Posted on 10/27/2008 11:25:56 PM PDT by neverdem
WITH only two weeks to go before the election, talk has turned to the Bradley effect. The phenomenon is named for Tom Bradley, the African-American mayor of Los Angeles, who lost the 1982 California governor’s race even though exit polls predicted he’d defeat his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian. Some white people, the theory goes, tell pollsters they will vote for black candidates and then, once in the voting booth, don’t.
While it’s no surprise that this has become a topic of discussion as John McCain and Barack Obama near the finish line, as someone who worked for Bradley’s campaign, I think it’s worth pointing out that the effect has been widely misunderstood.
On election night in 1982, with 3,000 supporters celebrating prematurely at a downtown hotel, I was upstairs reviewing early results that suggested Bradley would probably lose.
But he wasn’t losing because of race. He was losing because an unpopular gun control initiative and an aggressive Republican absentee ballot program generated hundreds of thousands of Republican votes no pollster anticipated, giving Mr. Deukmejian a narrow victory.
This is not to say that race wasn’t an issue; it was in 1982 and it has been since. But to those who keep citing the Bradley effect — not so fast. It’s more complicated than you think.
As we’re on the subject, we should free Tom Bradley’s name from an association he would have abhorred. After all, he practiced the sort of politics whose goal was to bring people together, not to play up their differences. He was the opposite of the “Us vs. Them” politics so often cited as demonstrating the Bradley effect.
I worked for Bradley in his 1973 mayoral campaign against Sam Yorty, the incumbent. Bradley was holding his own...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Maybe it wasn't the GOP, or white deception of pollsters, so much as the NRA and Prop 15, a ban on the sale of new handguns?
Or bad polling.
I’m pretty sure a fair number of blacks may find it advantageous to their personal relationships and safety to vote their choice in the privacy of the booth.
While there may have been a Bradley Effect in 1982 there did not seem to be a “Ford Effect” in 2006 when Harold Ford lost his Senate race just and most polls predicted.
And since 2006 is much more recent than 1982 I do not expect a “Obama Effect” based on race.
The main poll in CA, the Field Poll, always overestimates the Democrat vote. Remember Gov. Kathleen Brown, moonbeam’s sister? The one who led Pete Wilson by double digits a week before the election, according to Field? Oh that right, she never did become Governor, becuase the Field polls was way off, as usual.
It’s the PC effect.
It ain’t racism.
Forget Bradley Effect... how about Dinkins effect... he was 18 points ahead of Giuliaini the day before the election and won by 2. The Washington Compost poll had Wilder beating Coleman by double digits, and it was actually by a few thousand votes.
Never heard of Kathleen Brown. Now I know why. Oversampling continues to this day. Never seems to help either.
I think they also predicted Bustamante would beat Schwarzenegger in the recall election. How do they stay in business??
How about Tennessee in 2006?
What did the polls show and what were the results?
There was a heavy “Bradley Effect” in the primaries against Hillary, that was 2008.
I think it should be re-named the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS effect, and yes, it’s in play, big time.
Wow, one poll was actually right in a huge anti-GOP year?
That may be a more salient issue than the 26 year old Bradley Effect.
However, the 2008 Dem Primary Polls only questioned Democrats, while current polls sample the entire universe.
The same polls that had Bradley up big were also showing Jerry Brown doing well against Pete Wilson (Brown lost big). The fools were just up to their old game over sampling Dims. I think Republicans just have less patience with idiot pollsters and hang up.
I do not have 2006 Polls in front of but as I recall I did not expect Ford to win but had picked the Seats that fell to the Democrats.
The MSM is trying to unearth every conceivable angle, fear, race baiting, riot threats, complete attack dogs of McCain/Palin...all while letting Obama and Biden go unscathed and when a story has to be reported, put a positive spin on it...
No, it fits Bradley perfect. Wilder too.
This guy is an NYT second-stringer, somehow we're supposed to take his stammering over the Effect that has repeatedly proven demonstrable.
The only real conjecture to be had is whether the Effect has 'diminished' over time. The answer is no, in fact to the point where it will be renamed the "Obama Effect" on Nov. 5.
Face it, the NYT is a rowboat overloaded with ineffectual rowers. And sinking fast.
POLL: OBAMA OPENS DOUBLE-DIGIT LEAD OVER CLINTON (1-7-08)
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — With Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary fast approaching, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state, a CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.
Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week’s Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday — a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html#cnnSTCText
ZOGBY: OBAMA LEADS CLINTON BY 13 POINTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
UTICA, New York(1-8-08)—The big momentum behind Democrat Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, continued up to the last hours before voters head to the polls to cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary election, a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows. Fed by a strong win in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, Obama leads with 42% support, compared to 29% for rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417
POLLS MISCALCULATE NEW HAMPSHIRE AND OTHER PRIMARIES
By George Bishop
(2-3-08) WASHINGTON POST
Can we ever trust the polls again?
It was the question on all minds after the pollsters’ stunning miscall of the New Hampshire Democratic primary last month. The oh-so-wrong predictions that Sen. Barack Obama would beat out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Granite State suddenly made the whole polling enterprise seem a bit shaky. What’s worse, the pollsters have had a bumpy ride all through this primary season, miscalculating margins and magnitudes of wins in Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102915_pf.html
"This guy" is a guest at the NYT. You can look at my link in comment# 1. The Violence Policy Center pays respect to the NRA in getting out the vote. Prop 15 was a ban on new handguns!
Galvanizing the gun vote - NRA hopes to seal election by painting Obama as no friend of the firearm
Voters' Voices: Gun control or out of control?
Obama's gun record "He voted to ban single-shot 20-gauge shotguns, calling them 'assault weapons.'"
Gun rights cause a flare-up between candidates in Senate debate (Al Franken & Norm Coleman)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.