"The polls are tightening," was the almost universal caveat repeated by cable news talking heads in the final countdown to the only poll that matters -- today's general election. It is an open question whether "tightening" could be used as a synonym or euphemism for skewing.
Others have written widely about the so-called Bradley Effect, which as described by TIME magazine, is a "theory holds that voters have a tendency to withhold their leanings from pollsters when they plan to vote for a white candidate instead of a black one." In March, a Pew Research study purported to identify the presence of both a Bradley Effect and a Reverse Bradley effect, the latter of which would advantage an African-American candidate.
An editorial in this morning's Los Angeles Times is skeptical about the Bradley Effect's existence, and even it does, whether it will have a role in Obama's fortunes. In dismissing it as a myth, the LA Times observes that demography and technology may be part of the effect's undoing:
Consider the possibility of a reverse Dewey effect. Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York is best remembered from a headline that became a punchline -- DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.
There are a number of explanations for the mistaken headline. A printer's strike at The Chicago Tribune forced the paper to go to press an hour earlier than usual, before the actual ballot count was available.
The Tribune had been dismissive of Dewey but new fangled public opinion polling had helped convince its editors that Dewey had a significant advantage heading into election day. The telephone was at the heart of the new fangeld polling methods. But pollsters were only able to reach people who could actually afford telephones, who were overwhelmingly Republicans, and who overwhelmingly favored Dewey.
Fast forward to today and the ubiquity of cell phones whose users are out of reach of pollsters. Given what we know -- or what we think we know -- about the socio economic profile of cell phone users and young voters, we could see a Reverse Dewey Effect in tonight's results.
The suddenly conservative pundits who say the polls are tightening could be right. But if they are wrong, and the margins are wider than expected, the credit (or the blame) could belong a Reverse Dewey Effect and those pesky cell phones. To echo the LA TImes on that 'other' effect, it is not "so much that respondents lie to pollsters as that pollsters can't know what they don't know to look for."
Others have written widely about the so-called Bradley Effect, which as described by TIME magazine, is a "theory holds that voters have a tendency to withhold their leanings from pollsters when they plan to vote for a white candidate instead of a black one." In March, a Pew Research study purported to identify the presence of both a Bradley Effect and a Reverse Bradley effect, the latter of which would advantage an African-American candidate.
An editorial in this morning's Los Angeles Times is skeptical about the Bradley Effect's existence, and even it does, whether it will have a role in Obama's fortunes. In dismissing it as a myth, the LA Times observes that demography and technology may be part of the effect's undoing:
[T]his election may feature a jump in the number of younger voters who cast ballots. They appear to tilt heavily toward Obama and are more likely to rely on cellphones, which pollsters have yet to figure out how to contact. Thus any racists who conceal themselves from pollsters may be counterbalanced by voters who are simply unavailable to them.The dead space between public opinion pollsters and cell phone users -- particularly the one in three American households that have cell phones to the exclusion of land lines (according to a recent CDC-commissioned survey) -- could be the source of surprises of its own.
Consider the possibility of a reverse Dewey effect. Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York is best remembered from a headline that became a punchline -- DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.There are a number of explanations for the mistaken headline. A printer's strike at The Chicago Tribune forced the paper to go to press an hour earlier than usual, before the actual ballot count was available.
The Tribune had been dismissive of Dewey but new fangled public opinion polling had helped convince its editors that Dewey had a significant advantage heading into election day. The telephone was at the heart of the new fangeld polling methods. But pollsters were only able to reach people who could actually afford telephones, who were overwhelmingly Republicans, and who overwhelmingly favored Dewey.
Fast forward to today and the ubiquity of cell phones whose users are out of reach of pollsters. Given what we know -- or what we think we know -- about the socio economic profile of cell phone users and young voters, we could see a Reverse Dewey Effect in tonight's results.
The suddenly conservative pundits who say the polls are tightening could be right. But if they are wrong, and the margins are wider than expected, the credit (or the blame) could belong a Reverse Dewey Effect and those pesky cell phones. To echo the LA TImes on that 'other' effect, it is not "so much that respondents lie to pollsters as that pollsters can't know what they don't know to look for."
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment