Friday, November 07, 2008
Bradley effect, R.I.P.
The Associated Press reports that the infamous "Bradley effect," whereby white voters -- usually white Democrats -- tell pollsters they are going to vote for a black candidate and then pull the lever for the white in the privacy of the voting booth, is deader than a red-shirted expendable on the starship Enterprise. The Bradley effect (also known as the "Wilder" effect) may in fact have vanished by the mid-nineties -- this study purports to show that -- but we did not see that in the prints because it was very much in the interests of the Obama campaign and its supporters in the media to keep despair alive in the weeks before November 4. But look at the bright side: That particular basis for resentment and paranoia has now outlived its useful life.
8 Comments:
By 
Galen, at
Fri Nov 07, 08:10:00 AM:
Something else seems to have vanished, too - like maybe a few million votes?
Regardless of what the media says, I've never seen turn out like this in 40 years of voting. I waited in a line for over an hour and a half to vote. It was easily three times what it was in 2004 (where I waited in line for 20 minutes to vote), and there were 50% more voting machines available.
The fairly small increase in the number of votes over what the last elections turn out was just doesn't seem right.
Not that I'm advancing any sort of conspiracy theory here, I'm just saying...
By 
, at
Fri Nov 07, 08:40:00 AM:
I will echo what Galen said. I know it anecdotal but I waited in line for a hour to vote and everyone I know voted my mail. I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes.
As far as the Bradley effect goes, that makes about the 20th talking point that was pushed by the MSM that in now deader than a red shirt. If Republicans are ever going to win again they are going to have to get past the MSM's biased filter.
I wish I had a dollar for every person I ran into that told me that Ayers was "just some guy from Obama's neighborhood".
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 08:55:00 AM:
I generally only saw the Bradley Effect references used by McCain supporters who were attempting to make the case that he wasn't actually trailing in the polls by as much as they showed.
By MEANA55, at
Fri Nov 07, 09:05:00 AM:
Galen,
Seconded. I'm scratching my head over the totals, as well. In my precinct, the 2004/2008 presidential vote totals were 2,710/2,782, a 72-vote increase.
The line out the building was far longer than I have ever seen in sixteen years of being assigned to this precinct and polling place.
And, to make things even fishier, this year's ballot was pretty clean: President, Senator, Congressman, and a single local referendum for a parks bond. The 2004 ballot was loaded with: President, Congressman, two Constitutional Amendments, and four local referendums.
Not only that, but in addition to what I think was the same number of electronic voting machines as in 2004, people were taking advantage of voting on paper ballots.
So, despite what should have been a substantial increase in throughput, the queues were much longer for roughly the same number of people.
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
The only explanation I have is that the democrat voters rose before the crack of noon just this once to vote, and the polling place was empty for the rest of the day. Well, that should help prepare them for life in the CCC camps on our near horizon.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 09:24:00 AM:
TH - your inclination to see bias is leading you astray. I second Nobrainer. I don't see how believing in the Bradley effect helped the Obama campaign anymore than the McCain campaign (if you believed the polls, why bother to go out and vote for a lost cause?) I saw many commenters on this very site here pin their hopes on the Bradley effect, to fool themselves into believing that the rest of the country secretly agrees with them. Whereas the I saw plenty of lefty sites disupte it (fivethirtyeight.com in particular). You could argue that the media had an interest in making the race seem more competitive than it was for ratings/circulation reasons, but that's not a lefty/righty bias.
jk
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Nov 07, 09:38:00 AM:
I've heard a lot of anecdotes about long voting lines, but it seems we hear those stories every time. In Princeton, a hotbed of Obamamania, there was no line at my voting place. None. I walked in, got my ticket, and voted, all in less than three minutes. And I voted at 8 am, right after dropping my daughter off at school. One would think that would be a big voting time. So while there were probably some long lines in places that had not experienced them before (as I suspect there are in every election), there were also places where there were no lines.
As for the question about who pushed the Bradley effect, perhaps you guys are right. Living in my milieu, most of my conversations over the last few months have been with Obama supporters. If I had a dollar for every time one of them said that "only racism can beat Barack Obama" or words to that effect I'd be ahead this year even after the hit to the stock market.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 09:41:00 AM:
What would you call the "reverse" of the Bradley effect? That would be the folks who told pollsters that they were voting for McCain but then didn't vote or voted for Barr or, even, Obama.
McCain was never a great nominee, he was the lesser of two evils, but never a great choice. Look also at the Hillary supporters who may have told pollsters out of indignation that they would vote for McCain and then, couldn't do it.
I do believe there was a Bradley effect but that it was more tham countered by the "reverse" Bradley effect.
By , at
Sat Nov 08, 12:28:00 AM:
Now if we can get African Americans to look past the color of one's skin when casting a vote.
