RACE AND POLLING: DECONSTRUCTING THE "BRADLEY" EFFECT

truer colors behind closed curtains?
One of the things that has really surprised me is that talking to my university colleagues -professors trained in sociology, political science, psychology, etc. - is how many of them, despite whatever data is out there, seem to think that latent, closet racism will ultimately swing the election for McCain.

It seems that paranoia - however well-founded - trumps the empirical. And sure, race is part of this election no matter how many people (cough cough, Obama) avoid talking about it but there's abundant evidence and analysis to suggest that the assumed racial bias that will only show up on Nov. 4 is unfounded.

Today, the NY Times tackles this issue, debunking the idea that there may be an Bradley Effect waiting to spring on Obama.

Some highlights:

"Among the non-Bradley factors at the intersection of race and polling is something called the reverse Bradley (perhaps more prevalent than the Bradley), in which polls understate support for a black candidate, particularly in regions where it is socially acceptable to express distrust of blacks."

"Research shows that those who refuse to participate in surveys tend to be less likely to vote for a black candidate... Pollsters had a harder time reaching voters with lower levels of education. Less-educated whites are the kind Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over. Conversely, young people are more likely to answer surveys, and they tend to favor Mr. Obama."

"The Bradley gap seems to be disappearing. In this year’s Democratic primaries, University of Washington researchers found a Bradley effect in three states, but a reverse Bradley effect in 12 (in the other 17, polls were within a seven-point margin of error)."

"The Bradley effect, Mr. Greenwald concluded, “has conceptually mutated.” “It’s not something that’s an absolute that we should generally expect, but something that will vary with the cultural context and the desirability of expressing pro-black attitudes.”

All of which is to say: the paranoia is neither justified nor unjustified but it's nowhere near as simple as saying, "a bunch of politically correct White liberals say they're pro-Obama but won't be in November" (which is how the Bradley Effect boils down).

Instead, the point here is that how race plays out can go in many different directions, some which result in a net gain, some in a net loss. It's impossible to fully decipher polling data to know what's what since there's no way to empirically verify that individuals actually vote the way they say they're going to vote.

More important, I think one of the central things to remember is this:

My own feeling is that people are largely being honest about which way they're going to vote and I've yet to see how, by way of empirical data, to suggest otherwise. That's not to say there aren't those who are publicly saying one thing yet voting another; I'm just not remotely convinced those folks represent a sizable demographic. To put it another way: there's plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with race and I think most Americans have no qualms about being upfront with their political choices.

I mean, hell, that's a badge of honor these days, like the jackass wearing a "No-bama"" t-shirt (with the Islamic crescent moon next to the slogan, no less) at the Brentwood Farmer's Market the other day.

The other half of the article is equally interesting: trying to weigh how much Obama may be benefitting in poll numbers by people willing to be polled to begin with.

Again, we'll sort all this out in about 20 days. And then can argue over the results for the next 20 years...

--O.W.