Summer Love, Fall Freak-Out: The Bradley Effect and Why Obama Will Lose Without Hillary

Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving through August's hot days, cool nights. Everything feels in abeyance: Obama's got the same lead--4 points--he's kept all summer. This month, however, the polls reversed. McCain led--suddenly--by two points, and among unaffiliated voters, by fifteen. The Rasmussen Report and Zogby/ATV poll found that Obama's lost major ground with women, independents, Democrats, even young voters. Polls are just that; they could change. But we might ask: why the dip? If it reflects the fact that Obama acted "uppity" and met state heads in Europe, or that McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors), then perhaps race is in play after all. If so, we might reconsider the Bradley Effect. Because if it hits Obama, then unless he does the one thing that would beat it, he will lose in November, and not by a little, but by a lot.

The Bradley Effect's named for the long-time African-American Mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, who ran for Governor of California in 1982. Election-eve, Bradley was so far ahead of his white Republican opponent that newspapers printed headlines saying "Bradley Wins!" But he lost by 50,000 votes. Why? White voters who'd claimed they'd support him changed their minds--in the voting booth.

In 1989, Douglas Wilder, the Democratic black Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, ran for Governor, and stayed nine points ahead of white Republican Marshall Coleman all through the race. Yet on election-day, Wilder won by just half a point.

Also in 1989, African-American Democrat David Dinkins kept an eighteen-point lead over his rival for mayor of New York, white Republican Rudy Giuliani; until final tally. Dinkins squeaked by with two points.

In 1990, African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt ran against white Republican Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat. Throughout the contest, Gantt (like Obama) was predicted to win by 4-6 points. He lost to Helms by six.

Why the reversals? Some white voters lie about whom they support, so as not to seem racist. But most probably intend to vote for the black candidate, and simply, on the day of election, freak out. They feel suddenly nervous about the black candidate's "competence," or "experience," and pick the "known quantity,"--the white guy.

Summer-long, white liberals proclaimed we're "beyond race." In "The Myth of a Toss Up Election," analysts Alan Abramowitz, Thomas Mann, and Larry Sabato used voting patterns from presidential elections-past to conclude that--based on a 6-point lead--Obama would tromp McCain. By using (all-white) elections as their evidence, these upbeat boy-wonders assume race matters not at all. In June, Frank Rich of the New York Times reprimanded "doubters," noting that Obama had held on to "Hillary's" constituencies: blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Hispanics. (Obama's lead with those groups has since diminished.) Rich pointed out that Obama's June lead of six points was higher than Bush's over Kerry's in 2004, and concluded Obama would win in November. Rich (who's white) acts as if ignoring race were the only gentlemanly option: his suggestion that Obama will win because his June lead this year beats Bush's in 2004 implies--with country-club-style largess--the two men are comparably electable. But George Bush was a white, dynastic, Republican whose father was President; Obama's a black newbie Democrat. And Black candidates going for historically-white top governing positions always score nine to sixteen points lower than pre-election polls say they will.

+ + +

What about the argument that we're not in 1989 anymore? It's valid. We now have black Senators, Congressmen--we're comfortable with a black man being one among a powerful group. But that comfort may evaporate when we contemplate a black man in charge. The newer the type of candidate to the position, the harder the Bradley Effect strikes. In 1982, America had never, in 200 years, had a black governor. It was precisely because of this that hundreds of thousands of Bradley's white supporters freaked out and switched allegiance on election-day. In 1989, we'd still never had a black governor, and Wilder's lead dropped from 9 points to just half a point--within 24 hours. In 1989, New York had never had a black mayor; Dinkins lost 16 points on election-day. In 1990, when the vote came down for Gantt versus Helms, America had only ever elected one African-American senator, and that guy was a conservative republican. Gantt lost.

The primary, which Obama won, is temporary and not when the effect would occur. And in the primaries, Obama ran against a woman--one seen as obnoxious. John McCain may be temperamental, erratic, and suffering from early-onset dementia, but he's nonetheless viewed as moderate. He's also charming and familiar--by his pink skin, white hair, and gruff-yet-suave demeanor alone, a 'classic' leader. 75% of white voters see McCain as "a safe choice" for President.

In fact, Obama's already experienced the Bradley Effect. He was expected to win New Hampshire--a bellwether state--by 13 points. He lost by 3. Several polls had him winning liberal California by 13 points; he lost it by 10. Obama suffered upsets in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and more.

Others who say the Effect won't occur critique polls. The discrepancy, they argue, appears not because whites switch loyalty, but because black-voter turnout is low, whites support white candidates in higher-than-expected numbers, and racists avoid answering polls. Likely true. But the result remains: every time a black male democrat tries to win a spot never held by an African-American, the candidate's numbers do a nosedive on election-day.

+ + +

The effect's tendrils are present now. In a June ABC News poll, 4 in 10 whites said they "would not feel completely comfortable" with a black president. 3 in 10 admitted to racial prejudice; more may feel it. 57% of whites said they don't think "Obama has sufficient experience to be president." Over half call him "a risky choice for the White House." Since 77% of voters of are white, these numbers matter.

What can be done?

+ + +

Nothing's analogous to "president." But "governor's" closest. The Obama campaign might ask: how did Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick manage to become the first and second-ever African-American governors in U.S. history?

They had two advantages Obama can't replicate: in Wilder's case, a military background and conservative leaning; in Patrick's, a rags-to-riches story that gave his audience a clear, pleasing narrative. Obama grew up middle-class and is a mixed-race, hard-to-place, cosmopolitan elite. So he really needs the key thing Wilder and Patrick both had--an active partnership with a highly familiar white sponsor.

Wilder was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1986 by Gerald L Baliles, the then-Governor. Baliles ushered unprecedented prosperity into Virginia. Then he campaigned hard for Wilder. Wilder's partnership with Baliles, who Virginia's voters knew well, was undoubtedly key to the election of America's first black governor. Deval Patrick also had a prominent white sponsor, who stumped for him when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and who hired Patrick as his lawyer (twice), and appointed Patrick to be the Assistant Attorney General to the Civil Rights Division of the national government--and that man was Bill Clinton. Patrick became the 2nd African American Governor in history in 2006.

To do as Wilder and Patrick did, Obama must partner with a figure who conveys tradition, competence, familiarity. Even if they're disliked by many--and by Obama--the Clintons convey that. More than her 18 million votes, Obama needs Clinton's household name. The Clintons ushered prosperity into America. One need not like them--or Hillary--to feel she's authoritative and familiar. Her presence on the ticket--like a well-known name-brand on an unknown product--would reassure swing voters.

An August Fox/Opinion poll found that Clinton's name--(and that of no other mate)--gives Obama an 8-point boost. Obama needs the boost.

Other considerations:

1. If Obama runs with a white man, he is by contrast a black one. If he runs with a woman, he is by contrast a man.

We perceive race visually. It's counterintuitive, but refuge in the traditional authority--the white male--may highlight what Obama's not.

2. It will offend middle-America to see a black man positioned prominently above a white one.

The nominee and running-mate stand adjacent during speeches, rallies, and in commercials. Low-income Whites may recoil when they see a black man positioned over a white one.

3. Most successful black candidates have undergone a "hazing"--military service, an impoverished upbringing, etc.--which makes them acceptable to whites. Tolerating Hillary could be that hazing.

Those who despise Clinton may find new sympathy for Obama if they watch him having to put up with her. And by playing off each other, the two could add much-needed levity to the campaign. They could also make themselves more likable.

"Don't worry, Barack," Hillary could say, "the restaurant we're eating at tonight has arugala."

He'd respond, "Oh, by the way, Hill? I'm the nominee."

"Yeah, well," she'd say, "not everyone's as tall and skinny as you."

4. Most low-income whites will not vote for a black man, but they may vote for an absurdist joke.

Clinton's being a woman may cancel out Obama's being black and render the ticket just crazy enough to be sane. "It's crazy--" the blue-collar worker might say, "it's lunacy, why the hell not? Don't I want change?"

+ + +
Obama may loathe Hillary. But he says he wants to be president. No one knows who Tim Kaine is. No one will be reassured by his presence. And with him beside Obama, Obama's still what he is now: a diffident, perplexing, cosmopolitan, slightly arrogant black man. With Hillary beside him, Obama's the new guy on the team, and a hot ticket.

Comments

[JayInDallas]

OMG! All is lost without Hillary! How could I have overlooked this HUGE detail? Wait. Didn't I watch her campaign tank some months ago? I know! It was because of SEXISM! OMG! All is lost without Hillary! What now?

[BlueAsh]

This is an interesting article--not at all what the title led me to expect. And I like the sense of humor.

You have raised a lot of valid points, including the "freaking-out" factor. My first reaction is: maybe this is true. But I'd like to know, definitively, whether there is any factual basis to the "Bradley effect." Could the polls have been wrong (perhaps sampling error)? Could the white opponents have successfully played the race card towards the end of their races?

[LeDragon]

Rebecca -
1. The Bradley Effect certainly didn't work during the primaries, as Obama consistently out-performed the polls. How do you explain that?
2. You seem to be looking for data to justify your conclusion, instead of the other way around. You want Hillary, and you can't get over it. Just admit it, have a good cry, and get over it. It's not happening. Now if you want to avoid a McCain presidency, let's get to work.

[citizenjane]

If you think the GOP would like HRC on the ticket, you've been sleeping for quite some time now.

[Daps]

"If you think the GOP would like HRC on the ticket, you've been sleeping for quite some time now."

You do mean "wouldn't like", right? Are you the self-identified Dems who watch Fox News, Oreilly, and Limbaugh?

[oscarp]

with Hillary ---- loses
without Hillary -- loses

[AgentMacGyver]

after debates versus $5mil/how many houses McCain -- wins

[gluvox12]

Wow, black people sure do lose a lot, right Rebecca?

What about Kathleen Sibilous (sp) as VP? Oh wait, she's not Hillary. Hillary is everything. Hillary is all.

I long for the day when people with your racist mindset are ignored and left behind.

[gluvox12]

This is the same old "Obama can't win because he's black" crap from the Hillary camp. Nominate Hillary because white won't vote for a black man - even though they say they will. Did I mention that Obama is black?

Black

Nominate Hillary - she ain't no black!

[Daps]

Exactly The same thing that was true in the primaries is more true now than ever.

[HillbillyBob]

Sounds like more rovian double talk to me.
I am white, but I am smart enough to see that Mr Obama has it all over McCain..don't ya'll remember Alzheimers such as ronnyrayguns is progressive( that was the only damn thing about him that was!)
I m sick of the parsing bullsh^^^ from the right or the pretend progressives.
They talk of experience, well it seems to me that Barack has way more experience in the real world than either HRC or JSMCC, since both of them have been in the trough of WDC tax dollars for years and years. It is time to put the DOD, GOP, and all the other hogs at the trough out to pasture, god knows they have eaten their fill of our tax dollars.

[AFPISCES]

Get the hell out! This is madness to the 9th degree! Let's just say he does pick her and wins. What happens when it comes time to govern? We'll have 3 chiefs and NO indians! You think Billy boy won't want to put his two cents in? And we ALL know Hillary wants to be the boss! Bama will have to hire a food tester and his body man Love will have to sleep on the floor beside his bed!

[alephnaugh]

This is some pretty strange logic employed by the author. I know that if I, personally, could not bring myself to vote for a black man or for a woman then I would probably also not be able to bring myself to vote for a ticket consisting of both--but maybe it's just me.

[Daps]

They live in some alternate reality where Hillary has only benefits to add and no flaws.

This is not to say that Obama has no flaws, but he's still the Democratic pick and BY A LONG SHOT the most qualified and forward-thinking candidate between him and McCain.

[edwcorey]

"Arrogant" is the code word every black person must endure for being self-confident, articulate, and independent. Colin Powell was never viewed as arrogant because he's a "doing my duty" stooge; not independent. Clarence Thomas, who IS arrogant, is not viewed that way because he's Scalia's shoeshine boy; not independent. Con Rice: arrogant, not viewed that way, not independent.

[Daps]

That and "well-spoken".

[sistapolitica]

LOL....Love your analysis! It's spot on! :D

[jojojo]

Your notion that blue-collar workers will somehow vote for the BO/HRC ticket because they think it's funny is maybe the strangest thing I've ever seen written on HuffPo.

What're you smokin'? I want some of that!

[EinChicago]

How come Zogby was all over this site for the past 6 months but is mysteriously absent following yesterday's poll?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26308429/

[jojojo]

He may lose without HRC, it's true. He will definitely lose with her. The Rep/Cons will come out in droves to vote against her.

She is the one who spouted racist slurs both herself (" hard-working Americans, white Americans, prefer me") and through surrogates Bill and Ferraro.

She played the gender card--herself and again through Ferraro--"he's just where he is because he's black" ( forgetting of course that she and HRC are prominent largely because they're female).

She said McCain is a better candidate than Obama! and on and on...


Why would he choose her? SHE WANTS HIM TO LOSE. She likely doesn't want to be asked. then she can both root against him AND claim she was slighted by him, and if he loses--as she hopes--she can run in 2012.

[sistapolitica]

Exactly!

[happypup]

The Vice President is supposed to be able to run the country in the event something happens to the President. Fiscal responsibility is an extremely important part of that role. Hillary was unable to run a fiscally responsible campaign so it would be fool hardy indeed to assume she would do any better running our nation.

Her latest FEC report for the month of July, 2008 has just been posted and it looks like that debt still hasn't been paid off. Whatever happened to the 18 million loyal followers who would follow her to the ends of the earth? Guess that didn't include writing a check, huh?

After a brief review, it appears that during the period from 7/1/2008 through 7/31/2008 she raised a total of $2,479,958.23 ($1,930,823.83 from individual contributions, $89,800.00 from political committees, $404,589.10 from offsets to operating expenditures, and $54,745.30 listed as other/dividends, interest.). This hardly appears to be the flood of cash her PUMAs were bragging about.

Unlike Hillary, I readily admit that finances are not my forte', so please review the FEC report yourself. I'd be interested in hearing comments from an accounting expert. The link to this report is:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M8/C00431569.html

[Daps]

"Whatever happened to the 18 million loyal followers who would follow her to the ends of the earth?"

All fifty of them gave their all!