The Bradley "Defect"

[InternalDialogue]

I know very little about this site or its authors, but the insight, if true, is fascinating.

http://www.politics1.com/blog-1008a.htm#1017

Despite the frequent pundit references to the so-called "Bradley Effect" -- the phenomena where 2-6% of white voters will purportedly lie to a pollster and claim to be voting for a black candidate when in reality they are voting for the white opponent -- the "Bradley Effect" is simply a political urban legend. So says GOP political consultant Robert Wolfe, who was Southern California Political Director of the 1982 George Deukmejian (R) for Governor campaign against Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley (D).

Wolfe told Politics1 that anyone who "claims there was a 'Bradley Effect' in 1982 has no idea what they are talking about. Tom Bradley actually beat us on election day, and by a significant margin, so there was no 'lying' to the exit pollsters. Deukmejian only won because of the absentee ballots. That was the first year California allowed the use of absentee ballots and that was our secret strategy. We piled up absentee ballots from Armenian Democrats, because Deukmejian was Armenian. They were not likely voters, so they were under-polled. But there were roughly 100,000 Armenian voters living just in the area around Los Angeles County -- plus lots elsewhere in the state. It was that absentee effort that gave us the victory -- and earned me a position in the Deukmejian Administration. If it was just the election day votes, we would have lost. The only place you would have seen any lying was among those voters who claimed they were 'uncommitted' but were really voting for Deukmejian. But there was really no lying with voters telling pollsters they were voting for Bradley. There just was no 'Bradley Effect' and people should stop claiming there was such a thing. Trust me, I was there."

[Eric J in MN]

1. K & R

NT

[Junkdrawer]

2. K&R

[grantcart]

3. I think that this has been shown to be true and that the so called "Bradley Effect" has been

more of a result of poor polling and even worse reporting. Also if your familiar with the Armenian community you know that they got every single Armenian voting - if they did it by absentee ballot it would have been huge.

[Overseas]

4. The Republican Desertion Effect will be a bigger factor.

And the so-called Bradley effect can't counteract that.

But by Republicans trumpeting it, they could be planning to steal elections by "2-6% of the white vote".

I think the Republican Desertion Effect will be 50% of Republicans switching parties because they know our nation is on the wrong track as a consequence of Bush_Cheney Republican dominance.

[central scrutinizer]

5. Echoed in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20levin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

excerpt:

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.

[InternalDialogue]

6. That's interesting corroboration

especially along with the additional ballot issue drawing turnout.

I'm no sociologist, but I still wonder what motivation would drive people to lie to pre-election pollsters. If the question is neutrally posed -- Who would you vote for in the upcoming election, Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain? -- there's no judgment against someone who says "McCain." The pollster isn't asking for reasons, and there's no patent shame in answering one way or another, especially to an anonymous pollster.

[beachmom]

7. This is amazing. The Bradley Effect is indeed a myth. From a reporter from that time:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/441/prejudice-campaign.html

It ends up that Bradley stopped campaigning 10 days before the election, he was so confident he would win. Meanwhile, Republicans had internal polls showing it a 3 or 4 point race. They campaigned hard until the end. Finally, those absentee ballots made the difference. Bradley won on Election Day, but adding in the absentee ballots he lost.

This was a link in the PBS article:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html

This is written by a Republican pollster for the Deukmejian campaign.

Frankly, the notion of a "Bradley Effect" works in the Republican's favor to keep their spirits up. So if the Republican pollster from that time says it's not true, then it is not true.

In the end, it was a major pollster who created the myth to cover up his poll's errors.

[uponit7771]

8. HMMM, Bradley effect did kinda sound wierd to me when I first heard it.

[elkston]

9. Thing is, PART of the Bradley Effect says

...that undecided voters on election day will break for the white candidate. We should assume this and try to get all of Obama's numbers above 50% (when head-to-head with McCain).