There was some interesting speculation floating around today as to why Obama was able to carry a big victory in a 'caucus' primary but lost in a 'secret ballot' primary election. The speculation was that since 'caucus' votes are not private, voters were reluctant to NOT cast a politically correct vote for Obama in front of fellow voters. However, in a truly 'secret ballot' scenario, political correctness was put aside in favor of other minor issues like experience / past voting record / stated policies. This same theory of pressure to take a politically correct position in public, but taking a different position in total privacy, also explains why the New Hampshire polls were 'off'. The theory is generally referred to as the 'Bradley Effect' .
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhe...ing-obama.aspx
(snip)"One theory is that voters contacted by pollsters are more likely to say they support a black candidate running against a white candidate out of desire to seem progressive. Social psychologists called this “social desirability” – the urge to act in ways that one believes his or her environment finds appropriate.
In a February 2007 article, the Pew Research Center noted that this effect was decidedly less pronounced in 2006. While black candidates lost four of five statewide races against white opponents, the polling tended to reflect this. “Taken together,” it states, “the accuracy of the polling in these five biracial elections suggests that the problems that bedeviled polling in the 1980s and early 1990s may no longer be so serious.”
If Clinton sustains her lead, however, all future polls between her and Obama will be suspect.
Update 11:35 p.m.: Jon Krosnick, a Stanford social psychologist and polling methodology expert, points out that evidence for the Bradley Effect is largely anecdotal. There is, however, a large body of research on the effect of the gender and race of an interviewer, both in person and over the phone, and Krosnick points out another scenario:
“People are startlingly good at detecting the race of a person over the phone,” Krosnick told me. An interviewer who is perceived to be black by the respondent can subconsciously influence an undecided voter in favor of a black candidate—something Krosnick describes as a “priming of positive images.” But the same could apply to on-the-fence voters who have some reservations about supporting a female candidate, but are subtly influenced by a capable female interviewer. (The same might hold true in the negative, but people are much more likely to hang up on incompetent interviewers before the interview is complete.)
“You can make up the story either way,” Krosnick says. But he was doubtful that this sort of effect was responsible on its own for the differential between Obama’s lead in the polls and Clinton’s victory tonight: “I just don’t see how you get the discrepancy.”
If the Bradley Effect becomes an issue moving forward in the Democratic race, look for the pollsters to fall back on their blanket defense: The polls were correct, but the voters changed without telling anybody."(snip)
for some history on the Bradley Effect see
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campa...=45&pid=268328
Bookmarks