• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Bradley Effect

Bradley Effect

  • The Bradley Effect will have no impact on the election

    Votes: 10 27.8%
  • The Bradley Effect will squash Obama

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • The Bradley Effect will squash McCain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Bradley Effect may harm Obama

    Votes: 20 55.6%
  • The Bradley Effect may harm McCain

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • Total voters
    36

missypea

Mod Apologist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
6,152
Reaction score
2,344
Location
Pacific Northwest
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The B.E. keeps popping up in threads as one of the "unknowns" that could possibly alter the election.

The Bradley Effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent.


What about the possibilities of the Bradley Effect working in reverse? Is it possible that racist families have members in their ranks who will never say that they're going to vote for a black man but they will then go into the booth and pull the lever for Obama?

Let's start talking.......


:comp:
 
The B.E. keeps popping up in threads as one of the "unknowns" that could possibly alter the election.

The Bradley Effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent.


What about the possibilities of the Bradley Effect working in reverse? Is it possible that racist families have members in their ranks who will never say that they're going to vote for a black man but they will then go into the booth and pull the lever for Obama?

Let's start talking.......


:comp:

I'd say the social pressures to be a racist are less widespread than the opposite. Of course there will be an affect, but it won't change anything
 
As i mentioned in a different I dont think its the bradley effect more the shy tory factor.Some people are embarrassed to say they are voting republican just because of the way bush etc have been lampooned in the media etc.
 
Bradley is a hard measure that can only be accurately determined in hindsight, but I do believe it will have some influence. Whether it alone is enough for McCain to win the election at the current poll levels... I doubt it. Then again some analysts are saying Obama peaked too early.
 
Should Obama lose, it will definantley be the reason that is lampooned out there by the media(unless he does something incredibly stupid in the next 3+ weeks). I almost half want Obama to win, just so I don't have to hear about what a horrible racist country we are.

In actuality, I think there will be a small, but neglible effect. If McCain sweeps 49 out of 50 states(as long as Obama doesn't do something dumb), I will retract and consider that there is still widespread racism in America. But McCain would have to landslide Obama out of nowhere, for me to consider it.
 
bradley effect myth - Google Search

Apparently the Bradley Effect is considered a myth by many in the know. Here's a google search of "Bradley Effect Myth". Pick a source you like and read on.
 
It'll effect Obama, but he'll still win. Just not at the huge margin most people expect.
 
Should Obama lose, it will definantley be the reason that is lampooned out there by the media(unless he does something incredibly stupid in the next 3+ weeks). I almost half want Obama to win, just so I don't have to hear about what a horrible racist country we are.

In actuality, I think there will be a small, but neglible effect. If McCain sweeps 49 out of 50 states(as long as Obama doesn't do something dumb), I will retract and consider that there is still widespread racism in America. But McCain would have to landslide Obama out of nowhere, for me to consider it.

I know what you mean ive watched bill maher's show and he seems to be of the opinion that the only possible reason someone could vote for McCain is because they are racist.
 
I know what you mean ive watched bill maher's show and he seems to be of the opinion that the only possible reason someone could vote for McCain is because they are racist.

Well Bill Maher is an idiot. He should work for MSNBC.
 
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prompted a lot of talk about the "Bradley effect," a k a the "Wilder effect"--the supposed tendency of opinion polls to overestimate support for black candidates. The effect is named for Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder, the Democratic nominees for governor of California in 1982 and Virginia in 1989, respectively. Both men were black; their Republican opponents, George Deukmejian and Marshall Coleman, were white. Both seemed to be doing much better in opinion polls than they actually did at the ballot box.

Surveys a month before the election showed Bradley leading Deukmejian by a margin of between 9% and 22%. By late October, Bradley's lead had closed to 6%. Deukmejian won the election by a bit over 1%. (In mid-October Deukmejian had fired his campaign manager, Bill Roberts, for predicting Bradley's erosion of support and ascribing it to racial prejudice.) Wilder defeated Coleman, but by less than 0.4% after having led in the polls by 4% to 15%.
Podcast

One problem with the hypothesis of the Bradley effect is that it rests so heavily on these two examples, both a generation old. A new paper by Daniel Hopkins, a fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, addresses this objection. Hopkins looked at all races for governor and U.S. senator between 1989 and 2006 in which one party nominated a black candidate and the other a white one. He found that the Bradley effect does exist--or rather that it did until 1996.

"African Americans running for office before 1996 performed on average 2.7 percentage points worse than their polling numbers would indicate," Hopkins reports. "Yet this effect subsequently disappeared." As a control group of sorts, Hopkins also looked at elections that pitted a woman against a man. He found no similar effect.


If the Bradley effect is real, what accounts for it? The typical explanation is that voters lie to pollsters and say they support the black man, and then, alone with their prejudices in the voting booth, cast their ballots for the pol of pallor. Hopkins theorizes that the effect disappeared in 1996 because "racialized rhetoric about welfare and crime" had "receded from national prominence."

This could be true, but it is purely speculative. The Bradley-effect voter is not a creature whose behavior has been directly observed, merely a statistical artifact. There is convincing evidence that before 1996, a small but significant number of voters were inclined to tell pollsters they supported a black candidate but actually vote for a white one. As to why this would be the case, one can only guess.

It strikes us as tendentious to say that the Bradley-effect voters were "lying" to pollsters. A response to a poll question is not, after all, a binding commitment but an indication of the voter's mood at the moment, based on a false premise ("if the election were held today"). If you tell a pollster you're voting for X but actually vote for Y, under normal circumstances one would simply say you changed your mind. Presupposing that a voter is acting in bad faith, however, makes it easier to imagine that his motives are invidious.

The typical narrative tells a strange story about the Bradley-effect voter. Why would someone who is too prejudiced to vote for a black person tell a pollster he intends to do so? Because, it is said, he does not want to reveal his prejudices. But if someone is clever enough to engage in such deception, surely he also has the sophistication to realize that one can support a candidate like Deukmejian or Coleman without being, or appearing, racist. Those guys weren't exactly Theodore Bilbo or David Duke.

Here is an alternative explanation, also completely speculative but no less plausible. Maybe Bradley-effect voters initially tend to support the black candidate out of pro-black bias--whether arising from social pressure (they think supporting the black candidate makes them look better), or from their own inclinations (they like the idea of giving the black man a chance)--and then change their minds and opt for the white candidate on the merits, after taking a closer look at the individuals.


This suggests an alternative explanation for the decline of the Bradley effect. Douglas Wilder was the first elected black governor in U.S. history. Had Tom Bradley been elected, he would have been. In both these cases, the appeal of voting for the black candidate was amplified by his status as a prospective groundbreaker. As it became more common for blacks to be nominated for statewide office, the significance of any given candidate's fate to racial progress diminished.

Best of the Web Today - WSJ.com
 
All I can say is to win Obama better have a double digit lead in the polls on election day because if he doesn't he will lose.....It is sad but I would say that at least 10 to 15 percent of the people in this country would never vote for a black person for president............Most of them would not even vote for a black person for dog catcher.............
 
All I can say is to win Obama better have a double digit lead in the polls on election day because if he doesn't he will lose.....It is sad but I would say that at least 10 to 15 percent of the people in this country would never vote for a black person for president............Most of them would not even vote for a black person for dog catcher.............

dOOd that's what I love about you...irrespective of reality you keep your chin up and your dream alive.

:mrgreen:
 
dOOd that's what I love about you...irrespective of reality you keep your chin up and your dream alive.

:mrgreen:

He's got, hiiiiigh hopes. He's got hiiiigh hopes. He's got, high apple pie in the skyyyyyy hopes.
 
dOOd that's what I love about you...irrespective of reality you keep your chin up and your dream alive.

:mrgreen:

As usual your wrong because I would vote for the right black person in a NY minute......Someone along the lines of Colin Powelll or Condy Rice.......So I guess that sinks your theory..........

Like I said I wish every American can put racism behind them but even you can't do that in that you call anyone that does not vote for the socialist Obama a racist and that is simply not the case my left wing friend............
 
Get a ****ing room for you mutual left wing love making.......
Why do they have to get a room when we all have to tolerate watching your constant self-masterbatory bs?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's get back on topic and stop with the personal attacks
 
I think anti-black racism will have an influence on this election. I don't believe the Bradley Effect will have any influence on this election, because it is largely a myth. It's based entirely on a couple questionable examples, and ignores the many counterexamples.
 
I think anti-black racism will have an influence on this election. I don't believe the Bradley Effect will have any influence on this election, because it is largely a myth. It's based entirely on a couple questionable examples, and ignores the many counterexamples.


Just curious what percent of the electorate do you think will not vote for Obama because he is black.........

I will break it down by region:

North 5 to 10 Percent
South 25 percent........
Average about 10 to 15 percent
 
Last edited:
Just curious what percent of the electorate do you think will not vote for Obama because he is black.........

I will break it down by region:

North 5 to 10 Percent
South 25 percent........
Average about 10 to 15 percent

Well, it would only really matter in a few states. I don't think racism is a huge problem outside of the South and the Midwest. If Obama loses Nevada by a point or two, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But if Obama loses Ohio by a point or two, it will undoubtedly be racism that did him in.

There's definitely a lot of racism here in Ohio. I would guess that upwards of 25% of Ohio voters will not vote for a black man. However, probably only about 15% of them would even consider voting for a Democrat in the first place. It also seems likely that enthusiasm in the black community and Obama's overall strength may be enough to overcome these problems in Ohio.

Regardless, I think that most of the racists in Ohio will flat-out tell you that they're voting for McCain...and more than a few of them will flat-out tell you why. The so-called Bradley Effect - where racists are ashamed of their racism and tell pollsters they'll vote for the black candidate - is largely a myth IMO.
 
Well, it would only really matter in a few states. I don't think racism is a huge problem outside of the South and the Midwest. If Obama loses Nevada by a point or two, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But if Obama loses Ohio by a point or two, it will undoubtedly be racism that did him in.

Typical misconception about the South. There is far more racism in OH and PA than there is in the Carolinas. The North is far more segregated, and the racism is blatantly obvious in the privacy of people's living rooms - but it's is buried under the surface in public.

In the South, to a much greater degree, racial issues are openly discussed and blacks and whites speak much more freely and honestly about it. That makes the racists more easily recognized, so it may appear to be more of an issue - but it isn't.

Regardless, I think that most of the racists in Ohio will flat-out tell you that they're voting for McCain...and more than a few of them will flat-out tell you why. The so-called Bradley Effect - where racists are ashamed of their racism and tell pollsters they'll vote for the black candidate - is largely a myth IMO.

What you are describing is certainly a myth because you defined it incorrectly. Of course most racists in OH, and everywhere else, will have no trouble saying they'll vote for McCain. It's not like it is a choice between President David Palmer (from "24") and David Duke - where a "Duke" response to a pollster would signal you as a racist. Here we're looking at a 50/50 race where a racist would have no problem "justifying" a McCain response - assuming he felt the need to try and justify it to hide his racism.

The real Bradley Effect has become much less of an issue in recent elections - however, the continued accusations of racism if you don't say you are voting for Obama have reached such ridiculous proportions from the left that it is almost certain that the Bradley Effect will be much more significant in this election.

We've seen the extremism in this thread, Bill Maher, etc. If you don't vote Obama, it is assumed you are a racist unless you can prove otherwise. Who wants to deal with that perception from some pollster.
 
Last edited:
Typical misconception about the South. There is far more racism in OH and PA than there is in the Carolinas. The North is far more segregated, and the racism is blatantly obvious in the privacy of people's living rooms - but it's is buried under the surface in public.

I agree. Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the most racist states in the country, and I never really noticed that much in the Carolinas. I was referring more to the inner South. They're every bit as racist as the Midwest.

Panther said:
What you are describing is certainly a myth because you defined it incorrectly. Of course most racists in OH, and everywhere else, will have no trouble saying they'll vote for McCain. It's not like it is a choice between President David Palmer (from "24") and David Duke - where a "Duke" response to a pollster would signal you as a racist. Here we're looking at a 50/50 race where a racist would have no problem "justifying" a McCain response - assuming he felt the need to try and justify it to hide his racism.

The real Bradley Effect has become much less of an issue in recent elections - however, the continued accusations of racism if you don't say you are voting for Obama have reached such ridiculous proportions from the left that it is almost certain that the Bradley Effect will be much more significant in this election.

We've seen the extremism in this thread, Bill Maher, etc. If you don't vote Obama, it is assumed you are a racist unless you can prove otherwise. Who wants to deal with that perception from some pollster.

I think the first paragraph here summed it up pretty well. Anyone can come up with an excuse to vote for McCain even if the real reason is racism, so there's less incentive to conceal their voting habits. Either that, or they aren't interested in concealing their voting habits anyway because they aren't ashamed of their racism. For example, my 86-year-old grandfather voted for a Democrat for governor for the first time in his life in 2006, because he "wasn't going to help elect a nigger." And if any pollsters had asked him, he would've told them exactly that.

The Bradley Effect did not seem to play out during the Democratic primaries. In a majority of states that had primaries, the actual results were similar to the final polls. Even in the ones that weren't, Obama benefited more often than not.
 
Last edited:
Why does the Midwest get written off as racist? We're certainly not San Fransico, but we're definitely not Alabama.
 
Well, it would only really matter in a few states. I don't think racism is a huge problem outside of the South and the Midwest. If Obama loses Nevada by a point or two, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But if Obama loses Ohio by a point or two, it will undoubtedly be racism that did him in.

There's definitely a lot of racism here in Ohio. I would guess that upwards of 25% of Ohio voters will not vote for a black man. However, probably only about 15% of them would even consider voting for a Democrat in the first place. It also seems likely that enthusiasm in the black community and Obama's overall strength may be enough to overcome these problems in Ohio.

Regardless, I think that most of the racists in Ohio will flat-out tell you that they're voting for McCain...and more than a few of them will flat-out tell you why. The so-called Bradley Effect - where racists are ashamed of their racism and tell pollsters they'll vote for the black candidate - is largely a myth IMO.

I think there are a lot of democrats in Ohio and Pa who will say they are voting for Obama but when they get in the ballot box they will vote for McCain and I know for a fact that the white middle class blue collar workers in those 2 battleground states whom Obama berated by calling the gun toting bible clutchers will be getting McCain's vote regardless of the party......
 
Back
Top Bottom