There has been a lot of talk this year about the potential for the Bradley/Wilder* effect to play a role in this presidential campaign. In fact, this is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss the phenomenon in terms of a legitimately viable candidate for the presidency during both the primary phase of the race and continuing into the general election. There also has not been any
lack of opinions or
research done as to whether the Bradley effect could play a role or whether it is even relevant in 2008. Just today
Nate Silver at
FiveThirtyEight linked to a Newsweek piece he had written to once again attempt to debunk the myth. And that's just the thing: given the current state of this race, this is the one unknown -- and some people, Silver included, argue that it really isn't -- that could affect the race enough to hand McCain the election.
...or could it?
I can buy Silver's argument that the Bradley effect is a myth in 2008. In fact, Dan Hopkins' paper on the Bradley effect has shown that over time the phenomenon has faded to the point of being minor at best. But Hopkins' research serves as something of a jumping off point. Whether there is or isn't a Bradley effect at play between now and November 4, we have data that indicates approximately what that effect may look like [...on average]. Across the 133 cases of minority or female candidates running for either a senate or gubernatorial position since 1989, the average effect was one percent. Now, that doesn't seem like that much, but let's look at how
today's electoral college map would look if there was a uniformly distributed, 1% Bradley effect in the presidential race. [
Again, the point of this exercise isn't to determine whether there is a Bradley effect, rather it is one to ascertain what the effect would look like on the electoral college map.]
[Click Map to Enlarge]The obvious change is that several of the states on today's Watch List shift enough in that one percent move to change categories. Most consequentially, Florida, Nevada and Ohio move back into the McCain toss up category, handing the Arizona senator 52 electoral votes in the process. So even if there is just a one percent shift it turns a projected landslide into 2004. The electoral vote distribution would be the exact same 286-252 as four years ago, but Barack Obama would still garner enough electoral votes to win the presidential race. Is there a Bradley effect? Is there not a Bradley effect? Well, if it is only an average effect, then it could make things a bit more interesting come November 4.
| Changes (Bradley Effect = 1%) |
| State | Before | After |
|---|
Colorado
| Obama lean
| Toss Up Obama
|
Florida
| Toss Up Obama
| Toss Up McCain
|
Indiana
| Toss Up McCain
| McCain lean
|
Minnesota
| Strong Obama
| Obama lean
|
Nevada
| Toss Up Obama
| Toss Up McCain
|
Ohio
| Toss Up Obama
| Toss Up McCain
|
Wisconsin
| Strong Obama
| Obama lean
|
There is a caveat to all this, though. Hopkins also draws a distinction between the presence of a Bradley effect when a candidate is already behind in the polls and when it is in place for a candidate who is the front-runner in one of these senate or gubernatorial races. Those front-runners also have some inflation in their pre-election poll numbers -- most tend to anyway. Hopkins makes the argument that those minority candidates who have pre-election poll leads have two effects to deal with: the Bradley effect and this front-runner effect [a bandwagon effect of sorts]. But within that line of argument, he splits the data into two samples -- those behind in the polls to begin with and those who fairly consistently clear the 50% barrier in those pre-election polls -- to make a broader point on the front-runner candidates. At the descriptive statistics level, Hopkins informs us that in those front-runner, Bradley effect races, African American candidates see a 1.9% disparity between what the polls say prior to an election and what the vote outcome will be. If we extend that basic finding to FHQ's electoral college map, we see a few additional changes to the map immediately above.
[Click Map to Enlarge]What we find is that when it is assumed that there is a two point Bradley effect placed on the current electoral vote distribution, an additional set of states shift categories. But there are not any additional states that cross the partisan line. Virginia comes very close, but based on the strength of the post-Lehman polling in the state, Virginia remains within the Obama toss up category. And while the overall electoral vote distribution is unchanged, a handful of states are safer for McCain by virtue of the two point Bradley effect. Montana and West Virginia become strong McCain states and North Carolina shifts out of the toss up category and takes its fifteen electoral votes into McCain lean territory. New Hampshire remains blue, but is much more competitive as a result.
| Changes (Bradley Effect = 2%) |
| State | Before | After |
|---|
Montana
| McCain lean
| Strong McCain
|
New Hampshire
| Obama lean
| Toss Up Obama
|
North Carolina
| Toss Up McCain
| McCain lean
|
West Virginia
| McCain lean
| Strong McCain
|
Alright. Case closed. Even if there is a two point Bradley effect -- one that doesn't even attempt to separate the front-runner effect out -- Obama continues to hold enough of a lead in the electoral college to win the race. Yes, that's true, but there is one major problem with how we have set this up thus far. The assumption in both scenarios above is that the effect applies evenly to all states. It is safe to say that that just isn't the case. A Bradley effect in Idaho is likely going to be different from a Bradley effect in Georgia.
But how do we determine how the effect would vary from state to state? Well, it isn't a stretch to hypothesize that race is likely an important determinant of that variation. In fact, as an extension of the
Schaller hypothesis we discussed a few days ago in the
comments section, we can argue that the Bradley effect is higher in states where the African American population is high. Now, the Schaller argument is that the support for a minority candidate among white voters holds a negative relationship with the percentage of a state's population that is black; that as a state's percentage of African Americans increases, support among white voters -- for the Democratic candidate -- decreases. That doesn't necessarily jibe well with an idea that inadvertently puts social pressure on survey respondents to say they support a minority candidate when they don't. However, it could certainly be argued that it is in this situation, where the greatest potential for the Bradley effect resides. If there are more African Americans and thus greater interaction between the races, then there is, by extension, a greater potential for these social pressures to cause a discrepancy between pre-election poll numbers and the tally of votes cast.
What we can do, then, is weight two percent Bradley effect that Hopkins finds in the cases of African American candidates who are also front-runners in their senate or gubernatorial races. If two percent is the average Bradley effect in those situations, then how can we go about weighting or discounting states based on the percentage of their population that is African American? First, we can use the
2007 Census estimate of the population to determine that figure for each state (as recently as possible). We can then construct a weight by standardizing the Census data (by caluculating a
z-score for each state's data) and applying it to the average Bradley effect from Hopkins. The result is a Bradley effect range from 1.05% in Montana to 4.28% in Mississippi based on a state's proportion of African Americans. If we then apply this Schaller Weighting structure to the electoral college map, we set yet another set of changes.
[Click Map to Enlarge]Now Virginia switches over into the McCain toss up category and the Old Dominion's 13 electoral votes tighten the electoral college distribution even more. But a trio of states with lower relative African American populations -- Montana, New Hampshire and West Virginia -- now are not affected as greatly as they were when it was assumed that the Bradley effect was the same for all states. New Hampshire remains an Obama lean and both Montana and West Virginia stay in the McCain lean category.
| Changes (Bradley Effect = Weighted by % Pop. Black) |
| State | Before | After |
|---|
Montana
| Strong McCain
| McCain lean
|
New Hampshire
| Toss Up Obama
| Obama lean
|
Virginia
| Toss Up Obama
| Toss Up McCain
|
West Virginia
| Strong McCain
| McCain lean |
Essentially what has happened by assuming that there is an average Bradley effect of 2% that is weighted according to a state's African American population is that the race has been returned to its post-convention/pre-Lehman level, at least in terms of the electoral vote distribution. Obama would win by the slimmest of margins -- well, among the slimmest of margins -- if the votes were cast according to the map above.
While one and two percent effects don't seem like that much they have the effect of shifting the race back to where it was prior to the pre-economic collapse level. And the perception of that change has been that we have witnessed a pretty large shift in terms of the electoral college over the last month. Will there be a Bradley effect? I don't know, but there are certainly strains of arguments of both sides. Regardless, if there was a Bradley effect at play in 2008, and it was on par with what we have seen in other races -- on average -- over the last twenty years, it would have an impact but wouldn't necessarily change the outlook on what the outcome is likely to be on November 4.
UPDATE: The discussion on this in the comments section has been instructive thus far. What if, as I said, the Schaller hypothesis and the Bradley effect don't naturally wed themselves? What if, as SarahLawrenceScott says, it is more a matter of perceptions in the whitest states that would drive a potential Bradley effect as opposed to those normalized perceptions in states with higher proportions of African Americans? Well, let's have a look. If we take the Census figures on the white populations in the states, we can construct a similar measure to the one above. Can we expect whiter states like New Hampshire to get tighter and plains and prairie states to potential move further into the McCain column?
[Click Map to Enlarge]That's exactly what we see. All the changes on the previous hypothetical are reversed. Most consequentially, this brings Virginia back into the blue. But New Hampshire becomes much closer as does Colorado, which would be on the Watch List to cross the partisan line into McCain territory if there was the actual map. Also, Missouri and Iowa (roughly a couple of plains states, though folks in Missouri may disagree with that) and Montana and North Dakota move toward McCain. Missouri, Montana and North Dakota -- along with West Virginia -- become safer for McCain while Iowa is less so for Obama.
North Carolina has been a topic of conversation here at FHQ recently, and while the effect is lessened in this fourth scenario, it is still great enough to push the Tar Heel state into the McCain lean category.
| Changes (Bradley Effect = Weighted by % Pop. White) |
| State | Before | After |
|---|
Iowa
| Strong Obama | Obama lean
|
Missouri
| Toss Up McCain
| McCain lean |
Montana
| McCain lean
| Strong McCain
|
New Hampshire
| Obama lean
| Toss Up Obama
|
North Dakota
| McCain lean | Strong McCain
|
Virginia
| Toss Up McCain
| Toss Up Obama
|
West Virginia
| McCain lean | Strong McCain
|
The underlying conclusion is the same, though. Even if there
is some Bradley effect, it is not likely to change the outlook for the election. Obama is in a good position to win on November 4 unless there is an above average Bradley effect involved. But as Hopkins suggests, after about 1996, these effects decreased in a noticeable way in the senate and gubernatorial races he examined.
*The basic concept is that a minority candidate's poll numbers run above where the electoral outcome ends up. Survey respondents feel a sort of social pressure to say that they are voting for the minority candidate when in actuality they are not.
I want take an opportunity to thank Del Dunn at the University of Georgia for planting the basis of the Schaller idea discussed above in my head in a water cooler conversation we had. In addition, I'd like to thank Anon3:58 and SarahLawrenceScott for their contributions to the updated version of the analysis.Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/22/08)
Map Update Coming...
The Electoral College Map (10/21/08)
[Click Map to Enlarge]
