So will cell-only households cancel out a Bradley effect if one exists?
As a reader notes: "If you
assume each is responsible for a 1-2 point differential, then maybe
it's a wash."
« A Kuhnian Revolution About To Take Place In Polling? | Main | Why Wal-Mart Shoppers Support McCain Over 'Bam » Just Asking...24 Sep 2008 01:37 pm Comments (16)
Bradley effect no longer exists!!! you people need to read fivethirtyeight.com. There was more evidence for the reverse bradley effect in the primaries then any bradley effect. Obama outperformed polls in the many states. This talk about race is a big distraction. 
And new voter registration (which would be missed by polls that use existing voter registers to get phone numbers) could account for a couple of points difference in the polls as well, don't you think?
To clarify: There is solid evidence that there is a nationwide "mobile effect", while it is unclear whether there's any nationwide Bradley effect.
Eric, you're missing the point. If a demonstrated effect exists that benefits one candidate, then by the rules of journalism a balancing effect must be presented, even if no evidence for the balancing effect exists.
Eventually whats going to matter is.. McCain-Palin are liars. McCain lied about Rick Davis not lobbying for Freddie Mac and then news comes out that he was getting thousands till last month. Palin is a hardcore liar who lies about everything from bridge to nowhere to selling the plane on ebay. Palin is hiding behind her skirt. Can you imagine someone who is running for VP for almost a month without giving a news conference? She has major skeletons in her closet. McCain is clueless about economy and wears $520 black leather Ferragamo Italian shoes. McCain is clueless about economy and has 12 houses and 13 cars. While the country is suffering McCain spends $200,000 expense on "household staff", takes $58,000 per month of taxpayers money as disability payments, makes $700,000 in credit card charges in one month. and bought another luxury condo in Phoenix earlier this year for $4.7 million. McCain took took $300,000 from Keating Five criminals and $3 millions of corrupt money from Big Oil. People are seeing the extent to which McCain-Palin are out of touch just like Bush-Cheney and will vote overwhelmingly for a real change. Nothing else will matter!
What about a reverse-Bradley effect? Has that been studied? I wouldn't be surprised to find some people in Southern Ohio or Pennsylvania or West Virginia who are suffering from this poor economy and who would like to vote for a Democratic, but for matters of cultural hegemony in a particular region, it's easier to project a sense of unease about Obama, especially when speaking to other people, and within a group of people. But when they get in the voting booth, they just might pull the lever for the black guy they've been badmouthing in public. Like a plantation owner getting freaky with the slaves in the back room when nobody's looking. So maybe we can put the "Bradley Effect" to bed and talk instead of the "Jefferson Phenomenon."
The geographical distribution of these voters is going to matter a lot. If cell phone only voters are concentrated in large cities (NYC, CHI, LA), they're effectively gerrymandered. However, the same may be true in some sense of racists (or at least, racists who lie to pollsters). My sense is that nobody has a great LV model, and that Nov. 4 will be either a very short or very long night.
As mentioned elsewhere, how is it possible that the Bradley Effect myth is still standing? There was absolutely no evidence of it in the long primary season. Marc? Hello? Get thee to fivethirtyeight.com. This is one urban legend worth retiring. If only for accuracy's sake.
Forget about Bradley and Cell phone effect, instead checkout the following three latest stories about poll which will have huge impact. Most Think Palin Unqualified A sneak peak at the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll to be released tonight: Forty-nine percent say that Gov. Sarah Palin is unqualified to be president if the need arises, compared with 40% who say she's qualified. By contrast, 64% believe Sen. Joe Biden is qualified to be president, versus just 21% who disagree. Palin Approval Slips in Alaska A new Ivan Moore poll in Alaska shows Gov. Sarah Palin's favorability ratings slipping from a sky high 82%-13% rating to a still very respectable 68%-27% since being named as Sen. John McCain's running mate. Key finding: Palin suffered some "serious slippage" among Democrats, "a smaller but significant drop among non-partisans/moderates, and little or no change among Republicans/conservatives." Marist Poll: Obama Leads in Five Key Battlegrounds New Marist College polls in five key battleground states show Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain in all five. Iowa: Obama 51%, McCain 41% Michigan: Obama 52%, McCain 43% New Hampshire: Obama 51%, McCain 45% Ohio: Obama 47%, McCain 45% Pennsylvania: Obama 49%, McCain 44%
The reverse Bradly effect, black people saying they're for McCain, is more likely. People hold nothing back when discussing Obama. It is a sign of racial progress that people are free to say anything they want about him instead of lying about their support. They feel free to say he is a liberal, a muslim, whatever, but there is no one I have found who is afraid to give an answer about him. People are either for him or against him. No one, especially here in Ohio, has any qualms saying they won't vote for him. And if you remember, in West Virginia, people were completely open with saying race did play into their vote. So even the racists are out in the open. That is how far we have come....or regressed....but all attitudes of Obama are out in the open. He elicits very strong responses. The bradley effect DID NOT exist in the primaries. But black people saying they're for McCain is a major deal. In a recent Virginia poll by SurveyUSA, Obama was up by 6%, but McCain was still getting 14% of the black vote. Hillary never got above 5%, so do you think McCain will? If so, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Anyway, take that 9% away from McCain and it is a 1.6% drop for McCain and a 1.6% increase for Obama, or a 3.2% shift. All the sudden, Obama is untouchable in Virginia. Brian
in the end, the Bradley Effect (real or not) and cell phone effect will both be irrelevant as both are marginal compared to the absolute uncertainty in the LV models. the real test for pollsters this cycle is who can build the best LV predictive model, because we are out in uncharted waters. youth are horribly unreliable voters, so they traditionally are given less weight in LV models. Will Obama change all of that? Obama is registering massive numbers of new voters, many minority voters. Are those accounted for in the LV models? What effect did Palin have, and will it last, in new right-of-center voters? The polls, based on what LV assumptions they make, could be wildly off in either direction, and the LV model is surely more impactful than the Bradley or Cellphone effects. (Although arguably poll aggregation sites would minimize the LV variability by aggregating polls whose pollsters made different assumptions, cancelling each other out.)
Stupid question here. How do they do "cell phone only" household polls?
I'd guess cell-phone/Bradley effects differ among swing/tight states. Cells benefit Obama in CO, NV, VA. Bradley benefits McCain in MI, OH, PA. Closer to a wash in FL, IN, MO, NC.
Marc, Love your blog, but I've got to ask: Why are you using Megan as your authoritative source on the financial crisis? Just because she happens to blog at the Atlantic? I've been speaking to a friend of mine that's an econ professor and he pretty much thinks she's talking out of her ass. As do a couple of my friends on Wall Street. In fact, looking at her resume, I can see no evidence that she is even qualified to opine on such matters. As far as I can tell, she has no formal education in finance or econ and her relevant job history consists of blogging on economics and spending a summer as an associate at a finance firm. Plus, isn't it pretty questionable to be asking another reporter as source for this stuff? Especially one from the same publication? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were instructed to promote her as an expert for PR reasons. I'm only asking you about this because I hold your reporting skills in such high regard. So tell me, there wasn't anyone out there you know who has a better grip on thissituation than Megan?
Does it matter that Mal-Wart sent memos to its managers saying that an Obama victory would lead to unionization? http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/27/labor_groups_challenge_retail_giant_wal Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, is being accused of violating federal election laws by urging its employees to vote against Senator Barack Obama in the November election. Last month, the Wall Street Journal revealed Wal-Mart has been warning its managers that an Obama victory would lead to unionization at Wal-Mart stores. A coalition of prominent labor groups recently filed a complaint against Wal-Mart with the Federal Elections Commission.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If the Bradley effect even exists for nationwide polling...
Posted by Eric B | September 24, 2008 1:49 PM