Are 2008 polls off because white folks lie?

The folks over at Politico have an interesting piece this morning reminding us of California political history as they try to figure out why political polling in this cycle has been so off. One answer is something the pros refer to it as the "Bradley effect," the phenomenon of white poll respondents telling pollsters they'll vote for a black candidate -- but not doing so once they get into the privacy of the polling booth. Some think that was behind the gap between polls and results in former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley's loss in the 1982 governor's race (and thus the name of the phenomenon).

Pollsters are trying to sort some of this out during their annual convention in New Orleans this week -- three out of five said they wouldn't get an answer (sorry, couldn't resist). And a study is underway to try to figure out what's gone wrong, looking at such arcana as whether pollsters' samples are not reflective.

Our guess?  People have been genuinely undecided, and small events pushed them one way or the other. New Hampshire was the first notable poll flop, and a close look at the numbers could hold a key to the explanation.

All the polls showed Barack Obama with a healthy margin, but Hillary Clinton won by a 2.6% margin. But dig into the polls. The Suffolk/WGBH poll, for instance, found Obama leading but with 8% undecided; 6% of those who had decided were "very likely" to change their minds, and another 18% said they might change their minds. With that much volatility,  it's hard to measure the impact of even something so small as a tear.

By the time the Indiana primary rolled around -- polls there gave Clinton an aggregate 5-point lead; she won with a 1.4% margin -- the pollsters had largely stopped asking about the depth of voter commitment. Maybe they ought to add that question back in.

But then, 40% of you don't care (you have to love a poll about polls).

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[Jake]

As a white person I've gotta tell you that when it comes to something like this, yes white folks lie. Racism has become an internal conflict that can't be made available to the masses. Even the slightest accusation of racism prompts a "I have black friends" response. That's one nice thing about belonging to a minority group. You are more free to express yourself as it relates to race. Oh wait, that sounds racist. I'm not actually racist. I can't be, I have black friends.

[CJ]

I think other factors are at work as well--take cell phones. I don't have a landline, I only use my cell, and none of my friends have landline's either. I always vote, but I've never gotten a call from a pollster.

[BJ]

Absolutely!

If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama... they're proud of his candidacy.

If 90% of whites vote for either Clinton or McCain, it is labeled "racism".

[JimF]

This is an old story that was looked at and dismissed early in the campaign. CNN did a piece on this and discovered that people who said they would vote for Obama in N.H. actually did -- thus no "Bradley effect". Clinton won a majority of late deciders, a large percentage of which were white women.

[of course it's about race]

Did anybody really think this wasn't going to be about race or gender? We have to have a black. Is it black? Get confused. When you're half black, half white...why are you black? Have whites become so offensive that Obama doesn't want to own up to being half white? Okay, I can understand that. But he lacked big time judgement and lost my white vote when he hang with the wrong pastor. Spewing hate for black or whites doesn't make anyone a good candidate. Sorry Obama, should have broke your ties sooner.

I don't care if the Pres is black or white, male, female or donkey. They sure as heck better be able to manage international terror threats and a decent economy.

[Roy]

Sometimes the opposite happens. In the Massachusetts governor's race in '06, Deval Patrick (black) was ahead 15-18 points in the polls but beat the Republican Kerry Healey (white) by 21 points. Explain that.

The Bradley effect is a myth, if you ask me.

[Harry Grace]

As Joe Klein said on CNN: "22% of W. Va voters said race was an issue, which means the truth is 44% of them thought race was an issue". Bigotry/racism is in the closet, except, apparently, in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Penn, and, of course, W. Va. Even in enlightened California, I've been subjected to racial slurs. If you think the Republicans aren't going to play the race card, you're crazy. The goal this year among all bigots and their ilk is to make sure the White House stays white.

[Let's be Real]

When 90% of Black voters support Al Gore (or Bill Clinton or DUKAKIS) they're the base. When 90% of Black voters support Barack Obama, they're racists.
Interesting how we're never just individuals, many of whom have relatives in this war, some of whom are not eager to see even more man and womanpower sent to Iran, some of whom are without healthcare, or are just tired of being demagogued AND taken for granted within our own party. No, never that.

[Sean]

Also consider that Obama is the better candidate, but some would inject race into the issue as a distraction. Consider also that Obama does't reject his white heritage, which would amount to rejecting half of his family; he identifies as black because he looks black and that is a choice society imposes on a person based on (the artificial construct of) race.

[Jake]

BJ I must be in the 10% of white people who voted Obama. I think your stats are a little off. I feel like Obama has broad appeal. My statement was simply regarding what whites are willing to comment on.

[Brian]

First of all, even if race is the only factor in their decision 90% of blacks voting for a black candidate is not equivalent to 90% of whites voting for a white candidate. Blacks voting for a minority candidate inherently empowers a disenfranchised (is there an argument here by racists or non-racists?) community, which is wholly counter to whites voting for a white candidate who represents the winners of a long established racial power structure. Even if their act is self-interested doesn't make it a bad one, in fact, having a leader that represents the underrepresented is good for everyone in that it injects considerations of justice into a system that cannot always see them. The same case can be made for voting for a woman, who arguably would diversify the perspectives of those in power, because she is a woman.

Also, I imagine the matter of Barack Obama's racial identity is a tricky one. Most people, multiracial and mono-racial alike, do not have the liberty of defining their racial identity for others. As I understand it, Obama considers himself multiracial and has sought to change the parameters of the conversation accordingly. However, the treatment he receives from others - the media, the voters - has reduced this conversation to black and white, and it seems like regardless of how he carries himself most see him as black. For the most part this isn't even racism, it's just a matter of not having the language to engage in a respectful conversation on race in any meaningful way. This is the most formidable barrier to a "post-racial" era.

[Newz]

Late deciders have a huge affect that news snippets usually leave out of poll data.

Polls will largely be wrong until pollsters and the media find better ways to gauge turnout. Women and older voters have the highest turnout rates. It can be suggested that that's why Hillary does so well.

The real question pollsters need to ask is how many African Americans voters are turning out now, compared to the past. That's probably what is skewing the poll data.

African American turnout has been tremendous and will continue to be so as long as Republican competitors unwittingly them why they should be voting for Barack Obama.

Pollsters be prepared: red states will turn blue just because of African American participation.

Republicans: keep running those anti-Obama adds. Turnout will be solid.

[Jon]

Yes, we are lying. Why? Because Obama and his clan of supporters are playing the race card trying to scare and guilt votes out of us. We do not appreciate this treatment, and will vote for ANYONE but Obama because of it. Obama is a fraud and cannot be a half-adequate president.

[farnk]

Clinton: a big win in KY
Oregon: a near win
And what does that mean, well, it means Fla and Mich will be the deciding factor. Its the only way, and therefore, it is a Clinton candidacy, she will be the majority winner in both and Obama knows it. Surprise!

[JS]

@of course it's about race:

I would suggest that you learn your history. The 'one-drop rule' was not something invented by black people. This was invented ages ago by whites claiming they wanted to maintain 'racial purity'. So anyone with 'one drop' of black blood has long been considered 'black'. Try google next time to save yourself the cramp from cramming your foot in your mouth.

[William Joseph Miller]

Here we go again. Barack Obama is not "electable" because white folk don't want N-double-g running the country. That's what it boils down to. That's the message Hillary is sending. That will defiinitely be the message the GOP will resort to - sheer pandering to racial hatred.
I'm an aging white guy.(I own up to being a senior citizen only because I can get a cheap bus pass.) I will vote for Obama because he speaks for me. I want change. I am sick and tired of a country run by bigoted psychopaths. Skin color is only skin deep. As an old country western gospel song once asked. :" White or yellow, black or tan, What is the color of the soul of man?" That's what decent people of all races should be asking themselves right now
As a country, we cannot expect other people in other places, like Israel and Palestine to put aside their hatreds if we do not put aside our. Let's not kid ourselves. The whole world is watching this election. Obama has inspired young people not only in this country, but throughout the world. And let's not kid ourselves either, the small town white folk of the exurbs or the south do not in any way, shape, or form represent the vast majority of the rest of the world. If we determine this election because of hate, ignorance, fear and smear - we have permanently forfeited our right to lead the world. And we must be willing to suffer the consequences.

[Linda Ortega]

Does William Joseph Miller, whose comment here moved me to comment here also, not recognize that Obama is simply not qualified in any way shape or form to be president of the USA? Kenya? Yes. America? No, This is the issue! This "issue" of skin color is a cop out, it is WHO Obama is... a man who does not salute the flag, under which millions have died in US wars to protect our freedoms, was a member in good standing of a church which teaches Black Liberation Theology, is a close friend of terrorists and felons, respects Louis Farrakan a Muslim AND racist, is well known for slick political tricks to eliminate all who oppose him, is loved by Muslims who want Americans dead, preferably by beheading us, is committed to same sex "marriages" so as to weaken even more the home which we need intact to produce healthy and productive adults who will lead the country after we are gone. Obama also will weaken our defense program, (Go read his plans for the military) will casually, while smiling, decimate the already overburdened tax system,..and the negative list goes on.
Obama has a naive view of the problems confronting our nation and the world. He has displayed this in every way imaginable. One example was when he promised to meet with leaders, the same leaders who want us dead by cutting off our infidel heads, if we don't submit to Allah. So, does Obama think that it is before or after we all submit to Allah that he can make us and the terrorists all "just get along."?
Away with your skin color defense, the man is not good for America or the world, not now, not ever.
McCain is qualified simply because he is a former Navy pilot and POW and though the Senator broke after five years of torture, still he knows what the soldiers are going through and more. We need a strong military especially with the threat of being attacked a real possibility. We need a man in there who truly sees the war as serious and not as just something he will addrress along with the other issues.
We need a brave man in the White House and experienced. McCain's age is not against him, since age isn't an issue until you're into your eighties.
I left the democratic party after Obama was nominted because I will not be a party to destroying our children's world.
In a word, Obama is dangerous. Would you really give a million dollars to a five year old?
Skin color? Yeah right.