Paper Finds that Bradley/Wilder Effect Has Disappeared With Crime/Poverty issues

[J. J.]

Since it seemed to pop up in 2006, I think it's still there.  However, the strength of it in diminishing.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

Do you have any examples when a Bradley effect occurred in a Democratic Primary?  Recently?

[J. J.]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just cited.

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

 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.**

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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."

[J. J.]

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."

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

Underpolled?  You mean overpolled?  Underpolled would indicate that the polls undestimated your support.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On that overpolled.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

  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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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