John,

Bradley was way ahead of Republican George Deukmejian, who ending up beating Bradley for the governship, much to the amazement of a younger, jauntier cookie....

Is TNR so anti-Clinton and so pro-Obama that you can't just accept the fact that Clinton won (see also the note by Isaac Chotiner before this one)? The total number of Democratic votes cast in Iowa was about 2500! There will be more Democratic votes in my small town in California than that. Obama "beat" Clinton there by only 200 votes (about 900 to about 700).

It was definitely the "Bradley effect."  You write: "The same people who might not vote for Obama because he is black would be likely not for a woman either."  That misses the point.  White liberals do not want to say they will fail to support the black candidate.  They always preferred Hillary over Obama on substance (not race), but they felt social pressure to say they supported Obama.

A big key was not just all of the private polls, Obama's internal polls (Obama by 13) or Hillary's internal polls (Obama by 11).  It was the exit polls, where people who voted for Hillary lied to pollsters and said they supported Obama.

Anyone denying the Bradley effect here has an extremely heavy burden.

To clarify what I said above, it's white liberals (NOT white conservatives) who cause this phenomenon.  It's white liberals.  They're more likely to support Hillary or Obama than Edwards.

Gchoward:  Do you actually believe that only 2,500 people participated in the Iowa Democratic caucus?  If so, I'm not sure you're qualified to be commenting on its significance.

Agree with yukon.  The disparity between the exit poll data and the actual results is a strong indication of the Bradley Effect.  No other theory explaining last night's results accounts for why people would lie to pollsters about who they just voted for.

Also, let's not make the mistake of equating racism with sexism.  The Bradley Effect operates because some people are *secretly* racist-- the White Power folks will proudly declare their votes against Obama.  Those who are secretly racist are not necessarily secretly sexist, and vice versa.

There are real problems with this argument.  

First, I see no reason why people under the influence of the Bradley effect wouldn't be women (clearly ready to vote for a woman) and even some men who felt comfortable with a (white) woman.

Second, I don't think it's right to assume that it's only the self-indentified conservative voters that suffer the effect.  Why not moderates and even some liberals?  Edwards makes a strong appeal to people with old-fashioned working class values -- I expect that a bunch of these might describe themselves as conservative.  

Some might vote for Edwards because he's neither female nor black, but that's not even the Bradley effect -- which is the phenomenon of people telling pollsters one thing and then making the almost unconcious decision to vote against a black candidate in the privacy of the voting booth.

And, contrary to Scheiber in his "Barry Bonds" post, I think it's the voting booth that's the biggest difference between NH and IA, not the relative racism of the two states, although that could have played a small part too.

Another problem (although I brought it up on a thread last night) that Andrew Sullivan pointed out is that Obama did much better with men than with women. Why would women be more susceptible to the Bradley effect?

Another note.  The day after Iowa, Jeff Zeleney trumpeted on the front page of the NY Times that one of the two reasons that Iowans might have caucused for Obama is that they wanted to show that a white state could elect a black man.  Yet, as far as I can tell, there's been no mention of the Bradley effect in the press or on TV (except for perhaps a passing mention by Chris Matthews -- I'm not sure).  

The phenomenon of the Bradley effect, whether it's called a name or not, is well documented and even taught in Poly Sci classes.  I realize that the press is more likely to quickly call an electorate open-minded than racist, but in the coming days it needs to consider that there might have been more to Hillary's "comeback" victory than a voice crack.  

But is Obama really seen as a "black candidate," in the same way that Jesse Jackson, or Shirley Chisholm, (yes, or Tom Bradley or Douglas Wilder, in non-Presidential elections) was seen as a "black candidate"?  

If Obama were in Alabama in the early 60s, they'd make him sit at the back of the bus.  That's "black" enough to trigger the Bradley Effect.

First, yes, Obama is black -- no quotation marks needed.

Also, I've looked now at the Pew Research article (pewresearch.org/.../can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects) that people are citing to suggest that the Bradley effect died in 2006, but I hardly find it convincing.

Essentially, the 2006 elections were great for Democrats, whether they were black or white.  So, polling was fairly accurate in the five statewide biracial elections that the article cites.

It would seem to me, though, that a primary which gives non-black voters a choice between a black candidate and two popular white candidates presents a very different situation.  

Asistos and SGoldfarb -- obviously Obama is black, and yes, he'd have been told to sit in the back of the bus (though, at least in Montgomery, that particular discrimination was broken by the boycott of 1955-56).  The quotation marks were not around "black," but around the phrase "black candidate," which, I'm suggesting, is something a bit different.  

My first comment overstated my point -- an electorate comprises many different kinds of people, and even a single individual carries a complex mix (or mishmash) of feelings and beliefs.  So there will be folks who see Obama the same way they saw Bradley or Jackson.  I still suspect that more people, more of the time, perceive Obama differently, as transcending race.  It's partly that one of his parents was white; it's partly that even the other parent was African rather than African-American.  But it goes beyond parentage.  I don't think he's seen as coming from, or identified with, or principally promoting, the civil rights movement or the black community (notwithstanding his community-organizing professional history).  

Just wanted to add that the Bradley effect doesn't necessarily require or imply racism.  It operates because people are inclined to answer pollsters in a way that is seen as socially desirable (in this case, open-minded about race).  You could have lots of (non racist) folks who support hillary for reasons other than race, who might still lie to a pollster about having voted for obama to either enhance the appearance of their openmindedness or to fend off the possible implication that they are in fact racist.

Ah yes - the memories.  Can you imagine that Tom Bradley had been LAPD (including it's chief)  for 25 years? That was some tough crowd in CA back then.  And that was beFORE Daryl Gates.

I don't think NH had anything to do with this, it was girl power 100%.  The lesson is: attack and mock Hillary and voila, President McCain/Huckabee what-have-you.  It's up to you MSM: learn to walk that fine line better or else.

tarfon, yes, I agree that Obama has not run as a "black candidate" the way the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Tom Bradley have.  That's probably why he's actually a viable candidate for President.  But the Bradley Effect has more to do with a candidate's race than his campaign style.  If anything, I think the effect would be *more* pronounced when a candidate runs as someone who's a uniter rather than on more divisive racial politics.

I also suspect that the Bradley Effect *does* imply racism.  There are lots of reasons to pick Clinton over Obama, and I think a nonracist who selected her can immediate summon those reasons to mind.  There's no reason to believe you'd be tarred as a racist, because (in your heart) you know there are good reasons for picking Clinton.  It's only when you *don't* have a good reason for selecting your candidate that you'd feel ashamed about it and lie to the pollster.  That's especially true in this election, where Obama's candidacy has not really been about his race-- at least not to the extent that Tom Bradley's was.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see it. There's no social stigma attached to voting for Hillary or Edwards as opposed to Obama, and there are legitimate (i.e., not racist) reasons to vote for either of them instead of him. I would expect that even if a voter <i>were</i> voting against Obama because he's black, they'd throw their support for another candidate publicly and concoct various reasons for doing so. (I.e., he's "inexperienced," which serves as a pretty good euphemism for "black and underqualified")

Of course, if we're going to speculate on the "secret" motives of voters, why not play it in Hillary's favor instead of Obama's disfavor. How about all the women who "secretly" want a woman president, but won't admit to liking Hillary because so many people around them (men especially) despise her for superficial reasons? ("How can you like that cold bitch? You're voting for her because she's a WOMAN?")

John -- Can you ask Kirchick to edit his post on Ron Paul to reflect that Louisiana conducts a "blanket" primary rather than "open" primary.  There is a real distinction between the two, as anyone who followed the litigation over California's and Washington State's blanket primary legislation would know.

gchoward, the numbers that the press published as "votes" for Clinton and Obama in the Iowa caucus were the number of local delegates (not to be confused with national delegates) that they received. Almost 240,000 Democrats caucused, twice the number of Republicans that did.

Also the question here isn't why Hillary won per se, it's why the polls were so wrong going into the election. While exit polls are often bad, the RCP averages are rarely off by more than a couple points, and I cannot think of an election where they were off by eleven points.

Epiccuito writes: "Another problem (although I brought it up on a thread last night) that Andrew Sullivan pointed out is that Obama did much better with men than with women. Why would women be more susceptible to the Bradley effect?"

First, it's not how well each candidate did with various groups; it's the discrepancy between what people said they would do (and said they did) versus their actions.  Do we have a good analysis of who those liars were?  For example, did the weekend polls and exit polls say that Hillary would get 55% of the women's vote, but the actual tallies show 60%?

Second, I think it's easier for a woman to justify pulling a lever for Hillary.  She could even say "I voted for Hillary because she's a woman like me" and half believe it.  It's not as easy for a man to justify his actions.  Sure, he could tell himself "I voted against the black guy but at least I voted for a woman," but that doesn't do much for one's conscience.

I strongly believed there would be an Obama effect in this election.  The Iowa caucus made me optimistic, and I really believed I was wrong... until New Hampshire and I realized the significance of secret ballot versus open voting.  I really believed that Obama's decision to run just as a man, not as a black man, was essential.  Evidently it didn't make much difference.  A shame.