  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Revisiting the ‘Bradley Effect’Posted on Jan 10, 2008WASHINGTON—Pollsters and pundits were quick to discount race and the so-called Bradley effect as factors in Barack Obama’s narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. Given that the same pollsters and pundits (OK, me too) were so wrong about the outcome, I think we ought to take a closer look. The phenomenon is named after the late Tom Bradley, who in 1982 seemed certain to become the first black governor of California. Pre-election polls showed Bradley, the mayor of Los Angeles, with a double-digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian. But Bradley lost. Subsequently, several high-profile races involving black candidates followed the same pattern in which apparent leads somehow evaporated on Election Day. The polls said David Dinkins would beat Rudy Giuliani by more than 10 points in the 1989 New York mayoral race; Dinkins ended up winning with 50 percent of the vote to Giuliani’s 48 percent. That same year, the polls gave Douglas Wilder an 11-point lead over Marshall Coleman in the Virginia governor’s race; Wilder squeaked into office by less than half a percentage point. In 1990, the polls said Harvey Gantt would handily defeat incumbent North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms; Gantt lost, and it wasn’t even close. Was it that voters told pollsters they intended to vote for African-American candidates and then, in the privacy of the voting booth, chose white candidates instead? Not really. In each of these instances, pre-election polls were quite accurate in predicting the black candidate’s vote. What happened was that the polls greatly underestimated the vote for the white candidates. Unusually large numbers of self-described undecided voters ended up making the same decision. Fast-forward to Tuesday night in New Hampshire, and in broad terms that’s what happened to Obama: His vote was roughly as predicted by election-eve polls, but Clinton’s was dramatically bigger than expected. There are so many caveats, however, that it’s impossible to diagnose the “Bradley effect” with any confidence. For one thing, the phenomenon has been absent in other recent high-profile races in which black and white candidates competed. In Harold Ford’s unsuccessful 2006 bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Tennessee, for example, most of the polls actually underestimated his vote—and overestimated the vote for Ford’s white opponent, Bob Corker, who won by just three percentage points. Ford was hurt by a racist television ad, to be sure, but my point is that at least the polls were close to the mark. The Pew Research Center looked at this and other recent black-white statewide contests and concluded that “fewer people are making judgments about candidates based solely, or even mostly, on race itself.” The other big caveat is the evidence that gender, not race, was likely the most important facet of identity Tuesday night. Clinton, obviously, is the first woman to have a realistic chance of being elected president. Women voted in unusually large numbers—they outnumbered men at the polling places by 57 percent to 43 percent—and they went heavily for Clinton over Obama. Clinton’s much-covered display of emotion may have been the turning point, but I’m not sure it was more decisive than her extensive grass-roots organization or her energetic get-out-the-vote operation. Still, there are a couple of anomalies. The exit poll done for the television networks indicated that nearly four out of 10 Democratic voters made their decisions in the last three days before the primary. But the exit poll also indicated that those last-minute deciders broke equally for Clinton and Obama—which pretty clearly was not the case. Well into the evening, even the Clinton campaign expected Obama to win. Opinion polling isn’t an exact science, but it’s extremely rare for so many experienced pollsters to be so wrong. When you try to think of precedents, you keep coming back to races like, well, Tom Bradley’s or Doug Wilder’s. There are many reasons why New Hampshire voters might choose Clinton over Obama, or Obama over Clinton, or John Edwards over either one of them. What happened in New Hampshire was weird, but it’s not possible to conclude that racism played any role in Clinton’s big upset. The dynamic of two potential “firsts”—first female president, first black president—means that history may be an unreliable guide. These are, indeed, uncharted waters. We’ll have plenty of chances in the coming weeks to measure pre-election polls against actual results—including in states with much more racial diversity than New Hampshire. The only prediction I’ll make is that following Tuesday’s big surprise, embarrassed pollsters and pundits will be especially vigilant for any sign that the “Bradley effect,” unseen in recent years, might have crept back. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Chauvinists Fly Under the Radar Next item: A Vagueness in Obama's Message Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Taiwan Declares Peace on China
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By singleton, January 14 at 2:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In 1982, the Bradley Effect happened on Election Day, not in a primary.
Tom Bradley was the Chief Executive of a big city, running for Chief Executive of his state.
Some pundits just erroneously cited the Bradley Effect in a Primary, but that doesn’t disprove its existance.
Neither do various legistative political contests.
In 1982, hiring California’s first Black CEO was a big step.
There have been a couple Black Governors since then (but not in California).
In 2008, a black man is running for CEO at the next level - that is where the Bradley Effect will be measurable, at the General Election.
Report thisBy Homer Hewitt, January 14 at 4:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As noted below, I doubt that there can be much Bradley effect in a primary
There is much soul searching on the part of pundits and pollsters regarding how they all got it so wrong in predicting a monumental victory for Barack Obama. Part of the explanation may well be in the fact that the polling stopped on Sunday, missing any changes happening before the Tuesday voting.
One of these changes is supposed to emanate from sympathy for Clinton’s showing of vulnerability at a rally on Monday. I doubt that this was a major factor although it may have been part of a trend for previously undecided voters, particularly women, opting for Clinton at the last moment.
Another cause may stem from the fact that pollsters often obtain smaller samples from those at the lower end of the economic and educational scale. These voters are more of a Clinton constituency than Obama’s. Also, it could be that more of the independent voters than expected decided to help McCain since the Obama victory seemed to be a lock.
Part of media hype had to come from the size and nature of Obama events in N.H. These rallies were overflowing, stirring, and often inspiring. Getting caught up in the enthusiasm is understandable but not necessarily excusable.
Some media pundits have claimed that part of the explanation lies in attitudes about race. As in Los Angeles’ Mayor Bradley’s race for governor and Douglas Wilder’s bid for governor of Virginia, the thought is that voters, to avoid being considered prejudiced, will mislead pollsters and then vote against the black candidate. Unless the questioning is more specific than I imagine, this claim hardly applies to primary elections. In a general election a voter can easily mislead the pollster by saying he ‘ll vote for his party’s black candidate and then do otherwise, thus concealing a prejudice. In a primary, the voter would just pick a candidate and then vote for that candidate. The polling would be accurate.
Many studies later, we may have an answer.
homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Report thisBy katiekat489, January 13 at 10:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
While the pundits are just hyperventilating about the miss on the polling it would behoove us all to recount these votes and see what really happened.There were the same problems in Ohio with the exit polls.As far as I am concerned Shaheen and his gang had a hand in this and I do not think that she won this fairly--she was too freaked out that she was going to lose and so was her crew of cronies they have internals to the polls.Something happened there and if we do not question all the results we are in more trouble-have no respect for this squad of staffers and “surrogates” they are as dirty as they come and have lost all respect for the Clintons in the last few months. Would be so pleased if they would just go back to being what they were before=the close friends and confidants of Murdoch,Bush, The Carlyle Group ,and all the other nefarious bedfellows they are so enamored of.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, January 13 at 9:40 pm #
For a change I could believe in, I would like Obama to take a strong stand on election reform. This is a non-partisan issue that should concern every American who believes in democracy. We must have honest elections with no possibility of funny business. We need an all-paper system counted by hand with representatives of all parties as witnesses. We also need public financing of election campaigns. Obama has said things favoring this in the past, as have both Bill and Hillary, but it has been said in a way that leaves the impression that it is somehow not a high priority. Obama could come out for these things, make a speech devoted only to this issue. He could say that he would get the people behind him to force the political establishment to implement this reform before the very next election.
Report thisBy Stephen Rose, January 13 at 8:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The infusion of last minute money from Emily’s List and the American Federation of Teachers should not be ignored. Both Obama and Clinton have lessons to learn from the NH experience. It will be interesting to see who learns best.
Report thisBy Nabih Ammari, January 12 at 10:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To comprehend the extent of the fraud which had taken
place in the 2000 and 2004 elections,it would be wise
to read the well-documented book:
“FOOLED AGAIN”
By
Mark Crispin Miller
After reading the above book,you will,most likely,be
Report thisin a much better position to decide whether or not
the Bradley Effect is really real or just a sheer
speculation.
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.
By R. Shore, January 12 at 9:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t consider his time in the state Senate as experience in national or international politics particularly the number of times and the issues on which he voted “present” rather than taking a stance on a bill. Also, According to GovTrack.US Barack Obama missed 177 of 1086 votes (16%) since Jan 6, 2005. (Very Poor relative to peers).” Not much experience or leadership there.
Report thisBy Hammo, January 12 at 8:39 am #
Sure, the “Bradley effect” possibly occurred in New Hampshire. The Diebold voting machines are also suspect. Many powerful people and groups want Hillary as the Dem nominee. Take a look at the article ...
“New Hampshire primary results questioned: Electronic voting machines threaten U.S. democracy?”
AmericanChronicle.com
January 11, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle. asp?articleID=48586
Report thisBy Liza, January 12 at 7:36 am #
Outraged,
Make no mistake, I am very much in favor of a recount in NH as well as an investigation into the Diebold issue. I was a software developer for 25 years with 15 of that in programming. I am very concerned about the issues with these voting machines.
This is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and VOTING is the one chance that we get as individuals to have a direct impact on our government. Voting is sacred and election fraud and errors are intolerable. Every election where there is significant reason to suspect fraud or error must be investigated.
My point about gender and race is that it is not measurable at this point if you are trying to determine how it will affect the final outcome. These are individual decisions that will not be fully understood until you see the whole picture and data must be there to do that. There are regional differences in demographics that would make New Hampshire’s results almost irrelevant in other areas. Furthermore, if it turns out that New Hampshire results are tainted, the data you have now is worthless. That’s all I meant.
My hope is that national and international issues dominate voter decisions for most of the electorate. Younger people seem to be the ones who look past race and gender (as negatives) and that is a good thing.
Don’t worry, I’m outraged too. It doesn’t show in my writing for some reason.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 9:47 pm #
straight_talk_11 Great clip. Thanks, I enjoyed that. I’ve had a couple of courses in programming and we learned how to make bombs(of course I mean software bombs) and it’s simple if you have access to the source code. It would also be simple to write a module that would flip a vote. To make it undetectable probably isn’t that hard either. I can easily consider the logic in my mind although I didn’t get that far into coding.
I can also say all you would need is one person to have access to the machine simply to introduce it into the system. The module itself would dicker with the source code to implement it and the same thing to delete it. This could all be done within the code itself invisible to the user. In other words, all one would need to do is start it, the rest would take care of itself.
Any budding programmer (well unless they really suck at what they do, we had a couple of those in class, wow..no logic!) could figure it out with a little bit of initiative. Now if security software were running it might be more difficult but not if you were familiar with that source code also. Also, a top-notch programmer could easily deceive a so-so programmer with truly creative logic. What that means is that even if “someone checked” a good programmer could easily “confuse” the logic.
Report thisBy straight_talk_11, January 11 at 7:04 pm #
Whenever there is a large discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count, we have to suspect foul play. Take a look at this brief testimony before a congressional investigative panel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecdkCVD7mM&feature =related
Report thisBy P. T., January 11 at 6:43 pm #
Actually, Obama has more experience, having served more time in state and national office. Hillary’s experience is mostly her strange, failed health care plan and support for Bush’s wars.
Report thisBy Bob In Pacifica, January 11 at 3:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Right now the biggest indicator of how someone voted in New Hampshire was whether their vote was hand-counted or counted by the Diebold machines (optical scanners) that have been shown to be easily hackable.
On Diebolds Clinton got over 40% of the vote, under 35% where votes were hand-counted. Only Clinton benefited by Diebold among Democratic candidates. All five other Democratic candidates got a lower percentage on Diebolds than by hand-counting.
That is a most unusual skew. Over twenty percent of the votes were hand-counted, so it isn’t an insignificant sample. So far I haven’t seen any explanation of how the voting population is different between areas that use hand-counts or machines. Before I try to contemplate the reason for Clinton’s win I’d like to see whether or not she actually did win.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, January 11 at 3:46 pm #
I would call it the diebold effect.
Report thisBy Zelim, January 11 at 1:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m wondering how many men who would never admit to voting for Clinton actually voted for her. Whether it was their intention before going to the polls, or once in the booth they chose experience over optimism, it’s hard to believe it couldn’t happen.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 11:16 am #
This sounds just a little disingenuous.
Liza, you claim “We’ll know when it’s over”. Isn’t that somewhat like saying, “all the cards will be laid out on the table and everything will be obvious and upfront and perfectly clear”. I’m sorry but that just doesn’t hold water. Your assessment of race and gender, national and international issues and of course age doesn’t mean a thing if we don’t have an accurate count of the ballots. Period.
We won’t KNOW until there’s been an investigation into the uncanny coincidences in our voting systems and some oversight as well.
Report thisBy Liza, January 11 at 9:40 am #
There could be any number of things going on here that can only be better understood when the statisticians examine the data. Until then, it is all anecdotal.
All we seem to know is that Hillary did better than expected, Edwards did worse than expected, and there was a record high turnout. The exit polls are yet another story without explanation.
Common sense, however, tells us that race and gender are issues for some voters when it’s the first time in history that a woman and an African American have gotten this close to becoming the presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties. What we do not know is to what extent race and gender affected the final outcome in NH. Even if we understood that, there are regional differences that shift the demographic landscape and we still won’t know the effects of race and gender until it’s all over.
Keep in mind that both race and gender affect both candidates in positive and negative ways. What we really have to hope for is that, for most people, their race and gender issues are outweighed by the importance of national and international issues. Younger people probably do better with this because they didn’t live through the era when race and gender issues were resolved. They are the beneficiaries of the success of those movements and they do not carry the baggage of the older generation.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 9:22 am #
This is the documentary by Dan Rather concerning touchscreen voting machines. There are two parts and the clip is called “Trouble with Touchscreens”. This video also highlights the trouble with punch card voting and the Florida debacle. Part 1 & 2 should automatically come up in the side bar, however I have posted their links also:
LINKS:
Intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuceHLSZNvM
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-CuxPAa3zo&feature =related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quFtd5P2Q8g&feature =related
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 9:11 am #
Check out this report of voting machines. Dated: Aug 14, 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg2wbVDyWUI
Another good video documentary is “Hacking Democracy”. There are nine parts to this documentary, here is the first one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
Report thisBy P. T., January 11 at 8:46 am #
That all the voters who switched from Edwards went for Clinton (and none for Obama) is highly unlikely. More likely is that some voters who said they were going to vote for Obama voted for Clinton instead.
Report thisBy Blackspeare, January 11 at 8:43 am #
The problem is too many candidates. People get to the poles and change their mind so one candidate gets the benefit at the expense of another---in New Hampshire Clinton got the benefit. Also, it should not be forgotten that “Birds of a feather flock together.” I’m sure many women who thought about Edwards, when they got to the polls, decided on the female candidate.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 7:45 am #
Face it, Jacks: politicians cheat, especially when they’re so wrapped up in the press hype.
To make the implication that if one reasons that “cheating has been going on at the polls” that these people are “unbalanced” or just “can’t face the facts” is is a stretch. Let’s see, at least 75% of politicians lie (I’m being kind), continue to fund an illegal war(which has killed how many people?), pander to business interests (which BTW is who counted the votes, in secret of course), refuse to call for the impeachment of the VP or the Pres. even though over half the people are requesting it(even in the MSM). Wake up Jacks, according to some statistics the likelihood of me sitting here at this exact moment doing this exact thing are astronomical.
Tallies in paper ballot counties and machine counted counties were STRIKINGLY, CONSISTENTLY DIFFERENT. (Maybe one should be checking out the statistical likelihood of that CONSISTENT, STRIKING DIFFERENCE)
Some statistical info that is about as statistically “important” as this 1% difference relevance.
Bizarre Fact #35:
Did you know…
Approximately 50% of Americans admit they have ran a red light.
Bizarre Fact #44:
Did you know…
Each year, Americans throw away 25 trillion Styrofoam cups.
Bizarre Fact #53:
Did you know…
Forty percent of Americans iron their clothes while wearing their underwear or being completely naked.
Bizarre Fact #53:
Did you know…
Forty percent of Americans iron their clothes while wearing their underwear or being completely naked.
http://www.ebizarre.com/Category/Surveys_and_Statistics/6/
Report thisBy Scott Griffith, January 11 at 7:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How were to votes counted? That question, sadly, is proving itself to be the very first question we should all ask after any election ‘result’.
Report thisBy art ridge, January 11 at 6:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I read all of the media rationalizing why they were so wrong in their predictions. The fact remains that the “polls” they make are based on making predictions on very incomplete information and taking “guesses” about what people will do. I don’t think there were a lot of polls in Mark Twain’s day, but he could have come up with a better description than I. Art
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, January 11 at 6:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Most folks who have lived and voted in New Hampshire know that VOTERS LIE TO POLLSTERS! It’s a New England thing and unrelated to racism. They did the same thing when Governor Jean Shaheen ran for the Senate against John Sununu Jr. The polls had Shaheen in front by 17 points, and Sununu won by a comfortable margin.
I am not saying there is no fraud. I am not claiming there is no racism, I know very well sexism plays a part in elections. BUT on top of all this, New Hampshireites LIE to pollsters… I’ve done it myself....
In our defense, the vote is PRIVATE, and you can damn well wait till after the election to see how things come out!
Report thisBy Jacks, January 11 at 3:48 am #
There is 1% difference (statistically insignificant) between the polls prior to the NH primary and the actual results. Simply put: Obama did not lose *any* votes; Hillary Clinton gained votes at John Edwards’ expense.
Here check out the stats in an AlterNet article: http://alternet.org/module/printversion/73242
Also, what happened in NH was odd but it’s happened before and with much greater difference. During the 2000 primary between Bush and McCain the polls showed a dead heat and the result was a McCain blowout by about 15-18 points. That difference was higher than the 2008 Democratic primary so it’s not completely unique. Face it: polls get it wrong, especially when they’re so wrapped up in the press hype.
Report thisBy billanthony, January 11 at 1:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
In ‘82 the Bradley v. Deukmejian election exit polling didn’t reflect the actual final result because absentee voting, which at that time typically broke largely Republican, increased from a norm of 1%-2% during prior elections, to upwards of 10%-15% in ‘82. As I recall, Democratic turnout , as was often the case, was also a bit below projected per pre-election polling. The Democrats also lost the U.S. Senate race on the same ballot- two white guys- Jerry Brown v. Pete Wilson but by a slightly larger margin. Not saying the “Bradley Effect” doesn’t exist to some extent, it just doesn’t explain what happened in the election for which it is named.
Report thisBy craig, January 11 at 12:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think it’s much more likely that a reverse of the “Bradley Effect” is what caused the discrepency in the data going into New Hampshire.
Instead of a white person saying he’ll vote for a black candidate and then voting AGAINST him in the voting booth, women are refusing to reveal state their preference for a woman and then voting FOR her in the privacy of the booth.
It’s seems just as shallow and partisan for a woman to be supporting a woman candidate based solely on gender as it does for a black person to be voting solely on race.
The bottom line for the media is, it’s audience, the voters, aren’t stupid and they’re tired of being manipulated. They’re truly sick of the horse race, and want to be left alone.
T.V. is on a campaign of it’s own to become less usefull and more entertaining. Unless people get stupider, quicker (wheeeee) the MSM is going to be completely out of the loop in the next ten years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-hillary-e ffect_b_80828.html
Report thisBy Outraged, January 11 at 12:40 am #
Really Eugene.... We have a HUGE, DOCUMENTED problem with election fraud. Gerrymandering, corrupt voting machines, disenfranchisement at the polls...etc. And your telling us it was the “Bradley effect”, are you SERIOUS..!!??? Get out.
Report thisBy republicanSScareme, January 10 at 11:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s called ‘election theft’.
What happened in New Hampshire is called “poor and hasty analysis by dingbat reporters, pundits, and soothsayers”.
Report thisBy P. T., January 10 at 10:41 pm #
Eugene Robinson writes, “In each of these instances, pre-election polls were quite accurate in predicting the black candidate’s vote. What happened was that the polls greatly underestimated the vote for the white candidates. Unusually large numbers of self-described undecided voters ended up making the same decision.”
The problem with this analysis is that it is highly unlikely all the truly undecided voters would vote for the same candidate.
Report this