from his tally.
#2 Dallas
Today’s Youth are not independent thinkers, but they do follow independent thinkers in droves.
Barack Obama’s campaigning had been all about race, with all criticism blamed as racism. We can expect more of the same if he is elected president.
The “Bradley Effect” has no basis anymore, and the proclaimed ‘effect’ may be reversed this time around if it ever existed in the first place. We might just have more people willing to vote for Obama than are willing to vote for Obama.
People that agree with Obama but belong to social organizations that proclaim a ‘Conservative’ stance may either agree publicly with the organization or remain silent. But when entering the privacy of the electoral booth they could vote their real choice, not the one that they have been hiding in order to belong to their social group.
Many people would never publicly admit that they would vote for a black person.
#15 “The “Bradley Effect” has no basis anymore, ”
It didn’t at the time either.
They should call this the “If our candidate wins, it’s because voters are smart, if he doesn’t, it’s because they’re racist” Effect.
I base that statement on the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming percentage of black voters for Obama. Unless you are dumb enough to believe that racism only goes one way, then to deny that Obama’s primary appeal is founded in racism is the truly “dumb” statement.
#18 Jammer
Look at the percentage of black people in the Democratic -vs- Republican parties for the answer as to which way the black population will vote in any election. “Black Republican” is just as rare as “Gay Republican”.
Blacks may be more likely to actually show up to vote this time because they want to support a black candidate, but that doesn’t change the fact that virtually no blacks support the Republican party, regardless of the race of the candidate.
So race is a factor, but not in the choice of candidate.
And compare in the Hillary vs Obama race, and you see no racism?
#19 ““Black Republican” is just as rare as “Gay Republican”.”
I know 4 men that are gay and all are Republican…
As for the Bradley effect, well, maybe it existed and maybe it didn’t. Maybe it still does, and maybe it doesn’t, but I think it was minor and if still there, is smaller still. People lie to pollsters all the time if for no other reason than to mess with them, so you can’t prove a damned thing one way or the other.
Obama has appealed to and gotten out the vote of both blacks and the young to an extent not seen before. Every year since 1972 when 18 year olds first got the vote, the “youth vote” was expected to suddenly increase. So far, not much luck, except for a small blip in 1980 for Reagan. But, it does appear that the under 25 crowd, in particular are registering and intend to vote in much larger numbers than in the past. And the majority of them clearly support Obama. Why? I blame Bush!
Paddy, I know a few gay Republicans too. They tend to be one of two types: either very fat and ugly or very wealthy, good looking and conceited. Nobody in the middle. And none of the normal folks gives them the time of day.
Make that time of gay.
Seems to me that this is a backhanded way to get the racists out to vote. Sort of try to remind them that they don’t want a president that’s not the same color as them. Unfortunately racists come in all colors and I seriously doubt that this ‘effect’ can be statistically effective. It’s shameful that race is still an issue at this point in human evolution.
#23 The ones I know are average looking and are in the $60k – $120k /year salary range.
The half-white, half-Kenyan Obama is the covert racist here. At least ignorant white racists are honest enough to show theirs out in open.
Obama’s USSA will SUCK!
#26 – Everyone always appreciates the way you illustrate your brand of honesty.
#28 Pagon (sock puppet?) said, “they’d see that economic factors were better under every Democratic president except Hoover.”
Umm, Hoover was a Republican. You’re cred? Destroyed in a huge ball of liberal gas…
NY Times chart titled “Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants in a nutshell:
Growth of $10,000 invested in the S&P Market Index over a period of 39+ years of each party holding the presidency:
Under Democratic Presidents – $300,671
Under Republican Presidents (excluding Hoover) – $ 51,211
Under Republican Presidents (including Hoover) – $ 11,733
Now, vote your wallet.
#30 Interesting. What are they inflation rates under those same Presidents?
Paddy-O
“sock puppet”?
When your argument is weak, just call names.