The Bradley Effect - Deukmejian's Pollster says racism did not sink Tom Bradley.

[IndyOp]

The Bradley Effect - Selective Memory
By V. Lance Tarrance, Jr.

Now that polls indicate Senator Barack Obama is the favorite to win, some analysts predict a racially biased "Bradley Effect" could prevent Obama from winning a majority on November 4th. That is a pernicious canard and is unworthy of 21st century political narratives. I should know. I was there in 1982 at "ground zero" in California when I served George Deukmejian as his general election pollster and as a member of his strategy team when he defeated African-American Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley, not once but twice, in 1982 and again in 1986.

Bradley Effect believers assume that there is an undetectable tendency in the behavior of some white voters who tell pollsters that they are "undecided" when in fact their true preference is to vote against the black candidate. This so-called effect suggests the power or advantage to alter an outcome - a pretty serious charge. This would render poll projections inaccurate (overstating both the number of undecided voters and the African-American candidate's margin over a white opponent) and create an unaccounted for different outcome. However, it is indeed a "theory in search of data."

The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html

=====================================

I think the GOP is pushing discussion of the Bradley effect to hide their efforts to disenfranchise voters and steal votes any other way they think they can on election day -- then they can all scream "Bradley Effect" and see if the corporate media and citizens will go back to sleep.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Lance Tarrance was a Republican pollster that works in Calif and revived the use of 'Democrat' party

[IndyOp]

2. I did not know his background, but given that he is a Rethug then his take on the Bradley Effect

is even more important. He is a Rethug making a statement that is potentially going to dampen expectations of an election day Bradley Effect and make people more likely to see disenfranchisement and election fraud when and where it occurs rather than chalking up abnormalities to the Bradley Effect. Yes?

I can see that his writing this also makes Deukmajian (R) seem superior to Bradley (D) -- that Californians just didn't like Democrats. The truth is that for a while they didn't. I went to grad school at UC Berkeley during the time that Californians were realizing what a dumb thing they had done to vote in the proposition that froze property taxes - and thus government spending - as their schools declined drastically in quality...

[Cha]

3. Rec'd! The man has a good points.

They will not steal it this time.

[Bucky]

4. As the guy who benefited from the effect, he has a reason to deny it exists

No one wants to admit that he won by the support of bigots. I don't know about the Bradley effect, but I put little faith in the testimony of the guys who it benefited. There may or may not be a Bradley effect. There sure as shit is a Diebold effect. There sure is a voter suppression campaign running in overtime in purple states.

If you're not running like you're already three points down, you're not running to win.

[IndyOp]

5. A Rethug saying that the Bradley Effect isn't real does not benefit him re: Obama v. McCain.

If what he is saying makes its way into pundit's conversations then it benefits Obama.

[Bucky]

6. They guy is in the business of running & winning campaigns.

Of course it makes him look better (and thus more employable) if he claims he won because he was a better strategist rather than winning because some people wouldn't vote for his opponent because of race. This is a pocketbook issue to him.

He may or may not be right, but he's not a independent observer.