Beyond the Bradley Effect
The state of New Hampshire delivered a shock to the pundits. How did she do it? Why were the polls wrong? Why were our predictions wrong?
In their search for an answer, some took to the “Bradley”, or “Wilder Effect” (not a reference to the former presidential candidate and basketball star Bill Bradley, but to the mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley). As the theory goes, white voters might tell pollsters they are in favor of a black candidate, but vote for someone else when in the polling booth. In short, white voters would lie–either to themselves and to the pollsters, or only to the pollsters–and racist tendencies would prove their disincentive to vote for Barack Obama, and they would turn to Hillary Clinton.
If true, the implications of such an analysis are extensive: is race among Democratic and Independent voters an intrinsically divisive issue? Will the “effect” carry to other states? Will it present itself only states with few minority voters? What does this say about race relations in America?
But level heads seem to have prevailed. Matt Yglesias had an early slam at the theory Tuesday night, with which The Economist’s blog concurred. Ben Smith at Politico has further explanations as to why the “Effect” could not have been the sole arbiter of Mrs. Clinton’s victory.
Regardless, the Democratic party looks set to nominate either its first female or black candidate for the Presidency. It’s likely that the general election will prove a continuous challenge to conventional punditry.