Race and polling: it's complex

Some in the media, including WPRO's Dan Yorke, have made reference to the "Bradley effect" theory that Barack Obama's poll ratings could be inflated by as much as six percent -- due to the dynamics of race.

Let's recognize that this issue is a lot more complex than that. For starters, as one astute local political observer mentioned to me yesterday, Obama's recent ascent in the polls is driven more by effective organizing on the ground than by the fallout from the fiscal crisis.

Meanwhile, writing Sunday in the NYT, Kate Zernike offered a detailed take on race and polling.

[P]ollsters and political scientists say concern about a Bradley effect — some call it a Wilder effect or a Dinkins effect, and plenty call it a theory in search of data — is misplaced. It obscures what they argue is the more important point: there are plenty of ways that race complicates polling. Considered alone or in combination, these factors could produce an unforeseen Obama landslide with surprise victories in the South, a stunningly large Obama loss, or a recount-thin margin. In a year that has already turned expectations upside down, it is hard to completely reassure the fretters.

Among the non-Bradley factors at the intersection of race and polling is something called the reverse Bradley (perhaps more prevalent than the Bradley), in which polls understate support for a black candidate, particularly in regions where it is socially acceptable to express distrust of blacks. Then there are the voters not captured by polls. Research shows that those who refuse to participate in surveys tend to be less likely to vote for a black candidate. The race of the questioner, too, affects a poll — but no one is sure whether people give more or less accurate answers when they’re interviewed by someone of their own race.