Question about the so-called "Bradley Effect"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I've been listening to people here (and elsewhere) debating the so-called "Bradley Effect" and its potential impact on the election this year and my biggest question about is, WHY would people tell pollsters (who presumably are supposed to keep participant information private) that they are likely to vote for one candidate but then vote for the opposite candidate?

I can see somebody being dishonest or vague (in public) about who they support depending on where they live and whether or not they think that they will be punished (or rewarded) in some way but, since we're trying to gauge popular opinion via pollsters WHAT would be the incentive for lying to pollsters about their support for one candidate or another?

[babylonsister]

1. Here's a scholar who believes the Bradley effect has

been overhyped and prejudices aren't what helped Bradley lose:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=395067

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. That's interesting

So, it was the unexpected absentee ballots that changed the outcome of the election not any specific change of support for Bradley's candidacy?

Geez. Didn't hear THAT on MSNBC, CNN, or NPR!!! $#%*($%$(%($ corporate media!

Where did the idea that Bradley's race had an effect on the election come from then? Convenient excuse?

[babylonsister]

5. Maybe because no one researched in depth enough, as 'journalists'

do/don't? I do believe a whole pile of them are just too damned lazy myself.

[beachmom]

10. Here is even more info debunking the Bradley Effect:

From a journalist in Sacramento who was there at the time:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/441/prejudice-campaign.html

From the Republican side in the campaign of Bradley's opponent:

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20levin.html?em

I am convinced that there is no Bradley Effect. The only poll I would be slightly suspicious of is exit polls, so all you have to do is ignore them on Election Day. And that is also because they were wrong for John Kerry, so this is more than just any Bradley Effect.

The media continues to misinform the public about this. Not one of them mentions the absentee ballots that were nearly 100% GOP in that race.

[NOLALady]

2. Maybe

the Bradley effect didn't happen.

Maybe the election was stolen and the "Bradley effect" was a convenient cover up.

Maybe TPTB are planning a similar Bradley Effect.

:shrug:

[TheCoxwain]

4. It is simply a cover to "steal the vote electronically' operation . Get it?

[sellitman]

7. Yes, you nailed it!

This way they can justify McCheat overcoming a 10- 15 point disparate in the polls when he wins the election by a c-hair.

[kennetha]

6. FWIW: Here's an article about a different kind of Bradley-Wilder Effect

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/lundry_a_different_kind_of_bra.php">Lundry: A Different Kind of Bradley-Wilder Effect?

[babylonsister]

8. From a republican polling firm? You're not even trying to hide it any longer.

Don't you think they might have motives for insinuating this?

[beachmom]

9. There is no Bradley Effect!! It is a myth invented by a pollster who

had called the governor's race incorrectly, and didn't want to admit that he screwed up.

[seasat]

11. There may even be a reverse effect offsetting it...if it even exists

The polls are under sampling cell phone users and have a harder time reaching minorities. Cell phone only people tend to be younger and more supportive of Obama. Minorities could have a record turnout this year especially among African-Americans. Some of the pollsters use past turnout data to turnout for this election and that will probably result in an under sample. In other words, if the Bradley-Wilder effect is real then it is likely offset by other factors that are positives towards Obama's chances.

IMHO, the media is just arguing this because they want to be tout a close election to keep viewers interested. I don't mind them playing the election as close because it encourages turnout for Obama and other Democrats because they are afraid of letting this election get close enough for the Repubs to steal.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I tend to think that the "Yeldarb Effect" (as it has been referred to)

actually seems more likely (if the "Bradley Effect" is/was a legitimate phenomenon), particularly in rural areas and/or "red states" where it would make more sense for people to publicly state their preference for McCain but actually intend to vote for Obama.
Are there a lot of areas (i.e. "blue states") or situations where people would be equally cautious about publicly expressing their support for McCain?