A phenomenon, known in the trade as 'social desirability bias,' draws its name from Tom Bradley, the former black mayor of Los Angeles who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite leading in final day pre-election polls.

Photo by AP

As the nation’s pollsters convene this weekend in New Orleans at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, one topic will be the subject of lively debate — the so-called “Bradley effect.”

The Bradley effect, which refers to the propensity of white poll respondents to overstate their support for a black candidate, isn’t the only issue that pollsters, statisticians and academics will discuss and dispute. But it may be one of the most consequential since it stands to significantly skew pre-election poll results in an election where it seems increasingly likely that Barack Obama will emerge as the Democratic party’s presidential nominee.

“We know that biracial elections have been difficult for pollsters,” says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. “Race continues to be an issue for Obama, and to the extent race is an issue, race will be an issue in polling.”

The phenomenon, known in the trade as “social desirability bias,” draws its name from Tom Bradley, the former black mayor of Los Angeles who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite leading in final day pre-election polls. It resurfaced in the 1989 Virginia governor’s election when L. Douglas Wilder, an African-American, barely squeaked by his Republican opponent despite polling that reflected a commanding double-digit lead for Wilder heading into Election Day.

Some observers saw evidence of the Bradley effect right out of the gate this year in New Hampshire. While surveys were close to the mark on the Republican side, polls for the Democratic primary showed Obama with a steady lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton in a contest he eventually lost 39 percent to 36 percent. The average margin of polls taken up until a day before the election projected an 8-point Obama lead.

Exit polls showed that Clinton narrowly edged Obama among voters who made up their decision on Election Day, suggesting that the discrepancies between pre-election polls and the actual vote couldn’t be explained away by a last-minute flood of Clinton support.

Others saw the Bradley effect at work in the Rhode Island primary in early March, where Clinton’s 58 percent to 40 percent victory was also notably wider than expected — the RealClearPolitics polling average showed a margin of 9.7 percent.

In states with larger black populations, such as North Carolina and South Carolina — where polls had Obama leading by 9 points, when he actually won by 28 — there’s even been talk of a reverse-Bradley effect, whereby Obama’s support was underreported in pre-election polls.

Yet for all the worry surrounding the Bradley effect, there is still considerable debate over whether it is a significant cause of polling error — or even a real one at that.

Skeptics point to a number of other elections featuring black candidates where the phenomenon hasn’t surfaced, the most recent of which is the 2006 Tennessee Senate race between Democrat Harold Ford and Republican Bob Corker. In that election, polls showed Corker with a 12-point lead over the African-American Ford just three days out. Ultimately, though, the election margin proved razor thin.

“I expected no more questions about Bradley effect after the Ford race,” says Tom Lee, a Nashville attorney who served as a top adviser to Ford in the race. Lee says that the campaign’s internal poll numbers were accurate the whole way through but that other polls failed to screen out unlikely voters, who in Tennessee tend to be more conservative.

“What our race showed is you can poll accurately if you got the right screens,” he says, “but you also can be misled. It starts at the beginning. If the sample is poorly drawn, you’ll never be able to trust what you see.”

Indeed, in a year marked by record-breaking turnout, many pollsters are less concerned about the Bradley effect than the models used to determine the composition of the actual voter turnout. In the wake of New Hampshire’s polling glitch, AAPOR convened a task force to study what had gone awry. Though its report has not been finalized, the task force’s head, University of Michigan professor Michael Traugott, says the evidence has yet to point to any “smoking gun.”

Frank Newport, the editor in chief of the Gallup poll, says his team has likewise been unable to find any such major error that explains the discrepancies in its poll. He’s unwilling to pass off New Hampshire as a one-time fluke.

AAPOR had hoped to publish the task force findings before this weekend’s convention, but Traugott says the work has been stalled by the hesitancy of pollsters to submit their methods and practices for peer review. He expects to report by mid-to-late summer, providing enough time before the general election for pollsters to tweak their methodology or improve their voter-screening questions.

“It does make for a challenge when you have public pollsters who won’t share their methods appropriately with others,” says Rob Daves, a past AAPOR president. “Science is based on transparency, and I’m not just talking about social science.”

The two most recent Democratic primaries last week did little to put those questions to rest. In an article published last week on the Pew Research Center’s website, two University of Washington researchers found that pre-election polling in Indiana deviated from the pattern found in earlier primaries.

“Clinton’s margin of victory should have been significantly larger than the two percentage points actually recorded and larger even than the 5-point margin that pre-election polls predicted on average,” wrote professors Anthony Greenwald and Bethany Albertson.

Pollsters, of course, point out that the lion’s share of the primary pre-election polling has been good. But the confluence of factors unique to the upcoming general election — a historic Democratic nominee who will be either an African-American or a woman; an influx of new voters; the likelihood of unusually high turnout — nevertheless gives them reason for concern.

“My sense is that people are pretty nervous,” says AAPOR member Michael Hagen, the director of Temple University’s Institute for Public Affairs. “We’re in uncharted territory here, that’s for sure.”

The sad part is that the media perpetuates much of this effect by endlessly pointing out racial differences in certain states exit polls or remembering cases like Bradley.

The younger generations of Americans (45 and younger) are very rarely racist or sexist... and it is about time the US gets a minority to be president (or a woman for that matter) so we can forget about this stupidity once and for all.

 

Elect Obama and all racism goes away?

 

lol- you sure are naive.

How is racism gonna go away when Obama tells us that anybody who does not vote for him is racist?

I didn't say racism will go away if Obama is elected... Racism is going away all by itself, its just a matter of time. What would go away would be the questioning of race as a factor in elections.

 

http://www.oblogatoryanecdotes.com/2008/04/obamas-campaign-manager-says-racists.html

Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe says racists are probably going to vote for John McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee.

Asked by National Journal’s Linda Douglas if race was going to be a problem for Obama in the general election, Plouffe said:

“We really don't think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.â€

 

Translation- anybody who does not vote for Obama is racist.

Now tell me this VERY important question----> Who are the black racists voting for?

Are we now going to also debate the Obama Effect? Thats the one where 90% of one Racial voting block votes in a monolithic proportion in an election? The real problem we are all looking at is the fact that this election has now become so Racialy charged that this nation is now split down the middle on Racial lines and on economic lines. That is what Obama and his handlers were working and counting on. Obama knew if he kept this above the race he could not beat the Clintons. So, it did not matter what anybody said, if you disagreed wtih Obama you were a Racist. He is trying to do it again with McCain. In Obama's mind everything is out of bounds and every criticism has Racial overtons.  Yesterday was the clasic example of the Obama Effect. The President of the United States criticized a policy of those who believe in Jimmy Carter Deplomacy of apeasement and Obama took it personal. In stead of agreeing with The President that we should not negoiate with Terrorists Obama and the Democrats cried that the President's Remarks were inapporpriate at best and by the way the President is a Racist because he disagrees with me.That was Obama's and the Democrats real meaning yesterday. All they had to say is the President's policy of not negotiating with Terrorists is correct and has been the policy of this Naiton for almost a half a decade.

You get what you sow. So what ever happens we now have the Obama effect. How can polster measure any of this because this election has now become all about Race. Obama and the Democrats created that. If they loose because of it the question needs to be asked who are the Racists?  

a) Do you know how to read? He DID NOT SAY THAT . It is quite clear that he said THOSE WHO ARE RACISTS WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR OBAMA REGARDLESS; BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS (a very stupid comment, because there are racist democrats as well... albeit, less of them).

b) It was not Obama who said that anyway.

It is obvious that White racists will vote for McCain and Black Racist will vote for Obama... Just like intransigent black republicans will vote for McCain and intransigent white Democrats will vote for Obama. Yet nowhere in that argument will you find Obama saying that anyone who doesn't vote for him is a racist... that is ridiculous.

Rashnak The problem with your argument is whats called the cat / animal effect. All cats are animals, but you can't say that all animals are cats. He was saying that all racist have already made up their mind, not that all people that vote for McCain are racist. I'm sure if he had been asked the reverse would be true for Obama and black racist. But again you can't say that all people that vote for Obama are black racist.

What are you talking about? No one called George a racist for his remarks... NO ONE!

Nor did the democrats claim that they will be negotiating with terrorist. Of course, in your mind, anyone who does not agree with he US is a terrorist... so I don't think we will agree in any talks anyway.

The kool-aid is wearing off and now the MSM obama camp is starting to realize how unelectable obama is in the vast sea of a  GE.

So, we get articles like this to prep-up ready-made excuses as to why obama will lose.

Exactly... Logic 101 right there.

It;s not because he's black...

It's because he is an empty suit with a padded resume.....

The more people know him....

The less likely they will vote for him....

His numbers can only go down, like they have since Super Tuesday!

It is nice that you have hopes and dreams... keeps your mind alive. But don't be too disapointed when you wake up to the reality that America is now ready for bold, young and modern leadership instead of old guard conservatism.

Dear Paul,

There are some people out there who want to declare this race over now, before all the ballots have been counted or even cast. There are some who say they don't know why I'm in this race. So let me tell you why I'm still running.

I'm in this race for everyone who needs a champion. For the hardworking families who are losing sleep over gas prices and grocery costs and mortgage payments and medical bills -- but who never lose that American can-do spirit and optimism.

I'm in this race for the more than 16 million people like you who have supported me -- for the people who have put their hearts into winning this race. You never gave up on me, and I'll never give up on you.

We are in the homestretch. After sixteen months, there are only three weeks left to compete in the final contests. With your help I'm going to keep fighting until every last American has a chance to be heard, and as we learned last night in West Virginia, I know we can win.

Contribute now to keep our campaign going strong.

I'm also in this race because I have the best chance of beating John McCain in November and putting America on the right track.

We proved something in West Virginia last night -- a state every Democratic president has won since 1916. And we proved something in a few other battleground states that have a history of picking presidents. Pennsylvania. Ohio. Arkansas. New Hampshire. New Jersey. New Mexico. Nevada. And, yes, Michigan and Florida.

I am in this race, and so are you, because we both know the stakes in this election are too high to stay on the sidelines.

So let's keep going together, you and me. Let's keep driving our campaign forward, and let's keep winning.

Make a contribution today to help me win.

I want to thank you again for the incredible generosity of spirit you have shown over the course of this campaign. Together, you and I are going to make history.

Thank you,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President

You do realize that Obama won 11 elections in a row by huge margins since Super Tuesday, do you? You do realize that since Super Tuesday his margin of loss in Penn went from 30% to a 9%, do you?

No... you don't. Anyone who argues that Obama is an "Empty Suit" obviously has not done ANY research on the person or achievements. Your bigotry is blinding you.

 

We'll see. I'm adding you to my gloat list. Please stop by in November to chat about obama's crushing landslide defeat.

I'll be lookin' for ya little buddy!

By BEN SMITH | 5/13/08 10:26 PM EST

Text Size:

Barack Obama lost big in West Virginia.

Photo: AP

Barack Obama’s stinging defeat in West Virginia brings a sharp focus on the new coalition he may have to assemble to win the White House in November.

West Viginians rejected the presumptive Democratic nominee by more than a two-to-one margin, one of the widest margins of the primary season. The outcome was the predictable result of familiar demographics: West Virginia’s relatively poor white voters have been Hillary Rodham Clinton’s base since February.

I will, but something tells me you wont.

 

When Obama can translate 'fairy tale' as racist ....

If Obama can translate 'hardworking whites' as racist...

If Obama can translate "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done."  as racist when this is historic truth....

If Obama can translate Bill Clinton's "jesse jackson" SC comment as racist...

 

Then I reserve the right to translate Obama's message to me. His message is clear. ANY criticism is racist. ANY vote against him is racist.

 

The Obama camp is pretending that absolutely no criticism is valid. Michelle Obama is on the stump campaigning for Obama- that makes her fair game. She said something stupid...'never been proud of my country'... but now we are not allowed to use this as an issue!

Here is the Obama response to a tennessee attack ad...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/tennessee-gop-attacks-mic_n_101967.html

"This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she wouldn't be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation. The Republican Party's pathetic attempts to use the same smear tactics to win elections have failed in Mississippi, failed in Louisiana, and will fail in November because the American people are looking for a positive vision of real change. And if the Tennessee Republican Party has a problem with Senator Obama, maybe next time they'll have the courage to address him directly instead of attacking his family.

So now nobody can critisize Michelle? She is on the stump campaigning but is is above criticizm? GIVE ME A BREAK!

 

Obama is the little boy who cries 'racist' every time he gets any opposition. Many of us are sick of it and cannot imagine four years of it.

 

 

Do some reading... You are misquoting her.

 

Of course I'm not saying that all blacks are racist, or all whites for that matter.

But it is clear- the Obama camp was trying to paint anybody who does not vote for him as racist.

Here is what I see- the media is specifically looking for white racism but not black racism. The media asks WV voters... "Does race have any effect on your vote'  but did the media ask the same question of the 90%+ of black votes in NC?

 

The answer is no- they did not ask. The media spent the entire night of the WV primary talking about the backward racist hicks in WV. The clear implication was that the entire state is backwards because they did not vote for Obama. But guess what- they may well have many other reasons to vote against him!

The night of the NC primary- when the returns came back 90% + black vote for Obama, did anyone ask how many were voting against HRC because of her skin color? Of course not! The media would never ask such a blatent question of blacks.

 

According to the esteemed Mary Mitchell ..

1. All whites that dont vote for Obama are racist.
2. All Latinos that dont vote for Obama are racist
3. All Asians that dont vote for Obama are racist
4. All that support Clinton are racist.
5. All that find fault with Obama are racist.
6. All that associate Obama with Jeremiah Wright are racist
7. All workers that have only high school diplomas and support Clinton are racist.
8. All low income community that cling to gun and religion and not support Obama are racist.
9. All that dont throw themselves into Obamamania are racist.

Looks like only the african americans that support Obama like Mary are true broad minded people and the rest are all racists.

Mary Mitchell writes an op-ed for the Chicago Suntimes....check her out, the ultimate Obamabot!

You are living in Never Never land. If Obam just let it alone it would have gone away. He wanted that attention. He got his pals in the mainstream media to blow the Racist horn for him. He got exactly what he wanted, From then on he knew, because Obama had the Left Wing Media in his pocket he could charge Racism any chance he had. Look at what he did to Farro. If it was not for the women Obama would not have been where he is today. She was the trail blazier who open the doors for Women on a National ticket, which opened the door for Joe Lieberman and opened the door for Obama. That is what she said yet to Obama she was a Racist. He couldn't wait to use it. You must have blinders on your eyes. Obama wanted Race as an issue to galvanize his voting block. He got it. Now he has to live with it.

Racism will just magically go away. It is amazing how niave and ignorant many people are or have become. Let's see.... White's are racist and "people of color" are not. Electing a black president or mayor or whatever and racism will go away. Once the older generation dies racism will go away. If only those old white racist weren't here the world would be nirvania. It''s whites who are the problem and once the older ones die LaRaza, The black caucus, This Hispanic caucus, The NAACP and the hundreds/thousand of race based politcal and advcacy groups will just go away.

 

Once upon a time...

Certainly Hillary's campaign has encouraged racism by trying to unjustly associate Rev Wright's anti-white comments with Barack.  Rendell then tried to make racism acceptable by stating that many whites in his state would not vote for a black man.  Barack for his part has said that, being born of a white mother and black father, it is in his DNA to bring people together.   This is why so many people like Edwards endorse Barack since only he wants to unite not divide the party.

This article's particular concept seems to be another repugnant ploy of the Clinton campaign to try to make another fake case for Barack's so-called unelectablitity.  Hillary was hoping to point to polls to make her case with the supers since she is behind by every other measure. Unable to use the polls, she says the polls are wrong and she's the one the people secretely want.   But it is Hillary who is unelectable with her astronomically high negatives: most people recognize that she is a dishonest untrustworthy phony race-baiter.  

 

woot- 11 victories in a row in states that will vote red in the fall.

Oh, and all those victories pre Pastor Disastor.

Since Pastor Disastor.... lose 3 of 4. The only win came in a NC-  90% black vote. Obama is limping to the finish line.

 

Obama is a product of the MSM- he was shoved down our throats without any vetting. I grew curious about his church last November. Five minutes of google and I leanred all I wanted to know about black liberation theology. Why was this info not general knowledge until after most of the campaign was over?

 

Oh- and I LOVE how you call anybody who does not agree with you a bigot!  Did it ever occur to you that some people may not agree? Welcome to ''change you can believe in' .... except for anybody who does not agree!

Not at all... Only you and those who wish this to be true, are reading that from those quotes.