Bradley effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.^[1]^[2] Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Researchers have theorized that some white voters have felt a societal pressure not to declare their support for a white candidate in such a race, fearing that by doing so, they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced.^[3]

1 Origin
2 Other instances
3 Diminishing effect?
4 Notes

[edit] Origin

The original term Bradley effect derives its name from a 1982 campaign involving Tom Bradley, the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, California. Bradley, who was black, ran for Governor of California against George Deukmejian, who was white. The polls leading into the day of the election consistently showed Bradley with a lead.^[4] However, Bradley narrowly lost the race. Post-election research indicated that a smaller percentage of white voters actually voted for Bradley than that which had said they planned to vote for him, and that voters who had been classified as "undecided" had gone to Deukmejian in statistically anomalous numbers.^[2]

One month prior to the election, Bill Roberts, Deukmejian's campaign manager at that time, had predicted this behavior. He told reporters that he expected that Deukmejian could advance approximately five percentage points from what his poll numbers indicated, due to white voters giving inaccurate polling responses in order to conceal a racial prejudice. Roberts's comments were disavowed by Deukmejian, and the controversy that surrounded them ultimately led to Roberts's resignation.^[5]

Similar voter behavior was noted in the 1989 race for Governor of Virginia between black candidate L. Douglas Wilder and white candidate Marshall Coleman. In that race, Wilder prevailed, but only narrowly, despite pre-election poll numbers that showed him with a comfortable lead.^[6] Again, the discrepancy was traced to white voters who told pollsters that they intended to vote for Wilder, but ultimately did not. As a result of this race, some re-christened the "Bradley effect" as the "Wilder effect".^[7] Both terms are still used, each referring to the same dynamic.

[edit] Other instances

Other races which have been cited as possible demonstrations of the Bradley effect include the 1983 race for Mayor of Chicago, the 1988 Democratic primary race in Wisconsin for President of the United States, and the 1989 race for Mayor of New York City.^[8]^[9]

The 1983 race in Chicago featured black candidate Harold Washington running against white candidate Bernard Epton. More so than the California governor's race the year before,^[10] the Washington-Epton matchup evinced strong and overt racial overtones throughout the campaign.^[11]^[12] Two polls conducted approximately two weeks before the election showed Washington with a 14-point lead in the race. A third conducted just three days before the election confirmed Washington continuing to hold a lead of 14 points. But in the election's final results, Washington won by less than four points.^[8]

In the 1988 Democratic presidential primary in Wisconsin, pre-election polls pegged black candidate Jesse Jackson — at the time, a legitimate challenger to white candidate and frontrunner Michael Dukakis — as likely to receive approximately one-third of the white vote.^[13] Ultimately, however, Jackson carried only about one quarter of that vote, with the discrepancy in the heavily white state contributing to a large margin of victory for Dukakis over the second-place Jackson.^[14]

In the 1989 race for Mayor of New York, a poll conducted just over a week before the election showed black candidate David Dinkins holding an 18-point lead over white candidate Rudy Giuliani. Four days before the election, a new poll showed that lead to have shrunk, but still standing at 14 points. On the day of the election, Dinkins prevailed by only two points.^[8]

Inaccurate polling statistics attributed to the Bradley effect have not always been limited to pre-election polls. In the initial hours after voting concluded in the Bradley-Deukmejian race in 1982, similarly inaccurate exit polls led some news organizations to project Bradley to have won.^[15] Exit polls in the Wilder-Coleman race in 1989 also proved inaccurate in their projection of a 10-point win for Wilder, despite those same exit polls accurately predicting other statewide races.^[16]^[8] In 2006, a ballot measure in Michigan to end affirmative action generated exit poll numbers showing the race to be too close to call. Ultimately, the measure passed by a wide margin.^[17]

In 1995, when Colin Powell's name was floated as a possible 1996 presidential candidate, Powell reportedly spoke of being cautioned by publisher Earl G. Graves about the phenomenon described by the Bradley effect. With regard to opinion polls showing Powell leading a hypothetical race with then-incumbent Bill Clinton, Powell was quoted as saying, "Every time I see Earl Graves, he says, 'Look, man, don't let them hand you no crap. When [white voters] go in that booth, they ain't going to vote for you.'"^[18]

[edit] Diminishing effect?

In 2006, there was speculation that the Bradley effect might appear in the Tennessee race for United States Senator between black candidate Harold Ford, Jr. and white candidate Bob Corker.^[19]^[20]^[21] Ford lost by a slim margin, but an examination of exit polling data indicated that the percentage of white voters who voted for him closely tracked the percentage that indicated they would do so in polls conducted prior to the election.^[3] Several other 2006 biracial contests saw pre-election polls predict their respective elections' final results with similar accuracy.^[8]

One exception was in the race for United States Senator from Maryland, where black Republican candidate Michael Steele lost by a wider margin than predicted by late polls. However, those polls correctly predicted Steele's numbers, with the discrepancy in his margin of defeat resulting from their underestimating the numbers for his Democratic opponent. Those same polls also underestimated the Democratic candidate in the state's race for governor — a race in which both candidates were white.^[8]

The overall accuracy of the polling data from the 2006 elections has been cited by those who argue that the Bradley effect is diminishing in American politics.^[3]^[8] Nonetheless, as of 2007, the presidential campaign of Barack Obama was being watched to see if it will be subject to the Bradley effect.^[22]