Witnessing A Right-Wing Version of The Bradley Effect?

I must admit that I don't understand the Republican infatuation with Donald Trump. He has brought the GOP nothing but grief. 

He lies at the drop of a hat, and even though a recent CBS News poll showed that Republicans trust him more than their families or their religious leaders, I find it hard to believe most Republicans don't know that.

He has been found to be a rapist by a New York jury, and seems to take pride in his obvious misogyny. 

Now he has been indicted for over 90 felony counts by four grand juries (two federal and two state grand juries), and faces several trials. Several polls have shown that a majority of voters believe Trump committed a criminal act.

Add to this the fact that Trump has been an electoral albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. Candidates he supported dropped like flies in the 2020 and 2022 elections - turning the expected "red wave" into a tiny pink trickle. And some 64% of voters say they would never vote for him in a general election.

Whether they like Trump or not, I can't believe they still support him -- or do they? Could they be telling pollsters and reporters that they support Trump because they don't want to admit in public that they are tired of his nonsense. Could they be embarrassed to admit to friends and neighbors that they realize his buffoonery?

Back in 1982, California voters told pollsters (and claimed in public) that they supported Tom Bradley (a Black candidate) for governor. But on Election Day, when they were alone in the voting booth, most voted for his white opponent. It has become known as the "Bradley Effect" -- telling pollsters and others that you will vote a certain way and then doing the opposite.

Could the same thing be happening in the Republican Party right now? Could we be witnessing a right-wing version of the Bradley Effect? Are Republicans telling friends and pollsters what they think they want to hear (instead of what they actually want to do)?

It's possible. It would explain why Republicans seem to support a very flawed person who will seriously damage their party if he gets the nomination. The only other explanation is that the GOP voters are either sadly deluded or incredibly stupid.

We won't know the answer until the primaries start early next year.

Will Something Similar To "Bradley Effect" Help Moore Win ?

The charts above are from RealClearPolitics. They show the average of the latest polls in the Alabama Senate race between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones. Note that the sexual accusations of Moore with teenage girls has caused the race to close dramatically -- and currently the polls average showed the race is a virtual tie (Jones 46.5% to Moore 46.3%).

That means the race, according to the polls, is a toss-up. Either candidate could win. I still have a hard time believing that Alabama will send Jones to Washington. It's a bright red state, and normally a very easy win for any Republican -- even one with the extreme views of Roy Moore.

I think we should prepare ourselves for something like the "Bradley effect" to happen. Back in 1982, Los Angeles' mayor Tom Bradley, a Black man, was running for governor of California. All of the polls showed him with a large lead, as Whites said they would happily vote for a Black man for governor. But he lost. When Whites went to vote their secret ballot, they did not vote as they told pollsters they would.

Could the same thing be happening in Alabama? Many Alabama Republicans are telling pollsters they will not vote for Roy Moore because of his moral lapses (sexual harassment/abuse of teen girls). But they could just be telling pollsters that because they are embarrassed to say they would vote for a child molester just because he is a Republican. But when they go into the voting booth, and no one can see which candidate they vote for, will they vote for the Republican anyway?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is a distinct possibility. I think there's a very good chance that Alabama sends a child molester to Congress -- and probably by a significant margin.

Will "Bradley Effect" Appear On Nov. 4th ?

One of the biggest imponderables in this year's presidential election is the "Bradley Effect". Will it affect the election, or is it a thing of the past? There are convincing arguments for both points of view.

In the 1982 California governor's race, Tom Bradley (above left) had a sizeable lead in the polls but lost by a small margin on election day. It was believed that some white voters told pollsters they supported Bradley, but then voted for his white opponent in the privacy of the voting booth. This difference between the polls and the actual result for African-American politicians has since been known as the "Bradley Effect".

The same phenomenon was seen again in the 1989 Virginia governor's race. Douglas Wilder had a significant lead in the polls, but pulled out a victory only by a razor-thin margin. Most pundits agreed it was due to the "Bradley Effect".

But in the last 10 years or so, the "Bradley Effect" has not seemed to play much of a role in our elections. Take the 2006 Tennessee senate race for example. Polls showed a very close race between Harold Ford (above right) and his white opponent. Ford lost a squeaker, but exit polls showed his white support was about the same as shown by pre-election polls. This caused many pundits to claim the "Bradley Effect" was dead.

But this is the first time we had ever had an African-American running for president and leading in the polls. This is not the same as a senatorial or governor's election. We are basically talking about electing the leader of the "free world". Because of that, it would not surprise me to see at least a small amount of the "Bradley Effect" show up on election day. How much is anybody's guess.

Fortunately for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, there are a couple of other unusual aspects in the 2008 presidential election. These have to do with black voters and new young voters.

Black voters normally give at least 80% of their vote to the Democratic candidate. But it is expected this year to be as high as 95% with the Democratic candidate being Barack Obama. In addition, there has been a concerted effort to register many more black voters this year. It is expected that the overall black vote will be significantly higher than ever before.

In the past, young voters have had a disappointingly small turnout. But during the primaries, the youth vote showed a large increase. The Obama campaign has made it a point to try and register many more young voters since the primaries. At this time the youth vote, which is dominated by support for Obama, looks like it may be much larger than in the past.

There are many who believe the larger black vote and youth vote may be underestimated in the current polling. If this is true, and I believe it is, these two undercounts could easily offset the "Bradley Effect", if it does occur.

Of course at this point, this is all just political guesswork. Will there be a "Bradley Effect"? Will black voters and younger voters show up in larger than expected numbers? We won't know until November 4th.

This is shaping up to be a very interesting election. I can hardly wait.