Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 09:28:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2008 Elections
| | |-+  2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
| | | |-+  Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues  (Read 15104 times)
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2008, 11:13:30 pm »
Ignore

I'm going to post something lengthy on this tomorrow.  Smiley

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makes an EXTREMELY good point about the de-racialization of politics (drugs/crime/social welfare/poverty/gangs have been replaced by terrorism/economy/social security), these people might not have gone away.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.
Logged

this is real
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2008, 11:33:47 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2008, 11:37:29 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

this is real
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2008, 11:44:23 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2008, 11:49:33 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

this is real
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2008, 11:54:31 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2008, 11:57:33 pm »
Ignore

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.

Logged

this is real
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2008, 12:07:31 am »
Ignore

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?"
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2008, 12:10:02 am »
Ignore



 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.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2008, 12:12:12 am »
Ignore

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 Wink.  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.

Logged

this is real
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2008, 12:35:49 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2008, 12:51:22 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

this is real
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2008, 01:41:07 am »
Ignore

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,
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2008, 01:53:57 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2008, 01:59:37 am by Lunar »Logged

this is real
incredibly specific types of post-punk music
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72813
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2008, 01:56:54 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2008, 10:29:16 am »
Ignore

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.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2008, 10:49:35 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
mypalfish
Full Member
***
Posts: 235


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2008, 11:16:32 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2008, 11:53:25 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2008, 12:34:21 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2008, 01:00:48 pm »
Ignore



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.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2008, 01:09:27 pm »
Ignore



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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2008, 02:09:07 pm »
Ignore



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.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2008, 02:26:47 pm »
Ignore

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...)
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2008, 03:35:32 pm »
Ignore

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 Im 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, heres 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 Wink

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)
Logged

this is real
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2008, 11:24:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

this is real
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines