Does Race Skew Polling?

CBS News' Kathy Frankovic Examines The Possibility That The "Bradley Effect" Is Skewing The Polls In The Presidential Race

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic.

---

In every election, people make claims about polls - what they mean, what their weaknesses might be this time around, what the poll consumer needs to be aware of. But not all of those claims are true, including some that figure in many current political discussions. Some claims about possible polling errors even contradict each other!

Consider the belief that polls are understating Barack Obama by about two percentage points, because they are missing all those young voters who are only reachable on cell phones. I will have to deal with that in a separate column; suffice it to say here that many polls, including the CBS News Poll, do call both land-lines and cell-phones. But a competing claim is that polls overstate support for Obama, because Americans are more likely to say that they will vote for an African-American than to actually do it - and, oh yes, some even say that this means that Obama is overestimated by two points or so.

So there are either too few or too many Obama voters. Of course, if both of these statements are true, then the polls -- like Goldilocks - will be just right!

There is a lot we don’t know about that second claim. But some recent articles are worth looking at for answers. A good review of the question about possible lying to pollsters, especially racially-motivated lying to pollsters, is Ellen Gamerman’s Wall Street Journal report. But many people talk about the “Bradley effect.” Tom Bradley was the Mayor of Los Angeles from 1973 to 1993. He was only the second elected black Mayor of a large U.S. city (Cleveland elected Carl Stokes in 1967). In 1982, Bradley ran for Governor of California. Polls before the election suggested he would win; but Republican George Deukmejian beat him in the election.

Thus was born the “Bradley effect.” There were other examples in the 1980’s too. In 1989 David Dinkins appeared to be coasting to victory in the New York City Mayoral race, but just squeaked by Rudy Giuliani; and four years later Dinkins would lose their rematch. Doug Wilder won his race for the Virginia Governorship that year by a much smaller margin than pollsters predicted.

Discussion of the “Bradley effect” fell by the wayside until Andy Kohut helped to revive it in a much-read New York Times op-ed piece that first appeared on line just after this year’s New Hampshire primary. And now, of course, everyone talks or writes about it, including columnists as politically diverse as Paul Kurgman and Robert Novak.

It’s important to separate racial voting (voting for or against someone because of their race) from the “Bradley effect,” which involves misrepresenting what you intend to do when asked by a pollster. There will be some people motivated by race this fall, but if they report their intended vote accurately, then they aren’t creating a “Bradley effect.”

The “Bradley effect” of misrepresenting one’s vote in polls seems to belong to a particular time and place - to urban America in the 1980’s. And there is good reason to think that times have changed.

Daniel J. Hopkins, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard posted a paper last month that examined 133 state wide elections from 1989 through 2006. He looked at whether what he calls the “Wilder effect” existed for black candidates and for female candidates. Here’s a sentence from his conclusion: “In the early 1990s, there was a pronounced gap between polling and [election] performance for black candidates of about 2.3 percentage points.” He goes on: “But in the mid-1990s, that upward bias in telephone surveys disappeared.” And he gives a good reason for the change: “As racialized rhetoric about welfare and crime receded from national prominence in the mid-1990s, so did the gap between polling and performance.” In addition, he notes that some of those poll-election differences in the early 1990’s might have been due to the fact that some African-Americans were frontrunners in the polls, and frontrunners sometimes do less well on election day than in the pre-election polls (that’s the “underdog effect,” also a topic for another day).

Hopkins explains it this way: When the critical issues facing Americans have a racial component, there could be an impact on people’s beliefs about African-American candidates and what they are willing to say about them. When political rhetoric changes, and the focus shifts away from race, that changes the way race impacts how we answer polling questions.

If crime and welfare are important concerns, as they were in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and if people create an image of who is more likely to commit crimes and be on welfare, topics like these and others can become racially sensitive. When polls have asked whether numerically there are more blacks or more whites on welfare, people tend to say there are more blacks - something that just isn’t true! And of course it was fear of black crime - justified or not - that created racial profiling.

Crime and welfare are hardly mentioned now in surveys asking Americans to name the country’s most important problem. Economic issues predominate. And race does not have as much to do with that discussion. So operationally, we might see a change in polling, too. Under what circumstances would people feel uncomfortable telling an interviewer they are NOT going to vote for an African-American? Only when they think that the person they are speaking to might object to what they have to say, or they believe their interviewer supports a particular candidate, or if they think their answer might offend the person they are talking to. Respondents do make up an image of the person they are speaking to. It’s one reason why pollsters train interviewers to ask questions as written and not to give any indication of their own point of view. And why interviewers are monitored to make sure that they actually do this.

Hopkins’ paper reminds us that times change in polling - change isn’t just how poll numbers are different at different times, or how sometimes one candidate pulls ahead of the other, and then falls behind. There can be change in the way people answer questions too. While some would argue that the nature of the race has changed - we’ve never had an African-American leading a major party’s presidential ticket before, so perhaps the evidence from statewide races is irrelevant -- the evidence we do have so far seems clear: the “Bradley effect” could very well be a thing of the past.

[publius77]

When the race is tight, count on the Democrats to trot out the old standards: Social Security, abortion and race.

[usapride70]

WEST PALM BEACH, FL - As the Republican National Convention finally got underway, John McCain got some unexpected praise from a colleague nearly 2,000 miles from St. Paul.

"He is my good friend," Joe Biden told a large crowd here tonight. "I get in trouble for saying this with some real strong Obama supporters. ... [But] if John McCain picked up the phone today and said, ''Joe, I need you to get in a plane and fly out to Missoula, I can''t tell you why,'' I''d get in a plane and I''d go."

Later, when asked about an effort by Republicans to portray their ticket as one of ethics and reform, Biden called McCain "a thoroughly ethical guy."

[usapride70]

It features moderator George Stephanopolous saying to Sen. Biden:

You were asked if he [Obama] was ready. You said, %u201CI think he can be ready but right now I don%u2019t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.%u201D

Cut to Biden who says:

I think that I stand by that statement.


The headless announcer steps in to ask, %u201CAnd what does he [Biden] say of John McCain?%u201D

Cut to a clip from Jon Stewart%u2019s %u201CThe Daily Show%u201D back in 2005 where Biden said:

I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because I think the country would be better off.

[usapride70]

billarynfl,
are you saying that obama being in the white house would give ayer the power to bomb us. Are you saying that he would do that or are you scared he might. First off, you and I both know thats unlikely to happen because he has to have good reason to access the weapons. Just because he is president does not mean he can say here you can have this and use it. He has to go to congress to get permission. He still has an order in which he does things.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by dj292009 at 10:33 PM : Sep 21, 2008

But yet Dems are trying to say that if McCain is voted into office he will reverse Roe vs Wade immediately. How is that so? He does not have that power. And also Bush is getting blamed for every single thing that has gone wrong in this country. How is that so? Congress has to approve almost everything. Can''t go to war without congresses approval. The president can''t just snap his fingers and make abortion illegal, no matter his beliefs.

[billarynfl]

billarynfl,
are you saying that obama being in the white house would give ayer the power to bomb us. Are you saying that he would do that or are you scared he might. First off, you and I both know thats unlikely to happen because he has to have good reason to access the weapons. Just because he is president does not mean he can say here you can have this and use it. He has to go to congress to get permission. He still has an order in which he does things.

Posted by dj292009

I''m not saying he would or he wouldn''t. I was saying it''s something to be concerned about. He has made questionable decisions in his past. No other politician has ever been friends with a terrorist. This is beyond comprehension how anyone would even consider voting for him knowing who his friends are, how he''s made financial gain with convicted felons, the racist views by his pastor that he listened to for 20 YEARS and then tries to imply he didn''t know the mans beliefs. Nobody really believes that, and it is further proof he can''t tell the truth. Too many serious issues involving him, too many. If a republican had done just one of those things the liberal media would have persecuted them until they were no longer in the race.

[dj292009]

billarynfl,
are you saying that obama being in the white house would give ayer the power to bomb us. Are you saying that he would do that or are you scared he might. First off, you and I both know thats unlikely to happen because he has to have good reason to access the weapons. Just because he is president does not mean he can say here you can have this and use it. He has to go to congress to get permission. He still has an order in which he does things.

[billarynfl]

In my case, I''''m voting for the policies of the Democratic candidate because I believe he has the best position on just about every issue.

Posted by indevoter

That sounds good but you must not be taking their character and past actions into account, that''s a serious issue. That is very important, ones character will determine how they lead, and what decisions they will make under given circumstances. You have to take into consideration that obama has a long history of associating with people that are enemies of our country. That alone is enough to disqualify him from the top office. Being President gives him access to some of the most important secrets to the defense of our nation. Being as he has had terrorists that have bombed US Government buildings and to this day says that the only regret is that they didn''t do more damage or kill more Americans. In my opinion it would be kin to being a traitor to vote in someone that has had that kind of relationship with those terrorists. Then there''s 20 YEARS with a racist pastor, and he says he was his mentor, and that he was his mentor, yet he wants you to believe that in 20 YEARS he never knew his pastor was a racist and preached about having a black America, that is serious question of character in itself. The list goes on, but there isn''t enough room to put it all here.

[billarynfl]

With stuff like this going on do we really care about the pigmentation of ones skin?

Posted by indevoter

They shouldn''t, but people do, on both sides of the fence. For anyone to vote for obama because he is black, or vote against him because he is black or to vote against McCain because he is white, or against Palin because she is a woman is morally corrupt. You should base your vote on who is the most qualified to fill the position. You have to look deeper than what they claim they can do, look at who they are, where they have been in their lives, their background tells a lot about a person, what kind of friends they have, who they did business with, it all plays a part. It''s not cherry picking, you have to consider the whole package, their life long total of experiences and deeds. Then vote your consience, because your country, friends, and most importantly, your family may suffer from a weak decision trying to be politically correct. It''s better to be factually, morally and honestly correct.

[billarynfl]

There is no need to bail out the super rich with taxpayer money. Risk...They took the risk for greed and lost

Posted by indevoter

That would apply if not for the fact that it was the democratic led congress that forced those institutions to give loans to risky people that could not pay the money back. It was an attempt to buy votes from the poor people once again by the libs.

[billarynfl]

ARE YOU STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR McCAIN/PALIN???

Posted by im4honesty

One might turn the question around to the question is, are you ignorant enough to vote for oabama. You see there are two sides to every question, not in the libs world, but in the honest world.

[clay_nc]

see Obama saying here what he will do to our military in a time of war .... very scary !!!
www.calebgrace.com

McCain / Palin ''''08

[im4honesty]

ARE YOU STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR McCAIN/PALIN???

[relee42]

Ask the average American, what Pushkin and Obama have in common and they would ask, who''s Pushkin? The most dangerous problem in the American electorate is that we have the lowest average level of education in the industrialized world.

[usapride70]

But yet we are the ones who are called racists. What most black people don''t realize is that the Democrats are very racists but they keep it hidden in the fact that they keep the black people oppressed. I wish black people would open their eyes and see that the Democrats are the ones who are keeping them down in ghettos and HUD housing. Just where the Dems want them.

[billarynfl]

Problem is that you can''''t be black and a republican.. because if you are.. the DEM party will tear you down, threaten you, call you Uncle Tom.. Then the DEMS raise the price of education (more then gas) and keep them there... waiting for their uncle sam to give them a hud home

Posted by bgmusic

How do you think they''ve kept the black vote tied up in their corner for so many years. It''s the same thing as a pusher does when he gives away free samples to get people hooked on his dope. They keep anybody really that''s on the lower income range hooked to their free hand out, and then they say %u201Csee, you need us, we''re good, we give you what you want%u201D, but in the long run they only hurt them, they use them for their own personal gain. It''s good to see a lot of blacks are not falling for that anymore. If the dems really thought all races should be equal they wouldn''t think balcks are so incapable of free thought and make the mistake of thinking they won''t raise their families and protect them from the world the same as anyone else. I use to think that the good were outnumbered in America, too many libs and too few conservatives with morals. I think that will change when the blacks see the dems for what they really are and how they have used them for so many years to keep themselves in power, that they will start voting conservative. Then all the good people from all races actually will outnumber the bad on the dems side.

[billarynfl]

You know they are making this election like Star Trek the Federation against the "war monger Klingons"... well at least the Klingon''''s

Hope all those obama lawyers he sent to alaska that found nothing.. and eventually hacked into Sarah''''s email got her receipe for Moose stew.

Posted by bgmusic

That''s a couple of good points, they seem to try to make the same argument every election though, they try to act like they are the good side and the opposition no matter who they are, if they aren''t liberal, they shouldn''t be in government. The other point demonstrates how the libs are always above the law. If the republicans had been the ones to send a slew of lawyers in to dig up dirt like a group from the national enquirer, the media would have been all up in arms. They can break the law and hack into someones email accounts, people go to jail for that, but libs don''t. Them and the liberal biased media will make it out like it''s their moral right and duty to do whatever they have to do for the good of the country to keep non-liberals out of office. Sounds kind of like kgb stuff, lol, but they do it all day long and never get called on it.

[billarynfl]

an intelligent black man or a senile 72 year old.

Posted by dysmn

Who says obama is all that intelligent? Just the ones that want him in office and try to build up the false facade that the media and his handlers have tried to promote. He might have some book sense, but it takes more than that to be an intelligent individual. Look at the great hype about him being such a gifted orator. That proved to a far cry from the truth. He makes President bush look like a the best public speaker in the world, in which he isn''t, some people aren''t, no matter how much they know some people just don''t speak well in front of the camera. It turns out obama is totally lost without his prompter or notes, he stammers around like he has a speech impediment. What happened to all that talk about being so great at speaking. He can''t talk about a subject without having to think about what to say because he doesn''t want to trip himself up on a lie he told to another group of people the day before. So without his writers and score keepers getting together and formulating a speech with very careful wording that doesn''t conflict with what he said yesterday or last month, he trips all over himself. Why do you think he''s hidden from McCain and is afraid to debate him all these months. If McCain is far from senile little one, and he''s more than a match for obama when it comes to defending your beliefs like a man should. In that respect obama needs a lot of growing up to do.

[usapride70]

I want to know if Obama thinks it is okay for the black community to demand an apology from white American''s who had nothing to do with slavery? Does he think it is okay for black Americans to want me to dismiss my heritage but they can shove their heritage down my throat and my children''s throats with black history month? I can''t fly a flag of my heritage because it offends you? It is my heritage. If you can force black history month down our throats then we can fly a flag. I wonder if in your history teachings in the schools you happen to mention that black slaves were sold into slavery in America by their own people. If you want white American''s to stop being racist then maybe you should try not being racist yourself. Obama will not be fair and equal and if you think he will then you are only fooling yourself into thinking that. Just like you think we are crazy for supporting McCain, we think you are crazy for supporting Obama. Both have told their fair share of lies, they both have their beliefs. Sen. Biden is good friends with McCain. He said it himself. He believes McCain is an honorable man. They just have a difference in opinion.

[billarynfl]

I have many black friends and I voted for Keys when he was making his bid for the white house. Very intelligent man. Blacks hated him because he was a republican and he told them to wake up and stop blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings

Posted by usapride70




I agree with a lot of what you said, of course it''s not all black people, but too large a portion of their population that does. Keys seemed like an ok guy to me too. I didn''t get to hear enough from him in the long run, but when I did, he made sense, unlike most politicians today. People forget there where white slaves too, but they don''t want to hear about that, their too busy rewriting the history books by liberal publishers so they can indoctrinate our kids in scholl so they can perpetuate so many of these myths. I''m sorry, but the further away you get from an event in history, the less you will ever know about it than the people that were there and lived it. The liberals in the power to be don''t feel that way, they feel it''s more important to be politically correct than to be factually correct and honest.

[simon9999-2009]

Prediction-

After the end of Sarah Mooseburger''s first term:
Dow 3000
Unemployment 20%
Foreclosures 25%
Twenty more major banks fail.

She''s re-elected in a landslide because she''s pro-choice and cute.