‘Bradly Effect’ May Give Harris’ the Win

Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash

And it would be a stunning irony

By Timothy P Holmberg

In 1982, something happened that stunned political pollsters of the time. Not since “Dewey Beats Truman” has there been such a shock to election predictions. That something may be surfacing yet again to upend expectations and polls alike in the upcoming presidential race. It was in 1982 that Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley (black) ran against State Attorney General George Deukmejian (white) for Governor of California. Despite Deukmejian trailing in both pre-election polls and exit polls by up to 6 percentage points, he went on to win the governor’s race by 1.6 percentage points.

Wait, what? A seven point spread?!?!

A polling miss like that in modern statistics is almost unheard of. Especially in exit polling, which until then was regarded as basically a preview of the results. So, naturally the question is, “why?”, “what happened?”

Lots of research later, it came down to race, sort of. Sort of?

The notion that racial bias played a roll in 1982 politics is hardly surprising. What is a bit more interesting is the dynamic that led people to answer inaccurately in both pre-election polls and exit polls. The “Bradly Effect” as it became known, is often misunderstood as a race based polling factor. But what it really is, boils down to a human tendency to not always be honest, even in an anonymous setting. People are sometimes shy about what their actual feelings and intentions might be (gasps). We are exposed to this enough in daily life that it should hardly be a surprise that it can distort polling that relies on candor, and honesty. Statistics are cold, dry and often bland math. Humans on the other hand, are, frankly, quite messy in mathematical terms. The tendency to conceal beliefs or opinions is particularly present when we feel there might be a negative backlash to expressing what may be an unpopular view. Thus in 1982, while many still harbored at least a subconscious racial bias, few felt comfortable expressing the sentiment openly.

So, what does this have to do with today?

If you’re a political stats geek, you know that in the last two presidential elections, the polls underestimated Trump’s support by significant margins. Although Trump lost to Biden in 2020 (yes, he LOST), it was by substantially less than most polls had predicted. Pollsters have puzzled over this, and tweaked how they measure these things, but they still have no hard answers as to why his support was undercounted. The reason for that matters a lot in this election, as polls show a razor thin margin in all the swing states. In North Carolina, almost every day, the leader switches from blue to red and back again like a blinking Christmas light.

In a very closely divided country, small things become very big, and so the relatively small polling misses in the last two presidential elections matter, a lot. In 2016, Trump was the most divisive candidate for president since Pat Buchanan (how quaint his odiousness seems now). Trump heavily trafficked in sexism and “dog whistle” politics. Enough so, that a significant portion of his voters felt inclined to mask their views of support. This IS the Bradly effect in action. In 2020, though Trump lost narrowly, he was polling substantially lower going into election night (as few as around 65,000 votes could have shifted that electoral outcome). Again, the Bradly effect. Remember the militant actions around resisting masks, vaccines, science? The fake cures? The environment became toxic enough that a slice of Trump voters just masked their support until they got their ballot.

Those last two undercounts led pollsters to go in and take a look at their statistical models and make some adjustments to fine tune them. They have assumed that Trump’s toxicity isn’t strong enough to cause them to shift allegiance, but maybe strong enough that a slice of voters will consistently be shy about their support for him. Hence some VERY tight polling margins.

How does this Bradly thingy help Harris?

There, however, might be some good news to assuage anxieties and perhaps inspire hope. The presumption of shyness being the province of the Trump voter could be missing a significant shift. Trump 2.0 is substantially more odious than the previous incarnation (didn’t think that was possible). The Dobbs decision on abortion unleashed a seismic shift in the electorate that is only now fully manifesting. Added to that, the most prominent figures in Trump’s previous administration are finally being fully candid about who the man really is. A fascist. Not in the sense you hear in heated arguments that went too far. But in the very real manifestation of our deepest fears that such a thing might ever arise here, in America. That we could birth a Franco (Spain), Mussolini (Italy), or Stalin (Soviet Union “red fascism”), if not an outright Hitler.

But the biggest factor, is one that we got a preview of thanks to Nicky Haley. Trump’s sexism isn’t just some fringe or decorative tassel on the cloth edge of his campaign. No, it is stitched into its very core. It is expressed openly in regressive policies that would transform women back into Valium popping housewives, who existed solely for the purpose of lifting husband and children while mastering brewing the perfect pot of Folgers “Mountain Grown” coffee. Trump loathes powerful, assertive women. His debate performance against Harris was known more for the nativist slurs against Haitian dietary choices (which have nothing to do with dogs and cats). But underneath that was a through-line of general contempt for successful woman, and the implication (oft repeated by MAGA supporters) that Harris slept her way to her posts (see note below). As much as Trump’s campaign is pimping the immigration issue, religion and economics issues which he has zero solutions for, his campaign is a sexist clarion call.

Tucker Carlson made that crystal clear when he joined the Trump campaign in Georgia in its closing weeks:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna177097

I don’t have time to unpack all the Freudian mess that he blathered, but it frankly speaks for itself. “You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a spanking” Tucker cooed, as he introduced the women of our nation to their “daddy” just come home 🤮.

The sea foam of male cheering from the audience underscores just how messed up much of the male gender in this country is. But women, the ones who have underwritten and overachieved this country to most of its successes, will hear this for what it is.

Debased, indecent, and retrograde.

They won’t make a big fuss about it. But they will assert their self respect in the voting booth, and quite possibly show Trump what a Bradly Effect can look like when you done pissed off the wrong women. No woman in the nation deserves what Trump will unleash.  I doubt most will stand for it . . .

(note: over the last several months, since Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, I have witnessed and noted many anecdotal instances of the sexism Trump has unleashed. It is one of his most prominent effects on people, his ability to green light our inner asshole. One such incident occurred while in the TV lounge where I live. I walked in to a husband and wife and another, er, gentleman watching Fox News blather. I decided to sit down and get a small dose of the swill they were ingesting.

First up, inflation, which was all Harris’ fault (even thought it’s a global phenomenon hitting most other nations much harder than us). Trump was the “successful businessman “ and therefore presumed to be able to solve the issue, no future questions or plan needed.

I decided to poke, “so you support a command socialist economy?”

A combination of confusion and outrage manifested on their faces. Except for the wife who sat quite quiet and proper, watching the TV. I thought I detected a faint grin on her face, but her demure expression was practiced. I went back to watching.

Next up, the DEI hire line of attack. Immediately the men pounced. “She slept her way to every job she had”, proclaimed the husband. His wife didn’t flinch. She’s a pro, I thought. I decided to go in for the kill, “so, you think that just because she’s a woman she must have slept her way to those jobs? Because that’s the only way women attain those positions in your view? Is that really how you want to convey yourself?” He squirmed. I continued towards his jugular, “mind you that most of the posts she’s held were elective offices where the voters selected her. I don’t recall having slept with her when I voted for her as Senator of California.”

He winced.

“I don’t know if I can answer that in this group.” He sheepishly muttered as he glanced in his wife’s direction. Even from the side, I could now see a distinct, though subtle grin, but she never wavered her gaze from the TV. I somehow felt a silent kinship with her.

In the last sputters of the conversation I gleaned that she was actually the breadwinner in their house. I had my fun, and I took my leave.

Of course, that’s not scientific. But it sits in an ocean of more direct anecdotes that a significant slice of women and men are at least quietly giving Trump the shoulder, and even embracing Harris. The post-it notes that Harris supporters are leaving in bathrooms and other areas are not only brilliant, but proof that I’m not the only one seeing this. It’s not a figment. The question that remains, is whether it’s enough to be decisive. I clearly think it is, even though my anxiety occasionally still boils over. I breathe it back down, and keep faith we will make it through ok. And it will be the women if this country who will deserve the credit.)