The "Bradley" Effect

kinggovernor · 01-11-2008, 03:23 PM

Echoes Of Tom Bradley

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 11, 2008; A17

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 (okay, 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. 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 senator 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, preelection 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 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 probably the most important facet of identity Tuesday. 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 57 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 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 such as, well, Tom Bradley's and 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 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 preelection polls against actual results -- including in states with much more racial diversity than New Hampshire. But after Tuesday's big surprise, embarrassed pollsters and pundits had better be vigilant for signs that the Bradley effect, unseen in recent years, has crept back.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Echoes Of Tom Bradley

Rod Watson: Familiar ring to late swing from Obama
By Rod Watson
Updated: 01/10/08 9:00 AM

Not so fast. For all of the feel-good symbolism of a black man winning the Iowa caucuses and having the first real shot at the White House, reality has intruded.

It’s not that Barack Obama finished a scant 3 points behind Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, another nearly allwhite state. In any other context, that would be considered a surprisingly good result and further proof that Americans are “getting beyond race.”

But after holding a roughly 10-point lead in several polls right up until the voting started, that 13-point swing once the curtains closed is a sad reminder.

No matter how you slice and dice the impact of huge turnouts or Clinton’s lastminute Kodak moment with women, it would be foolish to ignore what political observers call “the Bradley effect.” It’s the notion that whites tell pollsters one thing because they don’t want to appear racist, but then vote their biases in the privacy of the polling booth.

It’s the reason polls can notoriously overestimate support for black candidates — including Doug Wilder when he ran for governor of Virginia, David Dinkins when he ran for mayor of New York City, and former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley when he ran for governor of California.

It’s not a factor when people stand in public and state their preference, as in the record-breaking Iowa caucuses. But it can be a huge factor in primaries, such as the upcoming one in South Carolina and the one in New York on Super Tuesday.

And it wasn’t just the networks that were wrong; even the candidates’ internal polls had Obama winning big — not losing by 3. And with exit polls showing Clinton doing better among voters who decided early rather than later, you can’t chalk it all up to the crack in her voice on primary eve. Was the Bradley effect a factor?

“That’s a really good question,” said Obama backer George K. Arthur, a former Common Council president, who noted that all the polls were “wrong about him but right about John McCain.”

“It certainly has happened before,” said Clarence Lott, president of the East Side Political Network and another Obama backer.

In other words, a candidacy that was supposed to “transcend race” — the pundits’ words, not Obama’s — might have been brought back to earth by it.

And it raises the question of what happens now. The next big primary is in South Carolina, where — unlike Iowa or New Hampshire — roughly half the Democratic voters are black. Many of them are eager for a winner yet skeptical that enough whites will support a black. The New Hampshire turnaround will not reassure those African-Americans, as Obama tries to lure them from the Clinton camp.

Both Lott and Arthur insist Obama will not tamper with his message of inclusion. That message, for the most part, has avoided targeted appeals to blacks or much emphasis on the huge economic and social gaps the race still faces. His “Yes, we can!” concession speech was typical, mentioning “slaves and abolitionists” in the same breath with immigrants, organized workers and women.

“His appeal is to everyone,” Arthur said.

That’s fine, as long as “everyone” gets the message.

His popularity — the New Hampshire surprise notwithstanding — points to a society that has come a long way since Tom Bradley’s rude awakening in 1982.

But before getting too carried away by Obama’s attempt to make history, he — and we — would do well to remember it.

rwatson@buffnews.com

The Buffalo News: Rod Watson: Rod Watson: Familiar ring to late swing from Obama
Two different writers, two different papers, but the same result. Are these prominent African American Op/Ed writers going to conclude that if Obama doesn't win, it is due to racist? Polls are polls, taking a small sample and using a confidence level, usually .95, to report back on a much larger population. But these guys are convinced because the numbers were off it is because whites are racists, and that disgusts me.

RMNIXON · 01-11-2008, 05:51 PM

Clinton won her very slight victory in New Hampshire because she rolled out the party machinery. The hard core Democrat Voters got their instructions and put down the rebellion. I doubt race had much to do with it.

kinggovernor · 01-12-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Clinton won her very slight victory in New Hampshire because she rolled out the party machinery. The hard core Democrat Voters got their instructions and put down the rebellion. I doubt race had much to do with it.

I think the planned "breakdown" secured some additional women votes. But isn't it amazing that democrats have to appeal to classes of people and not to individuals.

motivez · 01-12-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

But isn't it amazing that democrats have to appeal to classes of people and not to individuals.

Are you trying to suggest that Republicans don't?

kinggovernor · 01-12-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you trying to suggest that Republicans don't?

Religion but that is about it. I see the democrats as a coalition of groups of people and the republican party more individualist

motivez · 01-12-2008, 03:20 PM

I think she won because the Independents decided to break for McCain, especially after seeing the polling that showed Obama so far ahead.. Obama really relies on the Independents IMO, and in some of the closed primaries he's going to be hurt because of it.. and in some of the open ones where McCain is popular, he's also going to be hurt with some of the support shifting to McCain, and his more liberal constituency being split by Edwards

motivez · 01-12-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Religion but that is about it. I see the democrats as a coalition of groups of people and the republican party more individualist

Both of the major parties pander to groups of people, it's not just the religious on the Republican side, but that's definitely their biggest.

The libertarians are IMO the only ones who really try to appeal to individuals, which is probably why they've been so unsuccessful.

kinggovernor · 01-12-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Both of the major parties pander to groups of people, it's not just the religious on the Republican side, but that's definitely their biggest.

The libertarians are IMO the only ones who really try to appeal to individuals, which is probably why they've been so unsuccessful.

what other groups of people does the republican party pander to that makes them successful?

RMNIXON · 01-12-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I think the planned "breakdown" secured some additional women votes. But isn't it amazing that democrats have to appeal to classes of people and not to individuals.

They "unite people!"

To get back at those other people...................

.