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
#32 “When your argument is weak, just call names.”
My argument was that Hoover was a repub. That’s weak?
Hmmm…
If for some reason Obama doesn’t win it’s going to be screamed long and wide that it was the race vote.
What they will never admit is that if he does win at least 10% of the vote for him is going to be the race vote.
For many the fact that the sun rose in the east when they wanted it to rise in the west will be due to racist behavior on the part of whites.
It can be very hard to sort out the real stuff from the nut case stuff.
People, you may be missing the forest for the trees here (or maybe it is the other way around in this case). Notice that the pundits trotted out the all but forgotten “Bradley Effect” when it was becoming apparent that the election won’t be close. We know there was tampering, caging, and other forms of rigging the election the last two times (not to mention the Supreme Court getting into the fray).
It is easy to accept a reversal when the election is close. A flip of an election is harder to pull off when the election isn’t close. My friends, they are setting you up for another stolen election. What other reason could there be?
Make no mistake. They will try to steal it. They don’t want to give up their power.
The phrase “Bradley Effect” was coined in a California election. Back then, we didn’t question things nearly as often. Now I’m involved with election protection groups looking into election fraud. From the perspective I have now, I think there is a real possibility that the election Bradley lost was rigged. Yes it happens even in California. There is no way to prove it given how long ago that was, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
If any Obama inner circle people are reading this, if the worst happens, please don’t let your candidate concede until the electoral college is seated. Once you concede, the media evaporates. I’m serious. I really hope I am wrong, but the “Bradley Effect” talking point is making me very nervous.
There will be many more lawyers, and observers out this time. Hopefully they will do better than in 2004. A premature concession by Kerry ruined any hope of finding out the truth. I cling to Obama’s phrase “Not This Time” in the hope we don’t have to go through that again.
Chris
#30,31
The policies matter. I’d be happy to have a Democratic president that cut taxes like LBJ(cuts proposed by Kennedy). I would not be happy with a Democrat like Obama who says he would raise taxes even if it meant getting less revenue. The stock market gain under Bill Clinton was primarily after Republicans took control of Congress and they passed a capital gains tax cut.
More interesting is the talk about a “reverse Bradley effect” where people in the racist states CLAIM to support McCain because the GOP is a bunch of bullies.
But in the voting booth, they’ll vote for Obama.