The theory of the Bradley Effect is that racist whites hesitate to tell a pollster that they won’t vote for a black candidate. This is empirically supported by the fact that the Bradley effect is much stronger in areas that have a larger white demographic. The Bradley effect is minimal to non-existent in majority-minority districts.

It’s role historically is generally accepted, perhaps wrongly, however its applicability today, and especially to Obama specifically, is certainly in question. I feel it probably doesn’t apply to Obama for many of the same reasons cited in this article.

I would also caution Maria with the same advice as Larry: hearsay certainly doesn’t constitute poll data. It might be especially true in your case because as a mental health worker people probably like you and generally seek your approval, and will be more inclined to say agreeable things (or even be legitimately persuaded to change their votes) if they detect that this will be received well. But even if these people are voting McCain, the sample and method don’t constitute scientifically controlled polling data.

Maybe, just maybe, some people who’ve said they won’t vote for Obama because we just “aren’t ready” for a black president – or whatever other self-deceptive reason they dredge up to justify their unwillingness to vote for him – just might, once they’re alone, vote for Obama, as the only sane choice, overcoming their racism in the private moment of choice.

The “reverse Tom Bradley effect”… Given the drastic consequences and importance of this year’s choice, it just might go that way.

1. In the past few years, automated polls that don’t involve a human interviewer have come into wider use. Were these polls excluded from the study, to keep things “apples and apples”? If not, it simply could be that polls like the Rasmussen are making it look like people are no longer reticent to be honest with pollsters, when in fact it’s because they’re dealing with a machine and can tell the poll what they really think.

2. Did he control for rate of inclusion of African American respondents in the later polls vs the early ones? It seems like such a “reverse Bradley effect” (simulating a higher A-A turnout) could simply mask a reticence to be honest that is still there on the part of white voters.

3. Fifteen years seems like an awfully short time in which for a social tendency like this to disappear. Assuming #1 and #2 above do not explain the finding, did he look at any available measures of societal racial attitudes over time as a covariate? I’d be curious to know whether he thinks that (a) people have gotten less racist or (b) people have gotten bolder/less embarrassed to admit it out loud (maybe because of talk radio validating their viewpoint). Conventional wisdom would say that it’s (a) but it’d be interesting to see what the hard data say.

4. Was there any trend over time for the races being more or less northern vs southern? I ask because some of the discussion of primary polling this year seems to show a regional bias in terms of possible “Bradley effect”.

Thanks for the post and for your site.

In the case of Obama such a (unproven) theory would suggest polling is accurate in IL, NY, and CA be less so in other states.