The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Dissecting the "Bradley Effect"
October 15, 2008 8:20 AM
Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has reignited debate about the alleged “Bradley effect” – the notion that, in polls, white people lie about voting for a black candidate. It remains, at best, what I called it nine months ago: a theory in search of data.
The Bradley effect and its variants (Wilder effect, Dinkins effect), attempt to explain why the level of support for white candidates was understated, or for black candidates was overstated, in pre-election polls in six biracial contests from 1982 to 1992. That's right - anywhere from 16 to 26 years ago.
Two problems: There are, in fact, beaucoups reasons beyond lying that those polls could have been wrong. And there have been plenty of accurate polls in such contests since.
Consider 2006: Good-quality polls were accurate in five U.S. Senate or gubernatorial elections in which white and African-American candidates faced off. (There was no good, publicly released polling in a sixth). One, in Massachusetts, understated the white candidate by 5 points (not that it mattered in a 55-35 percent blowout); another, in Pennsylvania, understated the black candidate by 5 points (in a 60-40 rout). But as for a consistent Bradley or Wilder effect: It didn’t happen.
Or take the 2008 Democratic primaries: We find 25 good-quality pre-election polls in which Hillary Clinton was understated beyond sampling error, as the Bradley effect posits. But we also see 24 polls in which Obama’s support was understated – the reverse of the Bradley effect. And there were three in which Clinton was overstated, also contrary to the effect. In none was Obama overstated. An additional 21, moreover, were within sampling error on Clinton, as were 23 on Obama.
We also looked at this another way, via the margin between the candidates. In final-week, airworthy polls, Clinton was understated on the margin in five states – but Obama was understated in 10. The gap was close to the final result in seven more.
It seems fair to suggest an effect, to be an effect, should occur with some consistency.
Though not limiting himself to good-quality polls, a Harvard researcher, Daniel J. Hopkins, wrote a paper in August assessing polling data from 133 biracial elections from 1989 to 2006 – “the first large-sample test of the Wilder effect.” Hopkins concludes that there once was an effect; blacks running before 1996 averaged 2.7 percentage points below their poll numbers. “Yet this effect subsequently disappeared,” Hopkins reports. His paper’s title begins: “No More Wilder Effect.”
Beyond arguing general “social desirability” in whites saying they’d vote for a black candidate (and I’m not sure I get that), some theories more specifically suggest that some poll respondents will tailor their stated vote preference to their perception of the interviewer’s race – that whites, for instance, won’t tell a black interviewer they support McCain. Our own, current data tell a different story: We’ve been comparing the race of interviewers and respondents in ABC News/Washington Post polls all year, and we see no such effect.
Among registered voters in a dozen national ABC/Post polls this year, 53 percent of white respondents told white interviewers they supported McCain – as did 52 percent of white respondents speaking with black interviewers. Forty-one percent of whites told white interviewers they supported Obama; an identical 41 percent said the same to black interviewers. And 93 or 94 percent of back respondents backed Obama, regardless of the interviewer’s race. (It’s unclear, moreover, how well respondents can even tell the interviewer’s race in a telephone survey. In one of our recent polls 55 percent identified it correctly, but 23 percent were wrong and 22 percent declined to hazard a guess.)
There is an academic study from 1991 with a contrary finding, saying that whites, when speaking with a white interviewer, were 8 to 11 points more apt to support the white candidate in Doug Wilder’s 1989 Virginia governor’s race. But that was one poll, with just 172 white respondents, carried out by student interviewers – and the report itself footnotes a context effect in the study "that may heighten the race-of-interviewer effect." Our own aggregate data this year, showing no effect, include 7,261 white respondents.
Another concern focuses not on directly lying, but simply ducking the question by declining to state a vote preference at all. In our polls this year, however, the number of respondents who've either declined to answer the horse-race question, or say they have no opinion, is no higher than in past elections, nor do they look different demographically in any way that would suggest that their absence creates bias.
The notion of a Bradley effect is undermined by contemporaneous data as well. As a Pew Research Center memo points out, at the same time that two polls clearly overstated Wilder’s lead in the 1989 Virginia governor’s race, a third gave him a closer, 4-point edge. And while polls in Carol Moseley Braun’s 1992 Senate race understated her white opponent’s support, another, in her primary race, understated her own support, not her white opponents’. Further, while the final WABC/Daily News poll in 1989 overstated David Dinkins’ lead for New York mayor, two weeks earlier it had Dinkins ahead by just 4 points. (He won by 2.) Did New Yorkers suddenly decide to prevaricate?
Consider also a Real Clear Politics piece by Republican pollster Lance Tarrance, who polled in the very 1982 California governor’s race that gave the Bradley effect its name. He calls the concept “a pernicious canard,” and says his own data for Republican George Deukmejian didn’t reflect it. And in a February 1983 report on the Bradley race, California pollster Mervin Field speculated that “racial bias” was a factor, but also offered more concrete reasons for his poll’s error: a heavier than usual and one-sided absentee vote, the presence of a handgun initiative on the ballot and a lower turnout of minority voters than he’d expected.
The turnout issue is critical. When a pollster produces a bad estimate in a pre-election survey, it’s an easy out to blame the respondent. (Visions of New Hampshire are dancing in my head.) But in fact there’s a boatload of ways pre-election polls can go wrong – being done too far from the Election Day, employing poor sampling techniques and, especially, misestimating who’s actually going to vote. It could well be that the absence of a Bradley effect since the mid-’90s isn’t about fewer people lying, but about polls simply producing better likely voter models.
All this leads to the current election. The role of race is a fascinating element, and no one can confidently predict how it’ll play out. One study says polls may be understating Obama by 3 to 4 percentage points nationally. Another, not specific to any reputed polling effect, suggests Obama could be doing as many as 6 points better if it weren’t for latent racism. (I’m skeptical, as usual, and awaiting details on the model.)
Our own study this summer found that there are some whites who are ill-disposed toward a black candidate, but others who are well-disposed to one, and on balance Obama’s support from whites has been around the average for Democratic candidates in the last eight presidential elections. In our latest poll, moreover, 91 percent of registered voters called themselves comfortable with the idea of Obama becoming the first African-American president; 74 percent were "entirely" comfortable with it.
One thing we know for sure is that today’s polls do not predict the election outcome; they simply show where the contest stands today. If the final polls are accurate – as generally they’ve been in the past – a lot of ink will have been spilled on the Bradley effect in vain. If not, there’ll be many places to look. Blaming respondents should not be the first.
October 15, 2008 in 2008 General Election, Race | Permalink | User Comments (69)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I said to the pollsters in 2000 and 2004 that I was going to vote for the democrats.
I didn't. I lied.
Was it about race then???
But if I do the same this year with a blackman running for office, I am labled as a racist or it is because of his race. Get a grip.
Fine I'm a racist but here's the scorecard. I am a racist against whites twice and against blacks once. Seems I would be for blacks and against whites then wouldn't I.
The only poll that matters is the private one in the voting booth.
Posted by: So now I'm a racist | Oct 15, 2008 8:53:54 AM
Isn't everyone getting a little sick of hearing about RACE from Obama and the MEDIA.
Posted by: Nat Turner | Oct 15, 2008 8:57:03 AM
pollsters and pundits are the ONLY people who want to talk about the fabricated Bradley effect!
I am starting to think that the American Public is being prepared for a stolen election!
Posted by: Truth Matters | Oct 15, 2008 9:09:28 AM
How come we don't hear about all the racism against McCain? I personally know about 10 blacks who are voting for Nobama because he is black, they admit it freely, no other reason than they want "one of us" in the white house! The Blacks in this country are the biggest racist in this country, just look at Sharpton and Rev. Wright et al.....
Posted by: KPL | Oct 15, 2008 9:21:13 AM
"""pollsters and pundits are the ONLY people who want to talk about the fabricated Bradley effect!"""
Gee, ya think?!?
Of course Obama supporters don't want to talk about it, they even don't want to think about it. It is instilling fear that Obama may lose this election after you have looked at the polls and have built up your hopes. Too bad.
If this will be like the last two elections and Obama loses. Be prepared for the looney supporters to cry and scream "stolen election".
Posted by: Thomas D | Oct 15, 2008 9:29:16 AM
You know, there are 900-1000 people polled out of how many billions of people living in the US? And people get so hyped up on the poles that they tend to forget that these polls are a miniscule percentage of the population. I find it hard to believe that more people want to vote for Obama and have taxes raised on companies and then people will loose their jobs..It is that simple. Wealth distribution does not work because if you take from the companies, they have to meet their bottom line, even if that means laying off workers. So do you want a little government tax credit check or do you want a full paycheck from your employer? Personally, I would rather earn a salary than depend on the government.
Posted by: Kim | Oct 15, 2008 10:07:21 AM
STOP THE PUTRID SWIRL
DIFFERENT TIME (70'S - NOW)
DIFFERENT SCOPE (CALI - USA)
DIFFERENT SITUATION(PEACE-TOTAL CHAOS)
DIFFERENT SITUATION(BUSH/GOP BRAND - CHANGE)
DIFFERENT SITUATION (MCSAME - REAL CHANGE)
DON'T WASTE TIME WITH THIS GARBAGE.
Posted by: Omentum | Oct 15, 2008 10:23:45 AM
KPL
For one African Americans always always alway vote democrat. So you cant use that as a count-argument.
Posted by: Omentum | Oct 15, 2008 10:26:15 AM
Having voted for Tom Bradley and actively supported him, the buzz on the "Bradley Effect" is more revisionist history than fact. Bradley lost in more part due to conservative initiatives that were on the ballot, that drew out their base in large numbers and also the fact that Reagan (former Governor) was at the height of his popularity. There was a gun control initiative placed on the ballot, that had more to due with the margin of defeat than any "effect".
Posted by: Mark Reid | Oct 15, 2008 10:35:03 AM
I had a dreem last night that OBAMA won
the election thanks to acorn and as president he brought the goverment to it's knee's just like all his buddys wanted him to.What is so amazing to me is he is saying that he wants to take the money from all people that made something out of themselves and give it to the ones that did not.HE IS TELLING YOU THIS PLEASE WAKE UP.
Posted by: Mr.I am wright | Oct 15, 2008 10:37:08 AM
Time has changed and Americans (white/black/Asian/Indian…) with it. I don’t think
"Bradley Effect" will play. White people who said will vote for a biracial candidate will do it. One may change mind for other reason than racial. If white people did not like Obama ,he would not be the Democratic nominee , he would not be leading constantly on the national polls since the beginning and the on electoral map despite all non-sense and divisive lies said against him from the beginning of the campaign.
Posted by: fred Maton | Oct 15, 2008 11:03:32 AM
McCain is just dishonest and show poor leadership. How can he be surprised by racist stupid comments made by his republicans supporters when he his sending Palin out to tie Obama to former terrorist; portray him as not one of Americans; telling dangerous lies about Obama? Today’s America needs a strong leader who brings everybody together; who leaves no one behind. A leader for everybody not just for a group of people. A president of the United States of America not Divided States of America.
Posted by: fred Maton | Oct 15, 2008 11:05:10 AM
Wait until these people realize that redistribution of wealth is not about race. So if you are African-American and making a good salary, that you worked hard for, it will be taxed, and those taxes will be used to give a tax break to a white person, who is less educated, and does not try as hard. That's the way redistibution works, it has nothing to do with race. But when you all realize this, it will be too late. Obama will be President, and the white guy you hate, down the block from was able to buy a brand new car, because of that redistribution of wealth. Can't wait for Obama to be President, I sure can use a free ride.
Posted by: Angelo | Oct 15, 2008 11:26:29 AM
How many people out there are like me.
Where I work ,I don't tell people that I'm going to vote for Obama because I would catch to much heat, I work with 12 people and they all love guns and stuff.
They vote Republican it does not matter who is own there ticket. Now 4 of us are voting obama but no one is owning up to it. Remember we have to work there. We are white males all of us. So I think the polls are understated for Obama. I have never voted dem before.
Posted by: Mark Roberts | Oct 15, 2008 11:32:47 AM
I have a really hard time not continually bursting out laughing at the "Bradley Effect." Look, polls are confidential, nobody's name is published, and folks in the household don't know the questions being asked.
SO, YOU MEAN TO TELL ME that a White RACIST is TOO SCARED to tell a pollster promising confidentiality that he's going to vote for McCAIN???
This is just TOO RIDICULOUS to bear. ROFL...... Sure, there's racism, but it's already factored into the polls, the racist voters figured out what race Obama was a long long time ago. Good grief.
I believe in free speech quite strongly, but I'm considering public lashings with wet noodles for the noodle-brains pushing the bradley effect. Puh-leeze.
Posted by: P. R. Finn | Oct 15, 2008 12:03:04 PM
I have heard twice on a newscast that 80-85% of blacks intend to vote for Obama but never a mention that that might have its roots in racism. It is dishonest of the media to only discuss what is perceived to be potential racism among some whites.
Posted by: luvstodancealot | Oct 15, 2008 1:42:27 PM
In the Old South, a person was black if he had any Negroid ancestry.
By the same argument, a person should be considered white if he has any Caucasian ancestry but nobody says Sen. Obama is white.
ABCs language betrays its bigotry. Sen. Obama is of mixed racial ancestry, period. If elected, he will not be the "first black president."
Posted by: realitycheck | Oct 15, 2008 2:26:47 PM
This is the biggest non-story of the election. There is no "Bradley Effect" involved in this race. You have a hugely unpopular Republican President, 2 wars, and a global economic disaster largely contributed to that President. Obama has received vast amounts of contributions from all racial and economic levels because people want this country to go in a different direction. I don't believe he's up 14% int the polls...I think it's more like 20%. It's going to be a ridiculous blowout on November 4th because Republicans have driven this country into the ground and most people are tired of it.
Posted by: DMan | Oct 15, 2008 3:25:44 PM
A person is not a racist because they decide to vote for someone who happens to be of the same race. But you are a racist if you won't vote for someone who is not the same race as you because you believe him/her to be inferior because of race.
Black people voting for Obama, assuming they have ever voted in a presidential election, have by necessity voted for a white person. Choosing to vote for a qualified candidate of the same race in this election, doesn't make them racist.
On the other hand, if you're not voting for Obama because of his race, you are racist.
Posted by: MoVoice | Oct 15, 2008 5:35:18 PM
I don't understand why anyone would not give their true opinion in a pol, as some of these people have done. If people do that, they work against their true choice and it runs the opponents ratings up. There are undecided or uncomitted voters that just want to be 'on the winning end' that will be swayed. In effect, the incorrect polls could be swaying people away from their own true choice. 'Splain it to me Ricky'. Just makes no sense. What is to be gained?
Posted by: DS | Oct 15, 2008 6:59:49 PM
Post a comment
