The Bradley Effect

There is much discussion among pollsters, academics and campaign veterans over the Bradley effect and what role, if any, it may play in this year's presidential election results. Does the Bradley effect really exist today? Is there the possibility of a reverse Bradley effect, where polling underestimates the planned voting for Barack Obama? A more thorough review of this may be appropriate post-election when we focus on racism, however, it is worthy of consideration as we look at polling.

Nate Silver believes the Bradley effect is a myth perpetuated by four major points of misunderstanding and confusion.

…the Bradley Effect is not an argument about whether people vote based on race. It's an argument about whether people will lie to pollsters.

He also contends it may in fact had its origins in bad polling, citing Bradley's pollster.

Keith Olbermann recently discussed it, as did Rachel Maddow (starts about 3:45 in), with their respective guests.





Sean Oxendine responds to Silver's criticism in detail, and asserts:

If he finds no Bradley effect and I find a Bradley effect, there is evidence for the Bradley effect. That doesn't mean that it is there or not – and remember, the real point of the article was to speculate on what would have to happen for McCain to win, not to prove or disprove anything -- all it means is that more research must be done.

Since polling drives the media narrative, and internal campaign polling helps determine the electoral map strategy of where to send the candidates, surrogates and advertising dollars, the potential of a Bradley effect can not be ignored.