Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls => Topic started by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 05:56:54 PM



Title: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 05:56:54 PM
http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf

Marc Ambinder's summary:
Hopkins looked at all senatorial and gubernatorial races that featured a woman or an African-American candidate from 1989 to 2006 -- a total of 133 races. For each, he found at least one poll released within a month of Election Day, enabling him to measure the gap between a candidate's polling and performance.

Hopkins finds some evidence that African-American candidates suffered from something resembling a Wilder effect before 1996, but since then, the effect seems to have disappeared.

This becomes the key finding of Hopkins's study: The Wilder effect is not a durable phenomenon. Rather, it is dependent on particular political conditions.

His theory is that when racially charged issues like welfare and crime dominated the political rhetoric, racial factors affected voting behavior and the Wilder effect asserted itself. But once welfare disappeared as a salient issue in 1996, political discourse was deracialized and race was less of a factor in voters' mind.

Hopkins finds that the salience of racial factors depends on the tone of the national environment, not on the tone of local candidates. He explains that black candidates before 1996 were victim of the Wilder effect whether or not they ran a deracialized campaign; after 1996, white candidates were not able to benefit from that effect even when they attempted to exploit racially charged issues. This also applies to the Democratic primaries of 2008, where Hopkins finds that there was no Wilder effect affecting Obama's performance.

To preempt possible concerns about his study's validity, Hopkins takes a look at alternative explanations for the polling-performance gap. First, he considered whether the Wilder effect only affects African-American candidates or whether it hurts other under-represented groups. Analyzing races that featured a female candidate, he finds that women do not suffer from any Wilder effect - quite the contrary, female candidates on average perform better than their polling indicated.

Second, Hopkins considers the possibility that the polling-performance gap can be attributed to what he calls the "front-runner's fall." Hopkins explains that front-runners' support can be overstated because of their higher name recognition and because of classical regression to the mean, making it necessary to account for such an effect before determining what impact racial bias in Wilder or Dinkins' decline. After running additional tests, Hopkins determines that some of the polling-performance gap can be attributed to a front-runners' fall, but that the Wilder effect is still at play.

In other words, the Wilder effect tends to increase in function of an African-American candidate's initial support. Hopkins argues that this leads to the hype that surrounds the Wilder effect. The candidates that are most associated to that effect - Wilder, Dinkins and Bradley - were all favored to win. That is what got their campaigns so much coverage in the first place and it made their performance gap that much more dramatic - creating a somewhat naïve buzz around the Wilder effect.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/has_the_wilder_effect_disappea.php


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 06:51:06 PM
Oh, by the way, USelectionatlas.org gets a shout out on page 9!


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: agcatter on September 19, 2008, 07:44:19 PM
One thing for sure.  We will have confirmation one way or the other in about 6 weeks.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 07:50:34 PM
Actually, we won’t.  The Bradley Effect cannot be “proven” by one election since there are many reasons polls can be off, including ground game and oversampling bias.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Nutmeg on September 19, 2008, 07:54:04 PM
The author is a friend of mine.  He knows more about U.S. voting patterns than anyone I know, so I bet he's done his homework here.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 07:58:11 PM
Since it seemed to pop up in 2006, I think it's still there.  However, the strength of it in diminishing.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 08:08:26 PM
JJ, ONE affirmative action initiative where exit polls didn’t correlate with the actual result isn’t enough to proved the effect’s continued existence.   ONE election cannot prove or disprove the effect, let alone something completely asymmetrical to what we're talking about.

 How do you explain, as in the original article, the absence of any Bradley Effect (in fact, a slight reverse one if anything) in Harold Ford’s election in Tennessee, a state full of working class whites no less. 

Surely you can see that people would lie about an affirmative action initiative in order to not seem racist but tell the truth about not voting for a black candidate.  Not to mention exit-polling is done IN PERSON - completely different, completely different.

In addition, the author of the article ran 10k simulations of selecting 5 random states from the primaries and in every single one of them, Barack Obama was underpolled not overpolled.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: agcatter on September 19, 2008, 08:41:39 PM
On the other hand, there is Reverand Wright.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 08:46:42 PM
On the other hand, there is Reverand Wright.


There’s no question that a lot of people won’t vote for Obama because he’s black.  The question is whether they lie to the pollsters to hide their racism or if they feel mentally comfortable openly admitting their vote.  Even if undecideds break for the white candidate, that’s not the Bradley Effect.

As I said, in 2006, Harold Ford was underpolled slightly instead of overpolled.  And that race was highly polarized around racial issues, with possibly the most overtly racist ad of the modern era running (“Harold, call me!”).


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 09:05:12 PM
JJ, ONE affirmative action initiative where exit polls didn’t correlate with the actual result isn’t enough to proved the effect’s continued existence.   ONE election cannot prove or disprove the effect, let alone something completely asymmetrical to what we're talking about.

 How do you explain, as in the original article, the absence of any Bradley Effect (in fact, a slight reverse one if anything) in Harold Ford’s election in Tennessee, a state full of working class whites no less. 

Surely you can see that people would lie about an affirmative action initiative in order to not seem racist but tell the truth about not voting for a black candidate.  Not to mention exit-polling is done IN PERSON - completely different, completely different.

In addition, the author of the article ran 10k simulations of selecting 5 random states from the primaries and in every single one of them, Barack Obama was underpolled not overpolled.


Ford's race was one of the few and, the primaries do not equeal the general.  I frankly have never heard of a Bradley effect in a primary.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 09:11:48 PM
Have you looked?

Do you see the infinite number or problems of using:
a single race, an affirmative action initiative, and person-to-person exit polling

to prove a point about

a larger phenomenon, a well-known multifacted politician with MANY non-racist reasons to dislike him (AA is sort of narrow of a topic), phone-interviews

when

All recent evidence, including parallel phone polling in 33 primaries relevant to this particular black candidate and multiple state-wide senate and governor races says the opposite?  You're grasping onto what, at best, is a tangent example, to disregard perhaps 50 ACTUAL examples. 

Asking people, in person, how they feel about a racial issue like affirmative action might get them to lie when asking them on the phone who they're going to vote for might not.  You do understand the difference, right?


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 09:16:22 PM
Do you have any examples when a Bradley effect occurred in a Democratic Primary?  Recently?


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 09:17:39 PM
Do you have any examples when a Bradley effect occurred in a Democratic Primary?  Recently?

Do you have any examples where it didn't?  I'd have to go back before 1996 if this paper is correct and I don't know if I can find primary info from back then easily. 

But fine, let's ignore the Democratic primaries, you're still wrong to cite Michigan 2006 as ANYTHING relevant to the topic at hand.  See above.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Eraserhead on September 19, 2008, 09:22:01 PM
People are much more open about their racism these days. Just look at the Democratic primary exit polls from OH, WV, MS, etc.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 09:23:32 PM
Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio, and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts.

Oops, they all didn't have a noticeable Bradley Effect either if you look at them holistically.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 09:31:41 PM
Do you have any examples when a Bradley effect occurred in a Democratic Primary?  Recently?

Do you have any examples where it didn't?


1988, in the presidential primaries, so far as I can remember.

We might have had it in VA in 1989 with Wilder.  Other than Bradley, there was no mention of it before that (I don't know if there was a primary or if it was contested).

Quote
But fine, let's ignore the Democratic primaries, you're still wrong.  See above.

Just cited.

Now, the questions are, how strong, and is it more prevalent in certain demographics.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 09:35:34 PM
Can you stop nitpicking the primary subpoint and actually answer my post please. 

I'll repeat it for you:


Do you see the infinite number or problems of using:
a single race, an affirmative action initiative, and person-to-person exit polling

to prove a point about

a larger phenomenon, a well-known multifacted politician with MANY non-racist reasons to dislike him (AA is sort of narrow of a topic), phone-interviews

when

All recent evidence, including parallel phone polling in 33 primaries relevant to this particular black candidate and multiple state-wide senate and governor races says the opposite?  You're grasping onto what, at best, is a tangent example, to disregard perhaps 50 ACTUAL examples.

Asking people, in person, how they feel about a racial issue like affirmative action might get them to lie when asking them on the phone who they're going to vote for might not.  You do understand the difference, right?


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Nym90 on September 19, 2008, 09:51:26 PM
Can you stop nitpicking the primary subpoint and actually answer my post please. 

I'll repeat it for you:


Do you see the infinite number or problems of using:
a single race, an affirmative action initiative, and person-to-person exit polling

to prove a point about

a larger phenomenon, a well-known multifacted politician with MANY non-racist reasons to dislike him (AA is sort of narrow of a topic), phone-interviews

when

All recent evidence, including parallel phone polling in 33 primaries relevant to this particular black candidate and multiple state-wide senate and governor races says the opposite?  You're grasping onto what, at best, is a tangent example, to disregard perhaps 50 ACTUAL examples.

Asking people, in person, how they feel about a racial issue like affirmative action might get them to lie when asking them on the phone who they're going to vote for might not.  You do understand the difference, right?


I think you're learning why good debaters (or lawyers for that matter in criminal trials and such) don't raise 10 good points, they only raise one or two and keep repeating them. The more points you raise, the easier it is for your opponent to latch onto one of them that might be slightly questionable and beat you over the head with it to cause you to lose credibility on your other 9 points without having to actually answer any of those 9 directly.

One race where there might have arguably been a Bradley effect is the Maryland 2006 Senate race. But yes, it was definitely not present and was possibly even in reverse in many other races (2006 PA Governor, OH Governor, TN Senate).

In the case of Tennessee I think the idea of a reverse Bradley effect makes some sense. Perhaps white voters there didn't want to admit publicly they were backing the black candidate but did so in the privacy of the voting booth; this could well happen in highly racially polarized areas.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 10:11:47 PM
Can you stop nitpicking the primary subpoint and actually answer my post please. 

I will if you stop citing primaries.  :)

PA was the only one I looked at and I could find a grand total of three polls, from September.  Two were bad.  It didn't show up on the good one, the 'bots, but it did show up slightly on Zogby, not a great poll.

It's not big, but it could be up to a 1.5 point difference.  It's hard to tell in a landslide.

I'll check MA.




Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 10:22:19 PM
It might have occurred in Patrick's case in 2006, bit more of people saying they were undecided and voting for Healey.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Deval_Patrick/Polls

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8d744a71-5bc6-43b9-bd0b-729d88f0f5ff&c=24

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/10/new_poll_has_pa.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/10/25/poll_indicates_big_boost_in_patricks_lead/

Again not a great number of polls and not great ones.

This looks to be 2-9 points.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Nym90 on September 19, 2008, 10:27:09 PM
It might have occurred in Patrick's case in 2006, bit more of people saying they were undecided and voting for Healey.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Deval_Patrick/Polls

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8d744a71-5bc6-43b9-bd0b-729d88f0f5ff&c=24

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/10/new_poll_has_pa.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/10/25/poll_indicates_big_boost_in_patricks_lead/

Again not a great number of polls and not great ones.

This looks to be 2-9 points.

As the article Lunar quoted stated however, in races that are not close the polls tend to overstate the margin for the candidate leading.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on September 19, 2008, 10:38:24 PM
Black people running for public office isn't the novelty it once was.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 10:46:15 PM
It might have occurred in Patrick's case in 2006, bit more of people saying they were undecided and voting for Healey.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Deval_Patrick/Polls

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8d744a71-5bc6-43b9-bd0b-729d88f0f5ff&c=24

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/10/new_poll_has_pa.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/10/25/poll_indicates_big_boost_in_patricks_lead/

Again not a great number of polls and not great ones.

This looks to be 2-9 points.

As the article Lunar quoted stated however, in races that are not close the polls tend to overstate the margin for the candidate leading.

Well, other than Ford, how many "not close" races were there?  :)

In PA, that nasty Zogby poll understated it.  In the Patrick case, Healey's numbers were fairly consistent.  The only one where it didn't occur was Ford.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 19, 2008, 10:53:44 PM
Black people running for public office isn't the novelty it once was.

When it gets to statewide a statewide candidate, excluding primaries, and excluding landslides, yes it is.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Sam Spade on September 19, 2008, 10:57:53 PM
I'm going to post something lengthy on this tomorrow.  :)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 11:13:30 PM
I'm going to post something lengthy on this tomorrow.  :)

Looking forward to it.

Obviously the biggest critique of the article IS not a single incidence of person-to-person exit polling on affirmative action.

 Rather, the author's method of collecting polling data is suspect (using the last three polls found on lexisnexus).  Furthermore, a second point would be that a lot of those people who lied during Wilder's race are still alive and voting today.  While the author makes an EXTREMELY good point about the de-racialization of politics (drugs/crime/social welfare/poverty/gangs have been replaced by terrorism/economy/social security), these people might not have gone away.  But, from what limited inferences we can make, a lot of the recent state-wide black politician races have no resulted in obvious overpolling.

If JJ is right, and it's only 1% that remains Bradley, we'll never know, because there are dozens of distinct things that can cause a poll to differ with the actual voting results.

I, personally, find the article a compelling suggestion that the days of the Bradley effect being over are over already.  I think one of the larger reasons why we might not see a Bradley effect in this election is the election's saturation into everyday life exceeds far and above a senate or governor race (especially the national media).  Someone can just turn on O'Reilly or CNN for 30 minutes and get bombarded with reasons to not like Obama besides his race.  The act of lying to a pollster over the phone is something of a psychological issue, the liar does not feel comfortable admitting that he's uncomfortable with the black person but has no other reason to vote for the white person, so he lies.  How could someone who's never voted for a Republican, for example, vote for one in an election where the ideologies do not differ from previous ones?

In 2008, racist voters have many allowances to help them tell the truth to mask their racism.  In the case of the primary, some ex-Hillary supporters can simply become PUMAs, railing against Obama's sexism or elitism to justify voting for the white guy.  Otherwise, there are so many other issues where less-than-informed voters might know where Obama stands while they might not know for their local gubernatorial candidate.  They can say to themselves that Obama has no economic plan, wants sex-ed for Kindergarteners, doesn't support drilling, etc.

In summary, racist voters can more easily find non-racist reasons to oppose the black guy int his election, because it's been such a long media-frenzy (+PUMA providing easy way out).  This means that they have legitimate personal reasons to dislike Obama, even if they reached and argued these reasons to themselves because Obama's black.

But it IS really cool that this site got a call out on page 9.

I suspect if racism has an impact, it's in them undecideds.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Sam Spade on September 19, 2008, 11:33:47 PM
If JJ is right, and it's only 1% that remains Bradley, we'll never know, because there are dozens of distinct things that can cause a poll to differ with the actual voting results.

The big issue is that even if it's 1%, it is likely to be overconcentrated in certain states, as opposed to others.  My gut says that those areas are likely to be *white flight* areas with decent Democratic white sub-groups, particularly lower-income.  Additionally, as you mentioned, the lack of any study as to whether these issues seep into early exit poll data is another question without answers - we can only give *primary* examples.  Besides, early exit poll data still sucks, for plenty of other reasons.

Quote
I suspect if racism has an impact, it's in them undecideds.

Of course.  Actually, that's where it's probably always had impact, considering that in the 1980s, early 1990s, state polling was not common, people were less polarized, and pollsters typically didn't push leaners as much.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 11:37:29 PM
Are there modern white flight-states that are the equivalent of a white-flight suburb?  Northern Virginia to get out of Baltimore/DC?  If you don't want your kids to go to a poor school with minorities, you don't usually fly to Ohio, do you?  Honest curious question.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Sam Spade on September 19, 2008, 11:44:23 PM
Are there modern white flight-states that are the equivalent of a white-flight suburb?  Northern Virginia to get out of Baltimore/DC?  If you don't want your kids to go to a poor school with minorities, you don't usually fly to Ohio, do you?  Honest curious question.

I don't get the point you're making.  I only think of white flight suburbs/areas, not states, mainly because the latter doesn't occur.  True, there aren't any blacks in New Hampshire, but most of the SE suburbs were built out of white flight from Boston (not to mention running from high taxes).  Most of the white flight in Baltimore did not get to Northern VA, as anyone who lived in Baltimore should know.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 11:49:33 PM
But what I meant was that this is mostly inter-state migration, right?  How are they more concentrated in one swing state over another?  Just the states within that "magic Obama death range" of African-American population ~9%-16% during the primaries? Obama won the whitest (except NH, SD) and the blackest states easily, as we know.

But a lot of the areas where we have recently tested the Bradley Effect to find no convincing result have been in these types of states: Swan in PA, Patrick in MA, Ford in TN, and Blackwell in Ohio.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Sam Spade on September 19, 2008, 11:54:31 PM
But what I meant was that this is mostly inter-state migration, right?  How are they more concentrated in one swing state over another?  Just the states within that "magic Obama death range" of African-American population ~9%-16% during the primaries? Obama won the whitest (except NH, SD) and the blackest states easily, as we know.

But a lot of the areas where we have recently tested the Bradley Effect to find no convincing result have been in these types of states: Swan in PA, Patrick in MA, Ford in TN, and Blackwell in Ohio.

Except there was with Patrick and Blackwell (about 4%-5%).  Not to mention Steele (5% too).  (I agree on Swann and Ford, btw).  If his data says otherwise, it's bad data and improper analysis.

This is especially important with Patrick, because a wave year like 2006 usually results in the *waved-in* party underpolling a bit to begin with.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 19, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
I'm always hesitant to include Steele for analyzing Obama, because I suspect that the Bradley effect might be more pronounced among Republicans.  Not because they are more racist, but they are more unused to minority leadership.

But yeah, that's the recent data.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Sam Spade on September 20, 2008, 12:07:31 AM
I'm always hesitant to include Steele for analyzing Obama, because I suspect that the Bradley effect might be more pronounced among Republicans.  Not because they are more racist, but they are more unused to minority leadership.

But yeah, that's the recent data.

What's the recent data?  Other than what I posted.

Also, you can't just take certain politicians out of the analysis - and your presupposition that the Bradley effect is more pronounced among Republicans has no real factual basis.

Moreover, with regards to Steele, and having lived in Baltimore for a while, my first question to you would be, "Where are these Republicans in Maryland you speak of?"


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 12:10:02 AM


 Rather, the author's method of collecting polling data is suspect (using the last three polls found on lexisnexus).  Furthermore, a second point would be that a lot of those people who lied during Wilder's race are still alive and voting today.  While the author makes an EXTREMELY good point about the de-racialization of politics (drugs/crime/social welfare/poverty/gangs have been replaced by terrorism/economy/social security), these people might not have gone away.  But, from what limited inferences we can make, a lot of the recent state-wide black politician races have no resulted in obvious overpolling.

First, there is not a lot of data, because there have not been a large number of African Americans have not run for statewide office in a general election.

Second, looking at primary data is irrelevant, because the Bradley Effect is not noted in primaries; we can go back to 1988 to see that.  It's like walking into a book store and expecting to buy milk.

Third, we don't have a lot of data, but MA in 2006 sure looks like it, much more strongly than I'd expect.  It is more like people telling a pollster **I'm undecided** but really meaning **I'm not voting for the black guy.**

Quote
If JJ is right, and it's only 1% that remains Bradley, we'll never know, because there are dozens of distinct things that can cause a poll to differ with the actual voting results.

We might be able to see it if Obama under performs across a variety of states, including those where he wins big.  It might show up MA or CA; I'd check both of those first.  It might also show up in some areas.  Delco and especially Montco in PA are two that I'll be looking at, if we get some good polls; even a regional poll within a state may help.

Quote
I, personally, find the article a compelling suggestion that the days of the Bradley effect being over are over already.  I think one of the larger reasons why we might not see a Bradley effect in this election is the election's saturation into everyday life exceeds far and above a senate or governor race (especially the national media).  Someone can just turn on O'Reilly or CNN for 30 minutes and get bombarded with reasons to not like Obama besides his race.  The act of lying to a pollster over the phone is something of a psychological issue, the liar does not feel comfortable admitting that he's uncomfortable with the black person but has no other reason to vote for the white person, so he lies.  How could someone who's never voted for a Republican, for example, vote for one in an election where the ideologies do not differ from previous ones?

Somebody suggested (who didn't that I voted for John Street twice, and contributed to him) that the only reason I wouldn't vote for Obama was that he was black.  It's because of comments like that that some people are reluctant to reveal their actual views (I'm not one of them).

Quote
In 2008, racist voters have many allowances to help them tell the truth to mask their racism.  In the case of the primary, some ex-Hillary supporters can simply become PUMAs, railing against Obama's sexism or elitism to justify voting for the white guy.  Otherwise, there are so many other issues where less-than-informed voters might know where Obama stands while they might not know for their local gubernatorial candidate.  They can say to themselves that Obama has no economic plan, wants sex-ed for Kindergarteners, doesn't support drilling, etc.


You assume that the average voter is that familiar with the issues; that assumption is quite bad.

Quote

I suspect if racism has an impact, it's in them undecideds.

That looks like where it showed up in MA in 2006.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 12:12:12 AM
Sam: "that's the recent data" = your post.

I understand why I'd be wrong to remove Steele from the analysis, I just said my hesitancy.  You're right about Maryland, I think what I said was wrong upon consideration ;).  I'm not sure if I can quite put my finger on it, but it's possible that there could be some difference between the two parties, it's certainly an unusually large variable not held constant.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 12:35:49 AM
To add to the list of possibles, the last SurveyUSA poll of Blackwell might have shown it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_gubernatorial_election,_2006

Strickland's margin was out of the MOE, by just over 1%.  Yes, absolutely, there was polling earlier on that more accurate, but the the last three underestimated Strickland a bit more.

It's enough for me to give a tie to McCain.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 12:51:22 AM
Survey USA isn't exactly the gold standard in polling (see: McCain +20 in NC, Obama+11 in IA, etc), the margin of error was 5% as well, so no big deal.

The other recent polls were UCinn (1% under Taft's total), CNN (1% under Taft's total), Survey USA again which was 2% OVER Taft's total.  Considering that polls aren't razor-darts, I don't think there's sufficient data here to conclude any sort of Bradley Effect one way or the other. 

If you average the two most recent Survey USA polls, which were only a week off in that race, you get pretty darn close to the actual result, a point and a half under.  I think Survey USA has more than that in systemic error, personally, but whatevs.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 01:41:07 AM
Survey USA isn't exactly the gold standard in polling (see: McCain +20 in NC, Obama+11 in IA, etc), the margin of error was 5% as well, so no big deal.
Quote

It was out of the MOE, and a 17 point gap.  Strickland won with a 21% margin.

Quote

If you average the two most recent Survey USA polls, which were only a week off in that race, you get pretty darn close to the actual result, a point and a half under.  I think Survey USA has more than that in systemic error, personally, but whatevs.

The two most recent polls underestimated Strictland and the were taken immediately before the vote,


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 01:53:57 AM
Not going to quibble on the details, all of the info is out there.  It is odd that out of the two polls on Nov. 6th you chose only the SUSA.  It's a bit unethical to ignore the other poll that taken the same day that showed a 22% margin, and a little shaky to ignore the SUSA taken the weak before that showed a 30% margin.  Actual result 24%.

But ignore that, here's my thought I actually want you to address:

One more caveat - one should be inclined to subtract X, where X is the average (with its own MoE) that SUSA gets on election day polls in non-competitive races in areas with similar demographics, to the closest extent that these numbers exist.  Like, I just took a glance at California '06, because I know that Feinstein had a uncompetitive election with similar numbers, and look and behold, SUSA overestimated the Republican by exactly 5% as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006#Opinion_polls

Why is it more significant and racially charged when it happens in Ohio?  Same year, same firm, same date, same pollster inaccuracy, similar non-competitive margins.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 20, 2008, 01:56:54 AM
Not going to quibble on the details, all of the info is out there.  It is odd that out of the two polls on Nov. 6th you chose only the SUSA.  It's a bit unethical ti ignore the other poll that taken the same day that showed a 22% margin, and a little shaky to ignore the SUSA taken the weak before that showed a 30% margin.  Actual result 24%.

LOL. Remember J. J.'s reading of the polls in Wisconsin to argue that it was tightening? He does this crap all the time. I've got to give you credit spending your time arguing with this 2nd grader.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 10:29:16 AM
Not going to quibble on the details, all of the info is out there.  It is odd that out of the two polls on Nov. 6th you chose only the SUSA.  It's a bit unethical to ignore the other poll that taken the same day that showed a 22% margin, and a little shaky to ignore the SUSA taken the weak before that showed a 30% margin.  Actual result 24%.

 

The second poll was a university poll, and judging of how BRTD feels about them, and I agree to great extent, it isn't very good. 

Now, in 2006, we had five races where a black candidate ran statewide.  In four of them seems a very small under polling for the white candidate (arguably larger in MA) in the later polling.  It's not generally as large as it was in in 1980's, but it's hard to say it's gone.

Two problems:

1.  We don't have a large number of black candidates to look at.

2.  We don't have a number of solid polls to look at. 

That isn't enough to prove the Bradley Effect exists, but it isn't enough to say that it's gone away either.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Nym90 on September 20, 2008, 10:49:35 AM
Not going to quibble on the details, all of the info is out there.  It is odd that out of the two polls on Nov. 6th you chose only the SUSA.  It's a bit unethical to ignore the other poll that taken the same day that showed a 22% margin, and a little shaky to ignore the SUSA taken the weak before that showed a 30% margin.  Actual result 24%.

 

The second poll was a university poll, and judging of how BRTD feels about them, and I agree to great extent, it isn't very good. 

Now, in 2006, we had five races where a black candidate ran statewide.  In four of them seems a very small under polling for the white candidate (arguably larger in MA) in the later polling.  It's not generally as large as it was in in 1980's, but it's hard to say it's gone.

Two problems:

1.  We don't have a large number of black candidates to look at.

2.  We don't have a number of solid polls to look at. 

That isn't enough to prove the Bradley Effect exists, but it isn't enough to say that it's gone away either.



There aren't enough historical examples to say for sure that it ever existed in the first place. There could be plenty of other reasons why the polls were off in the Bradley and Wilder races.

If I was a cynic, I'd say maybe whoever started the "Bradley effect" meme wanted to discourage parties from nominating black candidates.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: mypalfish on September 20, 2008, 11:16:32 AM
Regarding Wisconsin...the only Democrat to lose statewide in years is Louis Butler, who is black.  He lost twice running for the State Supreme Court.  In his first race, he was polling behind and lost by more than the polling showed.  Then Gov Jim Doyle appointed him to the court and he lost his re-election bid (first time that happened in many, many years...you get in and you are usually in for life) and was leading in all the pre-election polls.  State Supreme Court is supposed to be a non-partisan race, but it was cast as Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, both times.  Not sure if it's an example of the Bradley effect, but it was pretty interesting.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 11:53:25 AM
Not going to quibble on the details, all of the info is out there.  It is odd that out of the two polls on Nov. 6th you chose only the SUSA.  It's a bit unethical to ignore the other poll that taken the same day that showed a 22% margin, and a little shaky to ignore the SUSA taken the weak before that showed a 30% margin.  Actual result 24%.

 

The second poll was a university poll, and judging of how BRTD feels ab
out them, and I agree to great extent, it isn't very good. 

Now, in 2006, we had five races where a black candidate ran statewide.  In four of them seems a very small under polling for the white candidate (arguably larger in MA) in the later polling.  It's not generally as large as it was in in 1980's, but it's hard to say it's gone.

Two problems:

1.  We don't have a large number of black candidates to look at.

2.  We don't have a number of solid polls to look at. 

That isn't enough to prove the Bradley Effect exists, but it isn't enough to say that it's gone away either.

As I was typing my "quibble" about your shaky decision to single out one poll and drop extremely relevant comparable data right next to it, I knew that JJ was going to ignore the rest of my point to defend that, and sure enough.  C'mon man...

Let me repeat it for you:


But ignore that, here's my thought I actually want you to address:

One more caveat - one should be inclined to subtract X, where X is the average (with its own MoE) that SUSA gets on election day polls in non-competitive races in areas with similar demographics, to the closest extent that these numbers exist.  Like, I just took a glance at California '06, because I know that Feinstein had a uncompetitive election with similar numbers, and look and behold, SUSA overestimated the Republican by exactly 5% as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006#Opinion_polls

Why is it more significant and racially charged when it happens in Ohio?  Same year, same firm, same date, same pollster inaccuracy, similar non-competitive margins.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 01:00:48 PM


There aren't enough historical examples to say for sure that it ever existed in the first place. There could be plenty of other reasons why the polls were off in the Bradley and Wilder races.

If I was a cynic, I'd say maybe whoever started the "Bradley effect" meme wanted to discourage parties from nominating black candidates.

We've seen it, exceptionally pronounced, in two statewide races, CA (1982)and VA, that are not culturally similar.  Arguably we saw it almost as pronounced in Patrick in 2006.  The one place that we didn't see it was with Ford. 

The electability of candidates in the Fall didn't stop a number of candidates, so I don't find you "discouraging effect" to be reasonable, especially since we've never seen it in Primaries, even contemporary ones.

No, it was there, but I think it is diminishing over time.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Nym90 on September 20, 2008, 01:09:27 PM


There aren't enough historical examples to say for sure that it ever existed in the first place. There could be plenty of other reasons why the polls were off in the Bradley and Wilder races.

If I was a cynic, I'd say maybe whoever started the "Bradley effect" meme wanted to discourage parties from nominating black candidates.

We've seen it, exceptionally pronounced, in two statewide races, CA (1982)and VA, that are not culturally similar.  Arguably we saw it almost as pronounced in Patrick in 2006.  The one place that we didn't see it was with Ford. 

The electability of candidates in the Fall didn't stop a number of candidates, so I don't find you "discouraging effect" to be reasonable, especially since we've never seen it in Primaries, even contemporary ones.

No, it was there, but I think it is diminishing over time.

I think it could well be there also, it makes some degree of sense logically, but I was just pointing out that the sample size is too small to prove that there ever was such an effect. If Bradley and Wilder were both left handed, that wouldn't prove a polling bias against southpaws either.

So when you say:

Two problems:

1.  We don't have a large number of black candidates to look at.

2.  We don't have a number of solid polls to look at.

That isn't enough to prove the Bradley Effect exists, but it isn't enough to say that it's gone away either.

You are making the assumption that it did exist, even though by your own admission the sample size is too small to prove this assumption. You can't argue that a small sample size means we can't prove it's gone away unless you admit that a small sample size also means we can't prove it ever existed to begin with.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 20, 2008, 02:09:07 PM


There aren't enough historical examples to say for sure that it ever existed in the first place. There could be plenty of other reasons why the polls were off in the Bradley and Wilder races.

If I was a cynic, I'd say maybe whoever started the "Bradley effect" meme wanted to discourage parties from nominating black candidates.

We've seen it, exceptionally pronounced, in two statewide races, CA (1982)and VA, that are not culturally similar.  Arguably we saw it almost as pronounced in Patrick in 2006.  The one place that we didn't see it was with Ford. 

The electability of candidates in the Fall didn't stop a number of candidates, so I don't find you "discouraging effect" to be reasonable, especially since we've never seen it in Primaries, even contemporary ones.

No, it was there, but I think it is diminishing over time.

I think it could well be there also, it makes some degree of sense logically, but I was just pointing out that the sample size is too small to prove that there ever was such an effect. If Bradley and Wilder were both left handed, that wouldn't prove a polling bias against southpaws either.

So when you say:

Two problems:

1.  We don't have a large number of black candidates to look at.

2.  We don't have a number of solid polls to look at.

That isn't enough to prove the Bradley Effect exists, but it isn't enough to say that it's gone away either.

You are making the assumption that it did exist, even though by your own admission the sample size is too small to prove this assumption. You can't argue that a small sample size means we can't prove it's gone away unless you admit that a small sample size also means we can't prove it ever existed to begin with.

I think you can say historically, that it does exist, because of the size of those early losses.  Two groups of polls, that far off and both candidates African American?  Sorry, but that stretches credibility not to consider that it does.

Now, 2006, we had five races where a statewide candidate was black.  I have not looked at MD, but one poster has, and has included it.  Patrick, I'll have to go with it being present, more strongly than I thought.  OH and PA, very weak, but probably present; again I'm expecting less than 1%. 

Great data on it, no.  Effect reducing, probably.  There previously, highly probable.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Sam Spade on September 20, 2008, 02:26:47 PM
PART I - The 2006 Elections

The article is interesting.  However, my own personal opinion, at least based on the numbers that I've researched, is that the only states that had "Bradley/Wilder effects" were states with significant *white flight* populations, where the white flight populations had a large number of:

1) liberal Democrats/Republicans (of the more moderate socially Republicans, in other words "swingable" Republicans) and/or
2)working-class Democrats (i.e. the "Reagan" Democrats). 

I suspect that, if we look at the numbers more closely, since the passage of "welfare reform", we've eliminated most of the "Bradley/Wilder effect" of the first category, but probably much less of the second.

In 2006, we had 5 black candidates that ran, as I recall.  Now, the Democratic wave will occasionally cause strange movements, but here's what I see if I use the last 5 legitimate independent polls of each race.  I am also ignoring the Columbus Dispatch poll because it was equally 12 points too Democratic in both the Ohio Senate and Governor race.  Even with that result included, the Ohio results were still about 2 points too Republican compared to final numbers:

MD Sen (R candidate):  Polling D+4.40; Actual D+10.01 (-5.61)
TN Sen (D candidate):  Polling R+5.00; Actual R+2.70 (+2.30)
MA Gov (D candidate - only 4 legitimate polls):  Polling D+24.25; Actual D+20.34 (-3.91)
OH Gov (R candidate):  Polling D+19.20; Actual D+23.89 (-4.69)
PA Gov (R candidate):  Polling D+21.40; Actual D+20.71 (+0.71)

Historically, in wave elections, or even mini-wave elections, the "waved-in" party underpolls by about a couple of percent generically (that has to do with undecideds breaking a certain way), which should translate on this scale to mean there was no real "effect" in TN Sen; the effect was less in MD Sen and OH Gov is less than indicated above; and the effect was greater in MA Gov than indicated above.

It would also mean that Swann underpolled more in PA Gov than the numbers indicate (probably about 3%).  What does this mean?  Could mean that there's no "effect" in PA (contrary to what Rendell said).  Or it could mean that there's a difference in the way black candidates perform vis-a-vis the polling in *open* elections, as opposed to elections against incumbents.  After all, neither Bradley in 1982, Wilder or Dinkins in 1989 ran against incumbents, they all ran in open races.

Next:  PART II - The 2008 Primary (see next post - might not be until Sunday...)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 03:35:32 PM
What's weird is that in 2006, of the five races I've seen so far as I type this, Survey USA's election day polls are always off pro-Democrat by EXACTLY 5%four times and 6% once.  Update: this was not the case for AZ Gov.  But that is weird and I’m suspicious of using them to prove a Bradley Effect in that direction, since most of the time they got the exact same bias with white candidates.
 
What I find is that polling often is off.  Is being black the most the most relevant variable to explain why the average of five polls is off between those four races?  Surely the candidates positions, campaign, personality, and other factors would be more rational explanations of cause.

I think, in order to determine whether or not these could be outliers, we should first subtract the absolute value of the average that polls are generally off for such elections.  I also think you are too quick to emphasize occasions where Democrats should have done better due to electoral wins when many Democrats were overpolled that year.  Maybe you should apply the same emphasis to the PA and TN results?

Anyway, here’s a random (stuff I felt like clicking on, with no discrimination) glance other other races with no real significance except to see that the African-American 2006 results, which might have an extremely loose correlation, might not have one compared to generic error, possibly less so than if you were to say that states with the letter “E” are likely to underpoll one party or the other ;)

Florida, Senate 2006

Average of 5 results: +26.8%D, Actual result +22%D (-4.8%D)

Pennsylvania, Senate 2006

Average: +12.4%D, Actual result: +17%D (+4.6% D)

Alaska, Governor 2006 (only 3 recent results)

Average: -6.6%D, Actual: -8.6%D (+2%D)

Missouri, Senate 2006 (averaged two SUSA's into one, tossed out Polimex so I could include Mason Dixon)

Average: +2.9%D, Actual: +2.3D% (-0.6%D)

Arizona, Governor 2006 (only 3 recent polls)

Average: +19.7%D, Actual: +27%D (+7.3%D)

Virginia, Senate 2006

Average: +4.6%D, Actual: +0.6%D (-4%D)

Minnesota, Senate 2006 (average of 5 polls is 17.8%, instead using only Rassmussen and Survey USA since the other ones are crap)
 
Average: +15.5%D Average: Actual: 10%D (-5.5%D)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 11:24:14 PM
random musing: I wonder if there are more ex-Hillary supporters that lie about their vote (or being undecided) right now but will end up voting for Obama than Bradleyeffecters.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Nym90 on September 20, 2008, 11:38:20 PM
random musing: I wonder if there are more ex-Hillary supporters that lie about their vote (or being undecided) right now but will end up voting for Obama than Bradleyeffecters.

But wait, I thought the Hillary voters were supposed to be the Bradley effecters? ;)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 11:42:18 PM
Not all of them are racist ;)

Like I said, the Hillary supporters and long primary are one possible mitigating effect as well.  Racist voters no longer have to lie and can openly vote Republican for the first time in ages because of how sexist and elitist and inexperienced Obama is.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 20, 2008, 11:44:06 PM
The Muslim thing also gives racist voters a cover, since refusing to vote for a Muslim is more socially acceptable than refusing to vote for a black. Though of course anyone saying Obama is a Muslim just looks like an idiot.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 20, 2008, 11:45:34 PM
Well, you don't state why you're voting for who you're voting for (at least not right away, after they've already asked the categorical president question), it's more about what you're telling yourself.  I'm not sure if racist Democrats had an easy opt-out for themselves for Wilder/Bradley to make them different from all of the white Democrats they had vote for prior.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 21, 2008, 04:47:24 PM
The Muslim thing also gives racist voters a cover, since refusing to vote for a Muslim is more socially acceptable than refusing to vote for a black. Though of course anyone saying Obama is a Muslim just looks like an idiot.

I actually think the Muslim claim is worse, politically.  It doesn't give anyone "cover," but probably has a few people that would vote for a black guy saying, "He's Muslim, I won't vote for him."


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 21, 2008, 04:48:59 PM
Except no one with a functioning brain actually believes Obama is Muslim.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 21, 2008, 05:01:21 PM
Except no one with a functioning brain actually believes Obama is Muslim.

I'll bet that gap between the two candidates is less than 12%. 

Did you ever hear of Kenny Gamble?

He's black, pioneered The Sound of Philadelphia asd record producer, a successful entrepreneur, responsible for the redevelopment of parts of South Philadelphia.  He'd make a great elected official; I'd vote for him.  He happens to be with a very tolerant and traditional branch of Islam.

I mention him to my black Christian landlord and the response I usually get, "Yeah, but he's Muslim."


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: The Vorlon on September 21, 2008, 05:58:38 PM
http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf

Marc Ambinder's summary:
Hopkins looked at all senatorial and gubernatorial races that featured a woman or an African-American candidate from 1989 to 2006 -- a total of 133 races. For each, he found at least one poll released within a month of Election Day, enabling him to measure the gap between a candidate's polling and performance.

Hopkins finds some evidence that African-American candidates suffered from something resembling a Wilder effect before 1996, but since then, the effect seems to have disappeared.

This becomes the key finding of Hopkins's study: The Wilder effect is not a durable phenomenon. Rather, it is dependent on particular political conditions.

His theory is that when racially charged issues like welfare and crime dominated the political rhetoric, racial factors affected voting behavior and the Wilder effect asserted itself. But once welfare disappeared as a salient issue in 1996, political discourse was deracialized and race was less of a factor in voters' mind.

Hopkins finds that the salience of racial factors depends on the tone of the national environment, not on the tone of local candidates. He explains that black candidates before 1996 were victim of the Wilder effect whether or not they ran a deracialized campaign; after 1996, white candidates were not able to benefit from that effect even when they attempted to exploit racially charged issues. This also applies to the Democratic primaries of 2008, where Hopkins finds that there was no Wilder effect affecting Obama's performance.

To preempt possible concerns about his study's validity, Hopkins takes a look at alternative explanations for the polling-performance gap. First, he considered whether the Wilder effect only affects African-American candidates or whether it hurts other under-represented groups. Analyzing races that featured a female candidate, he finds that women do not suffer from any Wilder effect - quite the contrary, female candidates on average perform better than their polling indicated.

Second, Hopkins considers the possibility that the polling-performance gap can be attributed to what he calls the "front-runner's fall." Hopkins explains that front-runners' support can be overstated because of their higher name recognition and because of classical regression to the mean, making it necessary to account for such an effect before determining what impact racial bias in Wilder or Dinkins' decline. After running additional tests, Hopkins determines that some of the polling-performance gap can be attributed to a front-runners' fall, but that the Wilder effect is still at play.

In other words, the Wilder effect tends to increase in function of an African-American candidate's initial support. Hopkins argues that this leads to the hype that surrounds the Wilder effect. The candidates that are most associated to that effect - Wilder, Dinkins and Bradley - were all favored to win. That is what got their campaigns so much coverage in the first place and it made their performance gap that much more dramatic - creating a somewhat naïve buzz around the Wilder effect.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/has_the_wilder_effect_disappea.php

Lunar, I must say that consistently you start interesting threads back up by real actual interesting facts...

You are an awesome asset to this board :)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 21, 2008, 08:25:15 PM
awww shucks :)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 22, 2008, 01:33:18 AM
Vo-dawg, any comments though on the research itself?  I find it moderately persuasive and it's the first piece of academic work I've seen to cite https://uselectionatlas.org.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Gustaf on September 22, 2008, 06:11:10 AM
Vo-dawg, any comments though on the research itself?  I find it moderately persuasive and it's the first piece of academic work I've seen to cite https://uselectionatlas.org.

That alone gives it a ton of credibility. ;)


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 22, 2008, 10:35:41 AM
Vo-dawg, any comments though on the research itself?  I find it moderately persuasive and it's the first piece of academic work I've seen to cite https://uselectionatlas.org.

That alone gives it a ton of credibility. ;)

I'd say so!


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 22, 2008, 08:45:40 PM
one last bump?

Waiting for Sam's second post still.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Sam Spade on September 22, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
one last bump?

Waiting for Sam's second post still.

Haven't got around to it.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 12:29:20 AM
Having read it, finally, I think that yes, there are some problems.

1.  Mixing female and black candidates.  I know of no claim that women overpoll.  (I don't think he did it statistically.)

2.  Many of his example are from legislative races, sub state constituencies.  I only know of one claim, Dinkins.

3.  I don't buy the entire claim "over-estimation of front-runners' support."  I've seen too many landslides that were predicted, such as Casey (PA-Sen) 2006, where he underpolled slightly.

I basically would argue that it did occur in 2006 with Patrick (Gov-MA), Steele (Sen-MA)  strongly, Blackwell (Gov-OH), weakly, Swann (Gov-PA), very weakly or not at all, and Ford (Sen-TN) not at all.  If we only had Patrick and Steele in 2006, I'd say Obama has already lost.

I expect to be present, but not a large factor.  I would not be stunned if Obama cosistently underpolled by 1 point, but I would be if he underpolled by 3-5 points.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 23, 2008, 12:38:01 AM
Underpolled?  You mean overpolled?  Underpolled would indicate that the polls undestimated your support.

Anyway, would you be surprised if the reverse happened and Obama did 1% better than the polls predicted?  Because that's the sort of fluidity that happens in every election (the polls are never 100% right unless by freakish accident).


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 12:45:33 AM
Underpolled?  You mean overpolled?  Underpolled would indicate that the polls undestimated your support.

Underpolled.  Casey did better than the polling indicated.  3-13 points.

Quote
Anyway, would you be surprised if the reverse happened and Obama did 1% better than the polls predicted?  Because that's the sort of fluidity that happens in every election (the polls are never 100% right unless by freakish accident).

Not in fifty state polls and a number of national ones.  I'm sure you could find a state poll or even a national one where Obama will do better.  I expect it to be seen in most polling, but not a lot.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 23, 2008, 12:46:21 AM
Quote
I expect to be present, but not a large factor.  I would not be stunned if Obama cosistently underpolled by 1 point, but I would be if he underpolled by 3-5 points.



Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 12:49:05 AM
Quote
I expect to be present, but not a large factor.  I would not be stunned if Obama cosistently underpolled by 1 point, but I would be if he underpolled by 3-5 points.



On that overpolled.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 23, 2008, 12:58:05 AM
Ok, not being a nazi, just wanted to make sure we were using the same terminology.

Anyway, I think racism in the undecideds is just one piece of the overall gigantic fabric that masks the "true" results from the poll (including statistical noise, methodological problems, oversampling, undersampling, ground game, cell-phone only voters, lying to pollster on both sides from Bradley-effecters to bitter Hillary voters that will still pull the lever for Obama).  If racism is going to be as indecisive as you predict, we'll never know.  I mean, there are so many hundreds of reasons undecideds can break for one candidate or the other, and I think personality and policies are significantly higher determinants than race, but we just won't know if it's only 1%.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 01:19:41 AM
Ok, not being a nazi, just wanted to make sure we were using the same terminology.

Anyway, I think racism in the undecideds is just one piece of the overall gigantic fabric that masks the "true" results from the poll (including statistical noise, methodological problems, oversampling, undersampling, ground game, cell-phone only voters, lying to pollster on both sides from Bradley-effecters to bitter Hillary voters that will still pull the lever for Obama).  If racism is going to be as indecisive as you predict, we'll never know.  I mean, there are so many hundreds of reasons undecideds can break for one candidate or the other, and I think personality and policies are significantly higher determinants than race, but we just won't know if it's only 1%.

Cell phone only users is not a separate demographic.  There has never been a solidly documented reverse Bradley Effect.  PUMA's are relatively vocal.

The Bradley Effect is that people are lie to pollsters.  I expect it to be low and am figuring that way; after looking at Steele and Patrick, I might be figuring too low, but I'll still guess less than one point.  That is a tie breaker, but that's it.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 23, 2008, 01:29:38 AM
No need to lecture me on cell-phone users, it's obviously a laundry list of things that can go wrong with a poll.

That's actually only one theory behind the Bradley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Effect).  If you count all the people who are really decided for McCain and instead tell the pollster that they are undecided or voting Obama, that might equal 1% states in Pennsylvania or possibly even more.  I think it's pretty ridiculous, biased, and arbitrary to give a flat 0.5-1% automatically for McCain off of the official poll results though.

Because, even if you are right and this many people lie, combined with racist undecideds, resulting let's say 1-2% breaking for McCain, you are still assuming:
a) The poll is 100% accurate statistically
b) The poll has 0% problems methodologically, including oversampling and undersampling
c) No one else is lying about not supporting Obama when they really do
d) Both candidates have completely equal ground game

I don't think any of those things are true.  I know in Pennsylvania, ground games tend to neutralize one another, but an extra 1% this way or the other wouldn't be unheard of.  Not to mention polling accuracy in many other respects. 

To isolate out just the Bradley effect in order to give a boost to your candidate is misleading.

Why do you assume Obama is more like Steele and Patrick and less like Ford?  It seems Obama has higher amounts of information-saturation, meaning less people feel the need to lie, combined with the fact that Steele and Patrick were both Republicans, further differentiating themselves...


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
I don't look at just one poll, but a lot of them and try to get a sense of what is happening; when I look at them, I'll make a slight correction and use those numbers.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: Lunar on September 23, 2008, 04:24:58 AM
Ok, because your last two PA predictions have both been +0.5% whatever poll favors McCain the most of the past week: favoring McCain slightly when a single tied poll appeared (a Rasmussen back a week or so ago, even though others showed it not as tight) and now giving Obama 1.5% (when M-D gave Obama a 2% lead - even though the Rasmussen showed it 3%).  It seemed kind of formulaic and based off one poll + 0.5% Bradley effect.  I understand you're going off trends and so on, but if there's three-four quality polls, most likely the one showing it the tightest is a tick or two off.  The Bradley effect, as you depict it, I think it's reasonable to say, is dwarfed by the statistical errors, methodological errors, and ground game all throwing themselves into the tapestry.  Call it however you want, but I think it'd be silly/arbitrary for me to say Obama gets an extra +1% because he's invested way more money into organizing North Carolina, although that is absolutely a real possibility.  We'll have to see :)

McCain is certainly making Pennsylvania his #1 target in spending and he thinks he has a lot of room to grow there, so your predictions aren't loony, just they didn't seem holistic.  But it's not as if I know every thought in your head haha.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
Post by: J. J. on September 23, 2008, 08:28:28 AM
  The Bradley effect, as you depict it, I think it's reasonable to say, is dwarfed by the statistical errors, methodological errors, and ground game all throwing themselves into the tapestry.  Call it however you want, but I think it'd be silly/arbitrary for me to say Obama gets an extra +1% because he's invested way more money into organizing North Carolina, although that is absolutely a real possibility.  We'll have to see :)

Close, but basically I look at a number of polls.  That week we had two, one fairly good, one not fairly good, but both saying the same thing.  Had we seen polling this week that still grouped around that tie, I would have, in making my prediction, pushed this into the McCain column, because I think something causing Obama to slightly overpoll.  That didn't happen, so I moved it to Obama.  Unless I see some very strong movement to McCain nationally, over the next two days, or some polls showing a reversing of the trend in PA, I won't change that.  I don't expect to see either (but I didn't last week's ties either).

Quote
McCain is certainly making Pennsylvania his #1 target in spending and he thinks he has a lot of room to grow there, so your predictions aren't loony, just they didn't seem holistic.  But it's not as if I know every thought in your head haha.

He may not,  He may be using a hold strategy, which could be successful.


Title: Re: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty is
Post by: Lunar on May 01, 2009, 11:10:37 PM
bump for people who like a good read [OP's link is best]