TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
09.01.2008
Introducing the Bradley-Effect Effect

I had two thoughts when I woke up today: 1.) Isn't it strange that "Hardball" is on so early? (Turned out it wasn't--you lose a little perspective when you wake up at three in the afternoon.) 2.) Whether or not we observed the Bradley Effect last night (and I'm not convinced we did, though I'm open-minded), maybe the more important question is: What's the effect of all this Bradley-Effect talk? Call it the Bradley-Effect Effect.

Even if it existed, I think the first-order Bradley Effect was pretty small last night. Moreover, I think it would be restricted to certain idiosyncratic states like New Hampshire going forward (see my post early this morning for why). But the Bradley-Effect Effect strikes me as a real concern. You have to wonder about the effect of all the talking heads complaining that Obama lost because white voters opposed him on racial grounds, then lied to pollsters about it. Amid all this talk, will previously supportive African Americans suddenly get squeamish? Will downscale whites suddenly get defensive? Will they react against being lectured to by the national media?

Both of these scenarios are plausible. But there's a third possibility: That the Bradley-Effect Effect actually benefits Obama. Is it so crazy to think working class voters will react to the racism charge by going out of their way to prove it false?

If anyone, Obama is an ideal candidate for a positive Bradley-Effect Effect. He often talks about the respect he has for the judgment of the American people. He says they sometimes get distracted by unimportant things, but that they usually make the right decision in the end. And, of course, with refrains like "Yes We Can," he specifically appeals to their desire to feel good about themselves. 

Just like Hillary may have benefited when the media told voters the race was over, I could see Obama benefiting when the media tells them they're racist.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:29 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jacksondyer said:

What a bunch of mind bending nonsense.

Is this what you guys do when you want to have some fun?

Face it, the pollsters got  it wrong and they are just trying to blame the voters. It's as if the scientist  didn't know how to collect  samplea and decided to  blame the sample for his ineptitude.

January 9, 2008 7:56 PM

primwallflow said:

The other question is, what if the Bradley Effect is not "activated" by Obama himself, but rather by the likely footage of massive lines of African-Americans voting for him in South Carolina?

January 9, 2008 8:01 PM

rozenson said:

jackson, something went awry.

EVERY poll had Obama by at least five. The only one that had the lead as small as five was the Suffolk/WHDH poll which predicted a lead for Romney. That sample was obviously skewed. The pollsters were wrong, nobody should have expected the outcome that happened.

January 9, 2008 8:14 PM

lymon1 said:

I'm more inclined to believe it was that *other* effect (I forgot the person who deserves the credit) -- people are embarassed to say they support Hillary over Obama.  Heck, say that around Andrew Sullivan and he'll send you to his priest for an exorcism!

January 9, 2008 8:45 PM

ralphnelle said:

That fast-talker, the prof. (can't think of his name), did Obama nothing but harm.

January 9, 2008 9:39 PM

psantillana said:

Lawrence Tribe??? Explain, please!

January 9, 2008 9:52 PM

fseidle said:

The Bradley Effect? Maybe the Gender Gap,media piling on, exit polls wrong. There are any number of "reasons" why HRC pulled ahead,or stayed ahead to carry the day. But the Bradley Effect in a party primary. I don't buy it.

January 10, 2008 1:40 PM

jhildner said:

Jackson --

It's not as simple as the "pollsters got it wrong."  They surely did, but I don't recall them *ever* getting it *this* wrong.  Most polls had Obama comfortably ahead -- 5 to 12 points going in.  They correctly predicted Obama's percentage (giving lie to the live-free-or-lie theory), as well as the outcome of the Republican race.  Where they blew it is on Hillary's last-minute surge, but that surge is very strange to the point of seeming almost inexplicable.  As unattractive as it may sound, I lean toward the whimper-sisterhood theory -- that NH women were motivated by a feeling of sympathy for Hillary following the over-the-top coverage of the 15-second half-whimper.  Ironic, isn't it?  Hillary's supporters complain (wrongly and patholigcally) that Obama is a phony lightweight with a pretty face and a pretty speech next to their sage, substantive candidate, and yet it seems that she probably pulled this one out for the touchy-feeliest of reasons.  Who's the real Oprah candidate??

I (an Obama supporter) don't want to sound like many of Hillary's supporters -- whose barely concealed resentment of Obama can be pretty ugly -- and I, unlike many it seems, have always regarded Hillary as not only worthy of a lot of respect but also as a member of the human race -- but it seems Hillary really did have a Dean Scream sort of moment in reverse, where the outcome of an election is determined by an obsessively covered noise -- this time, a noise that greatly appealed to NH women.  Weird, to say the least.

January 10, 2008 2:02 PM