Citing admittedly flawed Zogby poll, Novak claimed Obama result in CA "raises the specter of the ... 'Bradley effect' "
SUMMARY: Citing a "Zogby poll that showed a big Obama lead in California," Robert D. Novak asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's defeat in the California presidential primary "raises the specter of the dreaded 'Bradley effect.' " But in explaining why his poll showing Obama leading in California by 13 points did not match the actual results, John Zogby wrote: "It appears that we underestimated Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters. We also overestimated turnout among African-American voters."
In his February 11 column, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak claimed: "[T]he way [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] lost California raises the specter of the dreaded 'Bradley effect.' Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American Democrat, unexpectedly lost his 1982 campaign for governor. His defeat came as voters told pollsters that they preferred the black candidate and then voted the other way. In California's primary last Tuesday, Obama lost by 10 percentage points despite one late survey showing him ahead by 13 points and two others giving him a one-point lead." Novak added, "[D]isbelief that their voters harbor racial prejudices leads Democrats to reject speculation that those voters lied to pollsters in claiming to support Obama. The Zogby poll that showed a big Obama lead in California, and the Suffolk and Rasmussen surveys giving him a narrow edge, it is argued, were just plain wrong. It is also claimed that the state's final tally was skewed by an unexpectedly low African American turnout."
But John Zogby, president of Zogby International, did not invoke the "Bradley effect" to explain why his poll showing Obama leading Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) among likely Democratic primary voters in California by 13 points did not match the actual results. Rather, in a February 6 memo, Zogby wrote: "Some of you may have noticed our pre-election polling differed from the actual results. It appears that we underestimated Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters. We also overestimated turnout among African-American voters."
Additionally, while citing three polls in his column, Novak did not note that a SurveyUSA poll, conducted over the same period of time as the Zogby poll, February 3-4, correctly predicted that Clinton would win the California primary by 10 percentage points.
From Novak's February 11 column, "Obama's Bradley Effect?":
Which Democrat won Super Tuesday? Thanks to the Democratic Party's proportional representation, it is not easy to say a week later. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama ran to a virtual dead heat for the delegates at stake in 22 states that were clearly stacked in Obama's favor. But the way Obama lost California raises the specter of the dreaded "Bradley effect."
Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American Democrat, unexpectedly lost his 1982 campaign for governor. His defeat came as voters told pollsters that they preferred the black candidate and then voted the other way. In California's primary last Tuesday, Obama lost by a landslide 10 percentage points despite one late survey showing him ahead by 13 points and two others giving him a one-point lead.
Was this presumed 20-point reversal caused by the Bradley effect, which has worried Democratic leaders since Obama became an obstacle to Clinton's majestic procession to the Oval Office? It is much too early for that conclusion, but the subject is on the minds and is coming up in private comments of Democratic politicians pondering the stalemate for the party's presidential nomination.
[...]
The prospect of going into a convention with the nominee unknown for the first time since 1952 upsets Democratic insiders not merely because of the uncertainty. Splitting the party along ethnic and racial lines is troubling -- especially in California, where massive Latino support for Clinton canceled out Obama's base among blacks.
However, disbelief that their voters harbor racial prejudices leads Democrats to reject speculation that those voters lied to pollsters in claiming to support Obama. The Zogby poll that showed a big Obama lead in California, and the Suffolk and Rasmussen surveys giving him a narrow edge, it is argued, were just plain wrong. It is also claimed that the state's final tally was skewed by an unexpectedly low African American turnout.
But briefings on exit polls early Tuesday evening, the product of nonpartisan technicians, cautioned listeners not to be carried away by favorable Obama numbers around the country because his actual performance often is overstated by exit polls. (Indeed, contrary to early exit poll signals of an Obama upset in New Jersey, Clinton carried the state comfortably.) No explanation was given for this aberration, but many listeners presumed it was the Bradley effect.
Regardless of how often they are wrong, there is always a safety net for right wing pundits.
Right after the NH primary, Andrew Cline explained in the WaPo how there was no evidence of a Bradley effect in New Hampshire. For one thing, he noted that pollsters were very accurate in predicting the % Obama would receive (contrary to the Bradley effect hypothesis); what some pollsters failed to predict was how the undecideds would break for Clinton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802705.html
Not so fast Spooky. You can't just waive a magic wand and make it (Bradley effect) go away.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/73284/
How did the pollsters get it SO right for the R's but so wrong for the D's?
In a way, we're all a little like today's polls.
We tend to overestimate the value of pundits, what they say, and the importance of their opinions. That's why guys like Novak still have a job. If they worked for a firm as a plumber, and their record was as dismal as these pundit's record of accuracy and prediction has been, they would be summarily FIRED.
At the same time, we tend to UNDERestimate their determination to affect politics, to inject venom, to defy all logic and reason in order to promote their narrow partisan views.
So, like the polls, there's lots of OVERestimations and UNDERestimations going on in Media today. The difference is, POLLING companies CHARGE for their labors. We pay dearly for our inaccurate appraisals.
ARCHEA,
I not only will second that thought.... I will third and forth it!
This slimy flea ridden filth should have been rotting in prison over three years ago!
Of course, in the corporate run world we now live in, outing a CIA Under Cover Op doesn't seem to be as much of a crime than getting ones knob polished by a 23 year old intern.......
No, it seems that you are invited to the FOX Noise machine where being a lying sack of liquid crap gets you constant camera time!
It's all such a disgrace!
Far be it from me to actually agree with Novak, but if you expect that there will be NO Bradley effect whatsoever, then you are mistaken. First off, the Bradley effect appeared to be in play in NH. Yes Obama's numbers were the same as projected, and therefore technically "right", but does that mean that ALL undecideds went to Hillary? That is what the poll numbers seem to suggest.
And in California, the Zogby poll was far off the mark, but other polls also projected a much closer race than what we got there. Don't forget that Zogby has a history of backing down at the possibility of being discomforted by what his numbers show --- in 2004 he projected a Kerry victory (as most polls did), and was the first to apologize for the "flaws" in his poll, none of which were evident. He will excuse what his numbers show, rather than justifying what they show.
I think it is rather pie-in-the-sky to assume that the effect does not exist. And if you are seeing traces of it in the Democratic primaries, imagine what we'll see come fall. This country is less than a decade removed from the Jena 6, the racially motivated response to Hurricane Katrina, and the horrible murder in Jasper, TX. We're not even 20 years removed from Rodney King and O.J. Simpson. There still exists a lot of hatred toward the black community in certain segments of our society, and there also exists a lot of guilt about political correctness. These are very real things to consider come November. I am disappointed that people are afraid to address this issue, so that we can better confront it and learn from it.
I agree Isit, it's perfectly feasible that folks will tell a pollster one thing [They don't want to appear to be a racist so they say they are voting for the African-American candidate] and then do just the opposite in the privacy of a voting booth.
It's nice to think this doesn't still happen, but not very realistic.
Hey LostLogic,
Yeah I guess I was kind of generalizing, not focusing on the direct question who would you vote for Hillary or Obama?
Though I do still wonder if some folks might say they are voting for Obama then get cold feet when they get into the voting booth.
BTW glad to see around more these days. Your logic has been missed :-)
There's two things coming out of this televied "media's" obsession with invoking the racial heritage of any of the presidential candidates:
1. To continuously note the color of someone's skin, is a form of RACISM. True.
If RACISM is thinking that a HUMAN MAN (or WOMAN) is not exactly the standard form of HUMAN, because we perceive something different about them, and we call it RACE, then to continually note the color of a person's skin, is RACIST.
Otherwise you'd just get over it, wouldn't you, and just move on and accept the person as HUMAN... but again, to forever be noting a person's racial heritage (as though there is an asterisk next to their name) is not accepting that person as HUMAN, and is RACIST.
Children, naturally and without corruptive influence from others, are not RACIST and could never be RACIST, and don't even see it and therefore can't take notice of it, and can't comment upon it or even understand it, because they simply see a HUMAN... that's all they see, their young and uncorrupted eyes just see another HUMAN.
And so this continual noting of a person's racial heritage is refusing to get over it, and just see and accept that person as HUMAN.
As a form of RACISM, I guess you would categorize it as "non-hateful, non-hostile type"... but that's only a diagnosis based upon a cursory examination of appearances, and who knows what the person truly thinks and feels, or what they might say in private or under stress (like maybe the "N" word).
2. Television (and movies too, which inevitably end up on television) is as influential and significant an agent of RACISM in America today, as any other single thing I can think of. True.
Television rarely if ever accepts a person of some racial heritage as simply HUMAN, but must always it seems make that person as something else, something noteworthy, something about their racial heritage.
Sidney, Denzel, Morgan, Samuel L., and many others, it's nearly impossible for them to ever be simply a HUMAN MAN in any movie they are in... they always have to be a black man.
You've noticed that already, right?
Sure you did. That's a form of RACISM being practiced in that.
But you know who hasn't noticed it, and wouldn't have a clue what it is I'm referring to?
Children, that's who.
Because they just don't naturally see a person's racial heritage, but just see another HUMAN... and they never would see this thing, unless some corruptive influence or person pointed it out to them... which is what television does, continuously.
Dem, great post, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, except for the fact that kids would never know racism if a corrupting influence never shows them it. IMO, a child, say of maybe 7 or 8, as an example, naturally does not see other skin colors as inferior to their own, but they do see the difference. And in seeing that difference, coupled with some traumatic experience, say getting beat up by a group of people of different skin color, could very well influence that child's perceptions of that race as a whole. they could become fearful of anyone in that race, or could feel hatred towards them.
I'm not saying it happens, just that it's a possibility.
As far as the Bradley effect is concerned, what a total wash. First, it depends on the manner of question asked as to how the Bradley effect will work. If you say "Would you vote for a Black candidate" most people would say yes, even if they aren't going to vote for Obama for reasons wholly unrelated to his skin color. It's intellectually dishonest, and pins Obama as the "black candidate," when that's not what we should be focusing on.
Sorry so late with the reply, but I disagree. My wife is doing research about the difference in perception among girls about their on race / socio background, etc. It is a sad, yet well researched opinion that young Black girls have an inferiority complex regarding their own race. I think this video link is very telling:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z0BxFRu_SOw