'Nevada Phenomenon' Bigger Peril to Obama than the Bradley Effect
A confident Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama shrugged off the buzz that he'd crash and burn with Latino voters, "Not in Illinois, they all voted for me." But not so fast; there was this retort from a reader, yeah, but you ran against Alan Keyes. Keyes, being the luckless and hapless eleventh hour Republican political sacrificial lamb who Obama annihilated in his smash victory for the U.S. Senate in 2004. But this time around, Obama faces a far bigger opponent than Keyes could ever hope to be, or even for that matter archrival Hillary Clinton. It's the 'Nevada phenomenon'. It poses a far bigger danger to Obama's White House drive than even the much debated 'Bradley effect'.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles. mayor Tom Bradley who lost his bid for California governor to a white opponent in 1986, though Bradley had big leads in polls. Many white voters told pollsters and interviewers that they had no problem voting for an African-American, but once in the privacy of the voting booth voted for his white opponent.
The 'Nevada phenomenon' by contrast has nothing to do with the supposed penchant for white voters to deceive pollsters and interviewers on race. In the South Carolina primary white voters went in reverse. The polls had Obama winning only ten percent of the white vote but in his smash win he more than doubled that percent. The 'Nevada Phenomenon' instead is the mix of wariness, fear, indifference and even hostility of the majority of Latino voters toward a black candidate.
It is more troublesome and intractable than potential white voter resistance to Obama. Even though in South Carolina and other Deep South primary states Obama lags behind Clinton among white voters, he's still likely to get a respectable percent of white votes. That's not true with Latino voters. Obama's poll popularity with Latinos hasn't budged very much despite his heightened name identification, media boost, energizing change pitch and personal charisma.. And if the history of black candidates, even popular well known and victorious candidates that ran for office and bombed with Latino voters is any indication, Obama won't do much better than they did.
Start with the politician that gave the 'Bradley effect' its dubious tag. During his 20 year reign as Los Angeles mayor, Bradley won election five times, and built a solid coalition of black, Jewish, and suburban Anglo white voters. However, Latino voters played only the barest of bare roles in Bradley's coalition and elections. Even though Latinos then made up nearly one-third of the city's population and were a rising percent of the voters, Bradley made few direct appeals to Latino voters for support.
Since then the political polarization between Latino voters and black candidates has been a virtual trademark in every other race where a black candidate has squared off against a white or Latino candidate. In 1993, Rudolph Giuliani, a tough law and order, conservative Republican running in heavily Democratic New York city against liberal African-American Democrat David Dinkins got nearly forty percent of the Latino vote. Nearly a decade later, Lee Brown, the former New York City police commissioner, got less than 30 percent of the Latino vote in his run-off race against Orlando Sanchez for Houston mayor. The even more popular, veteran former Congressman Ron Dellums received barely thirty percent of the Latino vote in his race for mayor in Oakland against a Latino challenger in 2005.
In each case the black candidates won their races with overwhelming support from black and substantial support from white voters. Their challengers were conservative Republicans or centrist Democrats They actively courted the Latino voters, and even won the important endorsements of prominent Latino elected officials and business leaders. That did little to dent the vote barrier between the majority of Latinos and the black candidates.
In Nevada, the pattern was the same. Obama got the endorsement of the leaders of the heavily Hispanic Culinary Workers Union. But getting the vote of the rank and file union workers was a far different matter, as the subsequent vote showed. Latino voters, many of them almost certainly members of the culinary union, defied their leaders and helped propel Clinton to victory.
This was yet another danger sign that the continuing reluctance of Latino voters to back black candidates could have a blowback effect on Obama.
The Super Tuesday primaries on February 5 will be a big test for him with Latino voters. Their numbers have soared in the key primary states of New Jersey, New York, Florida and his home state, Illinois. So much so that the black vote, even assuming that he will grab a far bigger share of that vote than Clinton, and split the white vote, will not insure an Obama victory. The Latino vote looms as the X factor for him. Unlike the subtle, much harder to finger 'Bradley effect', the 'Nevada phenomenon' is an open challenge to any black candidate that needs Latino votes to win. Obama is now the black candidate that faces that challenge, and danger.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I said it before and I will say it again. Most latinos will not vote for a black candidate.
Latinos look down on black people and look up to white people.
If you look at the latin american countries, most of them have been and are still ruled by a white elite. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega are ones of the few non-white presidents that were only elected recently and able to challenge the white ruling elites of their respective countries.
It's engrained in the latinos ind. White people are more capable than others.
Um.... Am I missing something here? What would keep a Latino from voting for Obama?
STOP MAKING THIS AN ISSUE!
Obama is running a candidacy that operates OUTSIDE of race issues for the most part. As a black individual who has latino friends for the vast majority of my life, I am SICK and TIRED of reading about this "great divide" that exists between blacks and latinos.
Black voters voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Villagairosa (70%-80%) in Los Angeles, so obviously there is no hate from African-Americans directed towards latino politicians based on race alone.
And so far as this latino "hatred" towards blacks goes, I'm black and I've been treated with nothing but RESPECT and HOSPITALITY by latinos, whether in Texas or California.
Latinos do not all think alike and most will vote for the candidate who best serves their interests, just like everyone else. If Hillary serves said interests best (or has better name recognition because she is a Clinton) then SO BE IT. That's not racism -- its called SELF-INTEREST, which every voter is entitled to.
So STOP trying to make a racial issue of EVERY DAMN THING that we vote upon. Maybe its just because you're older and that's the only way you can think of things, but those of us who are younger are SICK and TIRED of those of you who are older trying to tell us how we think and SCREWING EVERYTHING UP FOR US in the process.
'Nevada phenomenon' ?
Bit of a desperate cry for attention. First time Nevada has an early Democratic presidential caucus, first serious woman candidate, first serious black candidate, first presidential election where illegal immigration may play a major role, a rather muddled setting from which to coin a phrase, but hey, keep repeating it and I'm sure someone will give you credit for it.
As with the "white vote" what matters for an Obama victory on Super Tuesday among Latinos is not as important for the entire demographic as it is for the numbers within the numbers.
In South Carolina, Obama won only about a fourth of the white vote. But he did significantly better than that among white males, among young whites and among whites with a college education.
Obama's strategy in California should be not to pander to the Latino community in a pathetic attempt to make up this huge deficit of support.
Instead, Obama should target the universities up and down the California coast. Young Latinos and whites in school after school organizing and rallying and starting a "snowball" effect (a kinder metaphor than "a blazing wildfire"). Obama should also reach out to affluent Latinos and upper middle class Latinos.
However, we should watch the polls over the next couple weeks-- Obama's growing popularity among African Americans was part of an overall rise in support among Democrats. With momentum, endorsements, a fresh message, and Clinton fatigue, Obama could wipe out Hillary's lead among women and Latinos simply because more people will know who he is.
There are lots of Latinos in California
"Latinos will vote for Obama. Watch"
Considering that Hilary is FAR ahead in national polls among Latinos, and FAR FAR ahead among Latinos in NY, NJ, and California, it would QUITE a reverse "Bradley effect" for Obama to suddenly beat her among Latinos.
But we will see, won't we? BTW, my mother was Mexican and my father Black, so for whome should I vote....hm
Great article...
Clinton is very popular in the Latino community, and there IS a racial divide with the AA community.
This won't be something a good speech undoes.
Why do Bill and Hillary even bother putting themselves into the fray when they have you to do their dirty work for them?
While you express reservations that Latinos won't vote for the "black candidate" and mask it is a genuine concern that Barack won't win actually shows that you're only hoping that it won't happen. You're using the same tactics that voters are getting turned off from-- scaring people into thinking that Barack isn't viable. And painting him as the black candidate is categorically ridiculous, and you know it. He hasn't run a campaign with the gimmick of being the black candidate; shills like you do it for him.
In Nevada, Barack didn't lose because he was black. He didn't win the majority because he didn't have the name recognition that Hillary has. I mean after all, running 5 or 6 points behind in a state that had her winning by 30+ points not too long ago is the real story of Hillary's win in Nevada.
I understand you support Hillary. Fair enough. But stop trying to use your clout to scare people into voting for her. It is quite irresponsible.
AAAAhhh! Bradley Effect, Nevada Phenomenon, anti-women bias, I've had enough of stupid prejudice based rationalizations of every vote we make. There is no "Nevada Phenomenon". Yes, Latino voters did go for Hillary in Nevada, but that does not automatically mean there is an anti-black bias in the Latino community. What all these race baiting commentators need to consider is that there may be another factor at work here - new, less-informed voters.
In the Latino community there have been massive voter registration drives in the last few years (mainly in response to Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric). This means a larger percentage of Latino voters are new voters; this is the first or second election they have ever voted in. People who have not voted before are, generally, less politically aware than experienced voters. I have been a part of many Latino voter registration efforts. I often get the question, "Is Bush Democrat or Republican?". My last Latino precinct walk was a week ago in a highly Latino neighborhood. People knew who Hillary Clinton was, but I got asked "What is Edwards like?", "What is Obama like?". Spanish language television has also not dedicated nearly as much coverage to the presidential race the MSM. Name recognition goes a lot farther when your opponents are barely known, and Hillary Clinton has name recognition.
This is not to say that all Latino voters are new or less politically astute. From my observations, more experienced Latino voters are much more diverse in their choice of candidates than new voters - many young Latinos are going for Obama, many community organizers are going for Edwards. It would have been interesting if there had been an exit poll on the preference of new vs. experienced Latino voters. I'm sure it would have bore my hypothesis out. But since there wasn't, commentators can come to whatever simplistic biased conclusion they care to make, and their misguided conclusion is the "Nevada Phenomenon". Thank you, once again, for discrediting the voting public.
Latinos will vote for Obama. Watch.
Barack Obama. President. 2008.
The question of whether hispanics will be willing to vote for Obama is an interesting one, and I don't pretend to know the anser.
I would note though that Obama did win a divided primary battle before facing the woeful Keyes. And the hispanic vote in Illinois is mostly democratic. So it is a bit misleading to suggest that Obama has never been in this position before.
I don't know how Obama will do with hispanics in NY and NJ. It seems a safe bet that he will do pretty well with them in Illinois.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
