Why I think there will be no "Bradley effect" in 2008.
I don't think the "Bradley effect" (I'm sure he's as happy to have it named after him as Lou Gehrig was) will significantly apply this year.
(Short definition from wikipedia: The Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.)
To me, the charge of "inexperience" against Barack Obama is giving an outlet for the legitimization of that racism before the pollsters. Instead of saying, "I won't vote for a black man because I don't think they're capable," the "inexperience" charge allows those racist thoughts an legitimate cover, "I won't vote for this black man because I don't believe he's capable, and here's why.
There's no need for them to lie to the pollsters because "inexperience" allows a specificity to Obama that offers a cover for a broader prejudice in front of pollsters that's considered legitimate and socially acceptable.
So, because of this, no need for people to lie to pollsters to hide their racism. Hence no Bradley effect.
Am I making sense here?
Interestingly, the two most recent technical analyses I've seen showed no Bradley effect in the Dem primaries.
(PS. I'm not saying that all people citing "inexperience" are racist, I'm just saying alot of racists are citing "inexperience." (All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.))
(Short definition from wikipedia: The Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.)
To me, the charge of "inexperience" against Barack Obama is giving an outlet for the legitimization of that racism before the pollsters. Instead of saying, "I won't vote for a black man because I don't think they're capable," the "inexperience" charge allows those racist thoughts an legitimate cover, "I won't vote for this black man because I don't believe he's capable, and here's why.
There's no need for them to lie to the pollsters because "inexperience" allows a specificity to Obama that offers a cover for a broader prejudice in front of pollsters that's considered legitimate and socially acceptable.
So, because of this, no need for people to lie to pollsters to hide their racism. Hence no Bradley effect.
Am I making sense here?
Interestingly, the two most recent technical analyses I've seen showed no Bradley effect in the Dem primaries.
(PS. I'm not saying that all people citing "inexperience" are racist, I'm just saying alot of racists are citing "inexperience." (All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.))
posted by mikevotes at
5:20 AM
3 Comments:
I think you're right, but not exclusively for the reasons you state (the "inexperience" cover). With the rise of Right Wing talk radio ("hate radio") and, to some extent, Fox News and their ilk, I think the stigma of expressing racial prejudices is much less than it was thirty years ago. In short, the Bradley Effect isn't in play because people are no longer embarrassed to state their racial biases.
This isn't to say we've made no progress on the color blind front. Indeed, I think the percentage of color blind white voters is far higher today than it was thirty years ago. It's just that I also think the proliferation of Right Wing talk radio has given a certain "legitimacy" to racism and racial bias. It that gray area -- the Bradley Effect area -- that's gone...
By
-epm, at 1:08 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
-epm, at 1:08 PM
I'll buy that, although I still don't think it's open language and racism.
But, if I can rephrase your point, it works as a reassurance that they are not alone in their opinions.
At some point I have to write a macro post on the effects of niche/splintered media.
By
mikevotes, at 1:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home