Racism Giving Pollsters Fits

[DemocracyInaction]

Read an article a few days ago about how pollsters are just pulling their hair out because of racism that they know is there but have no way of quantifying it since there just aren't good models. The article gave instances of past elections where pollsters saw this issue clearly after the election results were in:

The exit polls in our OWN Dem primary showed Obama attracting more votes than he actually got. (We have a chunk of racists in our own party who are lying about it). In elections going back 15 years where there was a black candidate, they found several things - there were quite a number of incidents where the black lead in the final days and either just squeaked by or lost (the most notable one was a race where the black was 15 points ahead on the eve of the election and won by under 2,000 votes!)

Basically what I could glean was that if in these individual states Obama is ahead 2-3 points right before election day, the chances are he will lose the state because that percentage will be gobbled up in the "racial" vote. He will need to be a good strong 6 points or more ahead in order to absorb that racial factor and yet win. ...and this is the country who runs around billing itself as pure, Christian, the model that all peoples everywhere should copy! Disgusting.

[democrattotheend]

1. Sadly, I think you are right

I have a friend who works for a Democratic pollster and she said they've seen some evidence of a "race-of-interviewer" effect, where Obama's support is much higher when the person asking the questions is black. People here are going to jump all over this post and deny any possibility of a Bradley effect, but I think you are dead on and we need to be concerned about it. As you said, if Obama is leading by 2-3 points going into the election, it's way too close for comfort. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that a 2-3 point lead means a probable loss, but I think it is a definite possibility.

[DemocracyInaction]

2. democratto---another concern

When I read the article I could see that a 2-3 pt. lead followed by defeat would be very easy to "steal" the election. All the repukes would have to do is point to the "racism factor" as it has showed up in other elections and say that that is why Obama lost in the end and, thus, no need for recounts or investigations. Now, "close enough to steal" really means he has to be 6 points or more ahead in the states he needs and so far a lot of them are not shaping up that way.

[KneelBeforeZod]

3. Maybe ...

I could be wrong, but I don't think outright racism is necessarily the only explanation for this phenomenon. Outright racists wouldn't be likely to answer that they were going to vote for Obama in the first place -- so they wouldn't throw off polling results.

Perhaps a better explanation is a "fear of being perceived as racist". For instance, a non-racist who is leaning toward McCain for ideological reasons might answer that they would vote for Obama so they won't be perceived as racist by the pollster. But, in the end, McCain was their guy all along.

The problem isn't necessarily racism -- but people lying to pollsters. Poll data would already account for true racists. They would never fall into the Obama camp, and thus not affect the difference between the poll data and the final results of the election.

Z

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Participation in exit polls is voluntary

The discrepancy is better explained by white people who voted for Clinton not wanting to be exit-polled because they didn't want to be perceived as racist, rather than exit-poll participants actively lying.

I think Kerry over-performed in 2004 exit polls because of an enthusiasm gap... Kerry voters were more eager to say who they voted for and thus likelier to participate. (I doubt any pugs were lying, saying they voted for Kerry. Easier to just decline to be polled.)

[DemocracyInaction]

5. Kurt - the exit polls were just one part discussed in the article

The article just mentioned the one thing pertaining to Obama which were the primary exit polls. The others they were talking about were polls leading into election day where certain black candidates looked like they would have a relative easy win or even blow out. But, when the votes were counted, they weren't even close to the eve-of-election poll. In other words, pollsters on the phone were getting people saying they were going to vote for the black candidate and either voted for the other or didn't show at the polls. That's why they just can't come up with some statistical picture that accurately predicts how much you accept of the numbers and how much you reject. I can't help but thinking how back in 2004 discussions here were of Gallup always weighting the polls to the republicans because they factored in that republicans were more likely to go to the polls than dems (certainly hope they aren't doing that today because the primaries blew that one away). Sooo, I think the pollsters are looking for some accurate way to weight in this factor that effects black candidates.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I wasn't gainsaying the whole article, by any means.

I generally agree with the thesis, and the phenomenon I mentioned doesn't make exit polling any more accurate. Noting that the same sort of polling error can arise even without conscious deception makes the polling difficulty even more pronounced. Even phone polls are voluntary, so people's pride in their choice is always a factor.

[WeDidIt]

7. In the primaries, Obama mostly OUTPERFORMED pre-election polls

Don't believe me? Markos Moulitsas documents it here

[DemocracyInaction]

9. IWant--I was talking the exit polls in the Obama case

Certainly we had enourmous turnout, etc. But when the exit polls were compared to his actual votes, the exit polls were higher than the actual vote. So some Dems were not being truthful with the exit pollsters (and, of course, in some cases we had independent voters and repuke infiltrated slime which also doesn't help pollsters really get a fix on what's likely to happen). Pollsters apparently are afraid they are going to end up looking like they couldn't poll a church and ask "how many of you are Christian" and come within 30 points of accuracy!!!!

[WeDidIt]

10. You have formulated a false assumption on exit polls

Exit polls generally are taken in specific precincts due to known performance. The old models no longer work in teh new paradigm.

It's not racism. It's a failure by the pollsters. Nothing more.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I am so tired of the racism talk here and elsewhere.....

Fuck it! Elect your white man, and lets get on with it.
I think after this election, Black people won't give a shit who is running....the Black vote will be lost forever, if this continues.

DU pushes this rascim bullshit by running over here and posting every fucking damn article they can find on the subject, and then gnawing their fucking teeth. Then you have the poster that sadly say....Yes, there are a whole lot of racists in America.....like they fucking know anything other than listening to the loud ass racists that run around acting like they are a majority. Group think sucks, and these kind of threads actually encourages us to think that everyone and his brother is a great big racist, as well as encourages defeatist attitudes and demoralizes many. But I guess that is the intended purpose....and this "Hide your head in the sand if you want to" reasoning is simply more bullshit. Doesn't matter if I hide or not.....if people keep saying "well a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he is Black", then people will believe that this is an OK thing to do since it has been said so many times over and over again!

So in fact, if you didn't know, we have already given the go ahead for those who choose to be as racist as they want to be in this election. In fact, I daresay, being a racist is almost kind of cool again. I'm pretty sure that those White folks saying they will vote for Obama to these pollsters are telling the truth. I don't give a shit if Pollster "claim" that somehow they must be lying. What a bunch of shit this is! And shame on the poster for thinking that this is helping anything....other than advancing the theory that Race is the issue in this election.

[darius15]

11. racism will definitely play a part but i think the turnout will offset it

we have the first AA who actually made it to the GE in a country where there has been a dark past for AA's, and nobody will forget that. Even today there are states where racism is high (The Deep South). Are there people who won't vote Obama because of his race? Yea. Just like there were people who were sexist and wouldn't vote for Hillary. Right now we need to stop worrying, and do what we need to do to win, which is donate to Obama when you can and help the campaign out if possible. And this Bradley Effect thing is talked about too much. Even if there is a 2-3 percent Bradley Effect, higher turnout from AA's and the youth vote will offset it.

[iconicgnom]

12. Hopefully the world will be surprised by the overwhelming positive turnout.

[Barack_America]

13. Why don't they consider that some people will not admit they're voting for Obama...

When they really will (also due to racism)?

I always wondered if this was a factor in Obama's better-than-predicted primary results.

[Orangepeel]

14. I don't think I believe this "Bradley effect" idea

many racists will lie about being racist. I get that. I don't get why someone who wasn't voting for an African American because of racism would lie about the voting rather than just lie about the racism. There are plenty of bullshit reasons they could give.