Talk:Bradley effect

Could this effect actually be simple election fraud?

If all the polls said Bradley was ahead, and if all the exit polls said he was ahead, then wasn't this probably just simple election fraud, where the election was stolen from him, then blamed on the fact he was black?

That just seems like a more reasonable explanation.

05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the Bobby Jindal results part of the Bradley effect?

I really do not think his loss was because of this. It was a close race and the polling numbers showed a close race. People CLAIM that it was the Bradley effect, but i think we need some verification to prove that it was an example before including it in this article. DanielZimmerman 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding more to this, according to capitol watch, the polling data on November 4th, 2003 had a statistical tie...(Based on his nightly polling data, Kennedy projected the race would be 50.4 percent for Blanco and 49.6 percent for Jindal, which is a statistical tie. ) The election results where 52%-48%, which should be well within the margin of error. Because of this, I think I will need to "be bold" and remove the Jindal portion of this article which is plainly untrue. DanielZimmerman 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with hard data like that. You might want to hit the Bobby Jindal article up with that data as well. Mwelch 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Effect with gay politicians?

Going into the Dallas Mayor's race, Ed Oakley, an openly gay politician was headed into the race with a slight 1-2 point advantage and had been gaining in recent polls. However, when the election actually happened, straight candidate Tom Leppert won by approximately 15 points.

Interesting. What has the media in Dallas been saying with regard to reasons or theories as to the cause of the discrepancy? I just did a very quick article check and didn't see any articles that discussed that particular issue. I saw some that indeed ID'd the race as "too close to call" coming down to the wire. But none afterward that made note that the final margin was skewed from the polls' predictions. I don't have time to dig very deep right now, though, so there might well have been some such articles that I just missed. Mwelch 06:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked again a bit more carefully and interestingly enough, I still see no articles at all that even mention the fact that the final result was way off from the poll numbers, much less analyze possible reasons why that was the case. One that I did find, though, noted that its margin of error in its poll of likely voters (which showed Leppert up 47-45) was unusually high (almost six percent) because of low confidence in their determination of which voters were actually likely to turn out.

Since, at this point, it seems no reliable sources are raising the issue of whether something like the Bradley effect occurred, I don't think there is a basis right now to include it in the article. Mwelch 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Could there be a reverse Bradley effect?

Polls are saying that Senator Clinton is more popular among black voters than Senator Obama. I guess we will have to wait and see. Steve Dufour 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The most recent polls indicate a change in that trend. A Washington Post poll of black Democratic voters showed Obama 44 - Clinton 33. In january that stood at Clinton 60 - Obama 20. No one knows why that is but it's widely believed to be just because of increased name recognition due to his announcement. [1] Mykll42 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people had to wait a while to give themselves permission to like him. Steve Dufour 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So far I have heard that Senator Obama is falling behind Senator Clinton in the polls of black voters. I have a feeling that some people are answering that they like Hillary because they want to seem serious, thoughtful, fair-minded, and so forth. But when they get alone in the voting booth the chance to vote for the first black president might seem more important. Steve Dufour 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Obama's slightly different in that, while black, he is not African-American i.e. the descendant of slaves. He has a different background and a different history, and therefore blacks won't automatically support him, especially when up against the historic popularity of the Clintons. In this primary blacks will be a real wild card and, for once, their support cannot be taken for granted. 193.129.64.154 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there used to be discussion of a "reverse Bradley Effect" in this article but it seems to have disappeared." All that remains is an (incorrect) reverence to the Dinkins/Guliani race for New York Mayor in 1989 (Dinkins won so that would be a "reverse Bradley"). Actually, I find it a bit "interesting" how this article has changed over the past month. Seems to have gotten rid of the "Reverse Bradley" and looks to have a bit of an Obama Campaign POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there was never any reverse Bradley info in the article prior to today. There wasn't any in reliable sources to cite (to my knowledge, any way). I found something citable recently, so I've now put it in. Secondly, the information about the '89 Dinkins/Giuliani race is accurate. It isn't about who wins; it's about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polls. The polls said Dinkins would beat Giuliani handily, but it wound up being a squeaker. That's clearly not reverse. Mwelch (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo search for "reverse Bradley effect". 2,780 hits, mostly seem to be from the last couple of months. Borock (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MI Affirmative Action vote note

Polls for amendments and referenda are notoriously flaky for most topics. --RobbieFal 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS that indicates that? It would be important to note, if so. Without that, though, I would a bit hesitant to just remove that part, given that the Detroit Free Press article that talked about it wasn't just mentioning tangentially, but rather was specifically referring to it as an example of the Bradley effect. When I get a chance, I'll also look myself to see if I can dig up something that talks about referenda polling being notorious for being inaccurate. Mwelch 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about specific reliable sources. But, I know that SurveyUSA recieved different results depending on the wording of questions on propositions in 2005 with the California propositions. So, I guess the jury is probably out on this in general. --RobbieFal 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I've heard about that phenomenon in general, but I believe you're referring to pre-election polls in which the questioner explains to the respondent what the referendum says. Those results indeed can be very much swayed by how the questioner explains the referendum. The case mentioned in the article, though, is specifically an exit poll taken after the voters had left the booth. So I wouldn't expect the wording issue doesn't come into play there. In that case, one is not asking the voter for an opinion based on how one explained something to them. One is literally just asking, "Which way did you just vote on Measure X? Yes or No?" Mwelch 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe 100% that the Bradley effect is real. I would like to make a comment: I have been polled 3 or 4 times and each time I could tell which answers were making the poll-taker happy. This might be part of the reason for the effect. Steve Dufour 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we include examples where people claim the bradley effect when such a claim is false?

One example is the section about Bobby Jindal. Above we discussed the fact that even though some people claimed that Jindal's 2003 loss was an example of the Bradley Effect, that the actual data shows a statistical tie going into the election and such claims would not be valid. I would argue that it is unencyclopedic to reference things that people claim are examples of the Bradley effect and then point out how they are wrong. I would "be bold" and delete it. However, I wanted to get some opinions first. DanielZimmerman 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that since it's subjective, by nature, whether the Bradley effect is the cause in any given election, that it would be difficult to set a valid standard for what constitutes proof the claim is false. I'd argue the prominence of the argument would be a better standard for inclusion. Then include any counter-argument and let the reader decide for themselves based on that data. That's what I tried to do in the Jindal section. Barnes is a very prominent political commentator, not just some Joe Blow with a blog, so that's why I felt it merited inclusion.

If you go with a standard of "don't include it if those, who said it were wrong" where do you draw the line in determining that they were wrong? I'll admit that in Barnes's case, maybe it would be pretty tough to argue against the counter evidence. But what about Gantt and Bruan in the 90's? Does the counter-evidence in those cases mean that those who talk of the effect in those cases are definitely wrong, and thus they should be deleted? Seems like kind of a gray area to me. Mwelch (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Prop 15 Effect

In the 1982 election between Deukmajian and Bradley, Proposition 15, a gun control law, was on the same ballot. This brought out a lot of conservative voters who were not big supporters of Deukmajian, but as long as they were in the voting booth they voted for him. I'm not saying there wasn't also a racial element, but this article is incomplete if it leaves that out.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You could write an article on the "Prop 15 Effect" and then link it to this one with a "see other". Steve Dufour (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could mention it as a possible alternative explanation.193.129.64.154 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I didn't go into details of every possible explanation for that one specific race, but I have now added a statement mentioning that there were alternate explanations offered in the Bradley/Deukmejian race. The specific explanations (including the gun control iniative) are found in the source that I provided for the statement. Mwelch (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on quality of writing

During a 2007 peer review for this article, Mwelch asked for comments on the quality of the writing. An outside opinion was voiced earlier this week, when the article's first paragraph was quoted in full by Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Monthly (see [2]). Well done, and thanks. Novickas (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism

It was pointed out to me by a causal reader of Wikipedia that including pictures of only the black candidates and not their white opponents in this article is vaguely racist. Please consider modifying the image selection. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how it is racist, rather than just throwing these claims around willy-nilly? Plasticup ^T/C 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Information removed

I removed the following as "other instances mentioned" because no detail whatsoever was provided, nor does the article on Brown himself provide any detail about polling versus actual results:

former Houston Police chief Lee P. Brown (first African American police chief in the City of Houston appointed by Mayor Kathy Whitmire) ran successfully in late 1997.

I welcome this information being added back to the article once more (relevant) details, including their source, are also added to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another possible example: Giuliani Dinkins 1993

Pollster Frank Luntz said something interesting that could be added to the article, but I failed to verify it but perhaps another editor can nail down a source. Luntz reported that the first David Dinkins - Rudy Giuliani matchup in 1989 New York City mayoralty elections Dinkins had a 10 point lead in the pre-election polls but actually only won by a narrow margin -- 48.3% to 45.8%. That's in the article. He added that in second election in 1993 where Giuliani won 49.2% to 46.4% -- the exit polls indicated that Dinkins won -- concluding that voters had lied to the exit polltakers. That's not in the article. patsw (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does the "Bradley/Wilder Effect" refer to the discrepancy between polls and votes or does it refer to the explanation of this discrepancy via voter's misrepresenting themselves to pollsters? This is a huge difference but the article vacillates between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.49.170 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs fixing

"As long as this kind of abuse is prevalent the Bradley effect will continue. " (from about the first paragraph) I didn't read to see if anyone else has complained about this, but I don't think an encyclopedia is a place to make prophecies about the future. (Maybe God will tire of our bickering and smite all the white people, that would solve it--we just don't know.) Let's stick to what is known about the past and present, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.143.3 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

civil rights activists

I deleted a couple of statements from the article to the effect that the Bradley effect only applied to civil rights activists. They were poorly written, unsourced, and unencyclopedic in tone. I also didn't think they made much sense. Bradley himself wasn't a civil rights activist, he was a cop.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Parts of the article have been copied from http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/the_bradley_eff.html (see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_effect&diff=prev&oldid=242589874) . -- Mvuijlst (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, blockquoted the text. Mvuijlst (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bradley effect does not exist?

In this article http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html V. Lance Tarrance, general election pollster and a member of the strategy team of George Deukmejian make a good case that the bradley effect does not exist at all but is just a case of selective use of polls

How should this be incorporated in the article should I make a section called criticism of the Bradley effect? some quotes of the article

"[..]the daily Tarrance and Associates tracking polls for the Deukmejian campaign showed the following weekly summations (N=1000 each) during the month of October:

Week of: Oct.7th Oct. 14th Oct. 21st Oct. 28 Nov. 1

Bradley 49 45 46 45 45

Deukmejian 37 41 41 42 44"

"Bradley's win was projected by the most prominent public pollster in the state, Mervin Field [..]his last weekend polling showed a 7-point margin for Bradley, but this was totally at variance from the Tarrance and Associates internal tracking results. Field's own exit polls, on Election Day itself,[...] also predicted a Bradley win. This caused the San Fransisco Chronicle[...] to print 170,000 copies of its early morning Wednesday edition under the headline “Bradley Win Projected.” Also at variance with the Mervin Field exit polls were the NBC and the CBS networks, [...]when they declared George Deukmejian the winner [...]"

"Even later analysis of the 1982 election revealed the weakness in the Bradley Effect theory as Bradley actually won on election day turnout, but lost the absentee vote so badly that Deukmejian pulled ahead to win. That Bradley won the vote on Election Day would hardly seem to suggest a hidden or last minute anti-black backlash—on the contrary, it suggests how easy it would have been for weekend polls and Election Day exit polls to get it wrong, since the decisive group of voters had largely already voted before the final weekend and never showed up at the polls to answer the questions of exit pollsters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JantjePietje (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I’d also seen the article, so I’ve incorporated it – feel free to change or add further as you see fit.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The things you added to the Origin had already been added (in summary) form in the Causes section. It really shouldn't be in there twice, so I've restored the old version of the Origin section. That way, that section simply indicates the origin, without getting into the theory's validity or invalidity. The Tarrance article's information goes into the Causes section, which was already discussing the issue of valid vs. invalid. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Citation for Exit Poll Section

I think this article should be added to the section on exit polls being wrong. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2749175

When reading this article I thought a pre-election poll can be wrong if people change their mind at the last minute, which is their prerogative, but an exit poll can only be wrong if people lie. The exit poll being inaccurate for black candidates and not white candidates proves this article not the pre-election polls. NatronWiki (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)