A Ms. Bradley Effect in 2016 Presidential Polling?

Over the last two Presidential election cycles, there were numerous articles and analyses whether or not Barack Obama’s polling results would be impacted by the so-called Bradley Effect, that is, white respondents being more likely to report voting for a non-white candidate when being interviewed for a poll. This social desirability bias led some political analysts to believe that Obama’s support may be overstated in polling ballot tests. However, it is clear from the 2008 and 2012 elections that there was no Bradley Effect on Obama’s polling numbers.

For the upcoming 2016 elections, there has been some concern in the polling community that a woman candidate at the top of the Presidential ticket may result in similar social desirability biases as the Bradley Effect. The theory here being that polling respondents may be more likely to say they support Hillary Clinton when being interviewed by a female than a male.

Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research have tracked the gender of interviewer in our monthly NBC/WSJ polls since January, in order to track any biases that result in a male versus female presidential election. In total, we combined the 3,800 interviews that we have conducted since our January poll for this analysis.

First, it is important to look at a generic ballot question – one that simply asks whether a respondent prefers a Republican president or Democratic president be elected in 2016. This data shows that across respondent and interviewer gender, there are no differences in the data:

bradley-effect-chart1

It is important to note here that the demographics – age, ethnicity, 2012 vote, education, party and region – are weighted within gender so that regardless of interviewer gender, these sub-groups share the same demographic profile.

Next, looking at the likely Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton match-up, there are some modest differences. However, the data does not show any strong evidence that respondents are more likely to say they support Clinton to a female interviewer. If anything, the only pattern that emerges is that when respondents are speaking to someone of their own gender, they are more likely to admit support for Donald Trump:

bradley-effect-chart2

And, when comparing this match-up to a Ted Cruz-Clinton ballot test, the data looks like the original generic ballot test – where there are no differences in the data across interviewer gender. (This data is from January-April NBC/WSJ polls, conducted before Cruz dropped out of the race on May 3.)

bradley-effect-chart3

Finally, in a male versus male match-up, Trump-Sanders in the data below, the data shows, like the generic and Cruz-Clinton ballot that there is no difference among male respondents. And, among the female respondents, the interviewer “gender gap” is 4 points – exactly in line with the Trump-Clinton ballot:

bradley-effect-chart4

This data shows that there just isn’t much evidence of a social desirability bias towards a female candidate impacting the polling data. The only evidence of any bias that may exist is the potential for respondents – and women slightly more than men – to say they support Trump when speaking to an interviewer of their same gender. As the 2016 cycle continues, POS will continue to track our data to see if this pattern holds.

Polling for NBC and The Wall Street Journal is conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Fred Yang. This analysis is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of NBC, The Wall Street Journal, or Hart Research Associates.

Share on Facebook2Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0Email this to someone
Similar Articles

  • The Tax Reform Lifeline
    read more

  • Biden: His Time?
    read more

  • Americans oppose banning after-hours work email
    read more

  • The Times They Are A-Changin’ – NBC/WSJ Social Trends
    read more

  • Trumping President Obama: Who Gets Credit for the Economy?
    read more

Public Opinion Strategies helped us to clarify what we wanted to learn and then conducted research and analysis that shed light even beyond the questions we set out to ask. They were very receptive to our suggestions, responsive to our queries, and flexible when we needed them to be.

Public Opinion Strategies has consistently offered unparalleled advice and spot-on polling that has shaped how and where we spent money and deploy key resources. Additionally, they have always been an excellent steward of limited campaign resources, ensuring we spend wisely and not a dollar more than necessary in order to get the information we need.

Robert Blizzard and Public Opinion Strategies did a great job for us throughout our successful campaign for Congress. Robert gave us accurate data, spot on analysis, and professional advice, all of which were essential to our victory.

Public Opinion Strategies is one of our go-to pollsters when it comes to testing public support for bond ballot measures and other initiative proposals. They are available to provide ongoing consultation with regard to crafting of ballot questions, public outreach messaging, and related efforts.

ACLI has worked with Public Opinion Strategies for decades, through several tough industry battles—often ones in which public opinion does not naturally fall on the side of insurers. Yet Bill and his team consistently provide invaluable strategic advice by refining our messages and helping us frame our issues in a way that makes them understandable and persuasive.

The data from Public Opinion Strategies provided important insight and informed our public awareness campaign. We sincerely appreciate their professionalism and expertise in this arena.

Nicole McCleskey and the team at Public Opinion Strategies have been invaluable to me, both during my campaigns and as Governor of the State of New Mexico. It’s not just the accuracy of their numbers, but guiding the overall strategy that makes them so valuable.

Public Opinion Strategies has been a part of our team in Missouri for more than a decade. With their data and guidance, Republicans here were able to attain a majority in the House in 2002 for the first time in fifty years, and we have been able to grow that majority to the point that we now have a record, veto-proof majority.

Lori Weigel from Public Opinion Strategies reviewed our needs and guided us toward asking the right questions. Her reporting was easy to follow and her interpretation of the data provided clear decision points.

In my tenure at two leading business associations, facing huge and complex consumer issues, I have benefitted enormously from the objective advisory skills of Bill and his team. They do their homework, they are rigorous, dispassionate and thoughtful. Turning questions into answers is a clever tag, but it’s also an apt description of the professional talents of the firm.

I consider Public Opinion Strategies to be a part of our team. That is the way we have always worked. They have helped us to understand our needs and fashioned research solutions to meet those needs. They have helped us to meet killer deadlines by being flexible, executing rapidly, and insuring quality. Teamwork is the best way to describe it.

Accuracy, speed, and deep knowledge of key issues and public sentiment are the hallmarks of quality opinion research, and on these measures Public Opinion Strategies consistently delivers. I have had the pleasure of working with Public Opinion Strategies for more than 15 years on dozens of issues, and they are undoubtedly the gold standard.

Public Opinion Strategies’ track record of success and wealth of experience in political campaigns and issue advocacy are why they are one of the most trusted and well respected public opinion firms in Washington, D.C. Their insights and perspectives have helped to inform a wide array of public affairs activities across multiple industries.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com