The Bradley effect is a myth. **Updated with additonal data.**

[Hokie]

I updated this analysis and included RCP data from 5 additional states. The results are even more dramatic and prove conclusively that the Bradley effect is a myth. Note that CA again showed a late surge for Obama in several polls that did not materialize. Another conclusion one could draw is that Obama dramatically beat the poll predictions for southern states. In 5 southern states including TX Obama beat the final poll numbers by an average of a whopping 10 points! I think I can make a strong case that if anything the primaries demonstrated that not only is the Bradley effect a complete myth that the opposite may indeed be true.

This is the original post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7692448&mesg_id=7692448

All data is from RCP.

State Poll Actual Delta

NH O+8.3 C+2.6 C+10.9
IN C+5.0 C+1.4 O+3.6
VA O+17.7 O+28.2 O+10.5
PA C+6.1 C+9.2 C+3.1
OH C+7.1 C+10.1 C+3.0
NC O+8.0 O+14.7 O+6.7
TX C+1.7 C+3.5 C+1.8
CA O+1.2 C+9.6 C+10.8
GA O+18.0 O+35.3 O+17.3
CN C+4.0 O+3.1 O+7.1
SC O+11.6 O+28.9 O+17.3



So Clinton beat the polls in 5 states by an average of 5.9 points.
Obama beat the polls in 6 states by an average of 10.4 points.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. The only ones discussing the Bradley Myth on TV are Republicans and conservatives nt

[rucky]

2. Your sampling is only with Dem voters.

I agree the Bradley Effect is bogus, but I don't think we'll be able to prove it until Nov. 5th.

[Demi_Babe]

3. well, it's not a myth because I saw it in play just last week here in NC but it won't be

significant