Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both printed articles this weekend on the Bradley Effect and its forecasted impact on this election.
The Bradley Effect, of course, is the theory that black politicians are likely to do significantly worse in elections than exit polls would indicate (by as much as 6 or 7 percent), and is named after Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles who narrowly lost a gubernatorial race after leading in the polls. (Itâs otherwise known as the Wilder Effect or Dinkins Effect, after L. Douglas Wilder and David Dinkins, two black politicians for whom this discrepancy seemed to hold.) The existence (and relevance today) of this much-studied phenomenon is debated enough that, in a column last month, William Safire suggested putting a categorical ââso-calledâ in front if you dispute it.â
Itâs no surprise that both papers chose to run these articlesâthe NYT piece, by Kate Zernike, in its Week in Review section, and the Post piece, by Stephen Holmes, appearing on page A06âgiven the growing question mark of exactly how large a factor race (and racial prejudice, and subconscious racism, and âracism without racistsâ etc.) will be in this election. This reassessment of the Bradley Effect (which is really just a re-focusing of attention on it) clearly comes on the heels of a week characterized by sharp and divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Whatâs most interesting about the two articles is how formulaic they are: they cite many of the same sourcesâa slew of pollsters and political scientistsâand both concede early on that there is no solid answer to the question that they pose. (The Timesâs take is that âeven pollsters say they canât be sure how accurately polls capture peopleâs feelings about race,â while the Post boasts the rather skeptical title: âPollsters Debate âBradley Effectââ.)
Of the two writers, it is Holmes who more clearly outlines the current debateâwhether the Bradley Effect is an outdated theoryâby offering twin reasons for its possible obsolescence: â…if the effect has disappeared, it is not clear whether that is because polling techniques have improved or because the country has become more tolerant about race.â
But the only way to be clear, it seems, is to frankly state that everythingâwhat matters, what doesnât, what may seem to matter but will actually turn out not toâis unclear. The rest of Holmesâs article follows this pattern, in what amounts to a preponderance of uncertainty: âMost experts say they do not believe that the phenomenon, known as the “Bradley effect,” is at work in this election. But some disagree.â
Also: âBut whether [California gubernatorial candidate Tom] Bradley lost because of hidden racism has never been clearâ and âFinding hard evidence for or against a Bradley effect today is difficult.â
And again: âExperts agree that it is often difficult to fully tease out the extent to which race plays a factor in voting decisions.â
The experts cited vary widely in their opinions, too, and their responses form an open-ended composite. Michael Dawson, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, âremains skeptical about the willingness of whites to vote for a black candidate â and the ability of polling to capture that reluctance.â Anthony Greenwald, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, âdoes not buy that people are lying to pollsters,â but says polls are inaccurate because undecided voters make up impromptu responses. Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, âtheorizes that polling discrepancies do not come from respondents who lie, but from people who decline to participate in polls.â
Holmes ends on a sincere, but weak, note: ââŚthis presidential election will be a highly visible test of just how real [the Bradley Effect] is.â We donât know yet, but this election will be a good indicator of how relevant this theory is today.
Zernikeâs article is similar, arguing that the Bradley Effect âobscuresâŚthe more important point: there are plenty of ways that race complicates polling.â (These include the âreverseâ Bradley Effect, wherein black candidates perform better than exit polls would indicate, and the existence of âI donât knowâ voters, wherein those who fear being perceived as racist say instead that they donât know who they will vote for.)
So we donât know. We canât. Experts disagree. And while thatâs a legitimate strain of inquiry, it seems a bit predictable. These articles feel, inevitably, like an indirect response to the volatile rhetoric that we witnessed all weekâi.e. a responsible, journalistic way to respond to the unchecked vitriol.
Without a doubt, the hate speech and signage directed towards Obama during recent Republican rallies are worrisome. And theyâre dangerous for their consequencesâas Frank Rich writes, âunleash[ing] the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King.â The Postâs Jonathan Capehart wrote last Friday about âan anger and resentment on the campaign trail that should leave all with a cold chill running through their bodies.â A homemade sign at a McCain rally today read, incredibly, âObama bin Lyinââ. This is a topic that should beâand is beingâaddressed.
But itâs also simplistic, and problematic, to advance an evergreen theory like the Bradley Effect at times like this, because it suggests (even unintentionally) that the best way to talk about race-in-politics is still to cite surveys and debate the efficacy of exit pollsâin other words, to talk about it in the understood and studied ways. While turning theories around and around may be a safe and necessary way to address the extent and effect of racism in this campaign, their prescriptive âdespite experts, we still canât say for sureâ formulations donât actually do anything for anyoneâs cold chills.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.