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.
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 noticed in the comments today a sense of despiration and realization today that OBAMA is a lot of things... but he is NOT a worthy Presidential Candidate.
He is NOT qualified for the job.. that is the truth.. so face it. The Democrats have spent the last year and a half trying to convince AMERICA that a "Community Organizer" is qualified.. but the TRUTH is he is not.
Is Hillary any more qualified??
The Democrats need to go to Denver and Select a Democrat who IS qualified for the Job, and can win in November..
Good LUCK!
Since you are so qualified on what the qualifications are for being president, can you tell me where i can find the rules stating what one needs to qualify for president?
I'd start with the constitution if I were you.
Speaking of unqualified, you sound exactly like a Republican. Who thinks a Republican or someone spouting the Republican mantra is objective enough to know who is electable. Most can state things, but is it reasonable that they can forcast the winner of the General election. If you think they can, let me know. I have a load of gold to sell you for 15 bucks. Meetcha at the corner of 8th and Main.
Hillary Clinton as VP would be as big a disatster as her campaign.
A HuffPo poster wrote: "Hillary/Obama is the right choice and in that order. So who knows, it may just happen! Go, Hillary, go!"
And that is what I was saying all along, for the past year. It should have been Hillary/Obama. That would have given Obama a chance to learn the ropes and would have pretty much GUARANTEED 16 years of a Democratic White House.
you have got my vote!! As ift stands today - nobody has my vote!!
"So Obama has the ball now,its his call,if he can't mend the fences in his own party, how will he ever fix Washington?"
-------------------------------
PRECISELY! He has not even tried to mend the fences in his own party. It's like he looks down on Hillary, looks down on Bill (though an Obama presidency without Bill would pale in comparison), and worst of all, he looks down on Hillary supporters thinking he does not need them to win.
In fact many Obama supporters here also feel he doesn't need Hillary supporters to win.
I feel he would lose without Hillary as VP.
But I hope he does not ask her because I feel he would only be USING her to win, not because he really truly wants to work with her and Bill for 8 years. So if he isn't sincere about wanting to work with her and only wants to use her, then I say ASK SOMEONE ELSE.
I think Obama just expected Hillary's supporters to jump behind him. He has been so arrogant about it - I am standing firm. He has not won my vote yet.
"I think Obama just expected Hillary's supporters to jump behind him. He has been so arrogant about it "
Making up things from whole cloth to fit your worldview.
when 2016 comes we will remember the hillary supporters, what goes around comes around.
People think the funniest things. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Obama doesn't look down on Hillary or Bill, and he isn't looking down on you, either. After she conceded, he went TO HER to talk about the campaign. He's also met with Bill several times, but Bill is still angry. Surprise, surprise. He is acting as irrationally as you - nothing short of concession to Hillary would appease him or you. Or do I misunderstand you? You've written he isn't ready, so it seems no matter what he does, YOU reject HIM, not vice versa. The ball is in the Clinton's court, and right now, they're refusing to play. And the reason they're refusing to play is because they believe Hill is entitled to the nomination. But guess what...no one is entitled to the nomination.
is that a love story book? Oh, lovely Obama has respected the Clintons....b s
If Senator Obama loses so does every other Democrat. If Bill, Hillary and all of her supporters want to act like a bunch of selfish little twits because she lost the nomination, largely due to the voters who didn't vote for her which had nothing to do with Senator Obama, so be it. I'm sure Senator Obamas life will still go on while America is being ran straight to hell by McCain and his cronies. I just don't want to see on the news American citizens whining about it. Everyone should just deal with it for the next 4 years.
"In fact many Obama supporters here also feel he doesn't need Hillary supporters to win.
I feel he would lose without Hillary as VP."
We need all Dems to come together. Hillary would help if it was just Dems we're talking about.
Among Dems, swing Reps (of which there are MANY that were not present before) , and Independents, sadly she is a liability.
Great article.
I hope Obama does not ask Hillary to be his VP .... by the way, notice how I did not say, "I hope Obama does not CHOOSE Hillary to be his VP." Because it would be Hillary's choice to accept or not.
Having said that, the reason why I don't want Hillary to be his VP is because Obama would make a terrible president. Better for McCain to do his 4 years and then Hillary-Bill run in 2012 and win which they would.
And yes, Obama will lose if he does not FINALLY make nice-nice with Hillary, Bill and their supporters. So far he has ignored us all thinking we would automatically vote for the Dem. nominee. Uh uh. Not so fast. You have to earn it. And by lying about your abortion baby right to life vote, you just about nailed the coffin with many of us.
Senator Obama is not going to pick Hillary. If he is going to lose he should lose on his own terms. If at the Democratic Convention they feel Hillary is the best choice for the Democratic nominee they will let it be known and select her right then and there. They have all the power to go against the voters. Let's see if they have the guts to if they think Hillary has a better chance at capturing the White House.
I'm so sad and sorry to say this but Obama CAN'T win with out Hillary. Look am one of those who will vote for him unless he robs a bank on the day before the election. Born in the mid fifties never in my lifetime had a dream of a black man running for this office. Alas my dreams are fading fast if I hear one more uh out of his ass I will scream. We know your smart just say what you mean and stop being afraid of them twisting your words. Learn how to twist there words back on them. Fight back Obama pick Hillary if you want any chance in November.. Please Please pick her, I hated the women in the primary but now just remember what the Godfather said keep your enemy's close.
The assumptions that this article makes couldn't be more sad, but alas they are all true. This is the truth folks. I hope Obama's campaign is listening.
I hate Hillary just as much as anyone could, but dang it, we need her.
Listen, it August 22nd, I need people to calm down... NO really.
LOL- look at the latest polls... do you really expect me to take that seriously?
Anything can happen between now and November 4th.
Hell, but I am going to call it
PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA. (Damn that has a nice ring)
Hey Bud.. why don't you calm down.. it's August 21st, NOT the 22nd
This old white guy WILL vote for Obama ..... living as I do in the south, your assertion that many whites will not vote for a black man for president, is probably right. (To those in other parts of the nation, race is still an issue we have to resolve).
McCain is not a safe choice, he is a dangerous scary man... who will have us in more wars than we can now comprehend.
If both the Clinton's would rally around and fully commit to supporting Obama I think he will still win. But he needs their vocal and vigorous and continual support.
Bill? are you listening?
To borrow a metaphor from W., "The Democratic party got drunk, and now we're all suffering from the hangover." What were we thinking? Everything in the analysis above is correct. The Bradley Effect is real. Why did we ignore it? The Obama team was smart enough to play the caucus game well and win enough votes to get the nomination. And I voted for the guy myself. But where does that leave us? Almost a year ago I sent off for a "Draft Gore" bumper sticker. A couple arrived months later. These may become valuable collectors items, something to sell on eBay. Or better yet, they should go into a time capsule so that some scholar far in the future might better understand the fall of American civilization (an oxymoron, come to think of it).
"Everything in the analysis above is correct. The Bradley Effect is real. Why did we ignore it? "
Because it's not real. Obama proved the opposite in the Primaries, that many more people were willing to vote for a black man than expected, surprising EVERYONE including Hill.
Bumps around single events like a convention, naming VPs, etc. are rarely sustainable. It's interesting that people who didn't believe in Obama when he was 6% ahead of McCain all of a sudden believe in the value of a polls showing HRC 6% ahead of McCain.
Some point to this poll as a reason to put Clinton on the ticket, but they neglect the issue of favorability ratings which would be something that would be longer-term than a poll taken right around a VP pick. Clinton's favorability rating is 42/41 favorable vs. unfavorable. RCP average shows Obama at 52.8/35. McCain is listed at 51.5/35.3. The spread for both McCain and Obama is +16 or more while Clinton is +1.
The question that has to be asked is, "Would the bump be sustainable?" If not, what else does Clinton bring to SHORE UP where Obama is now? It's not foreign/security experience. It's not economic. It's not military. It's relational ... she's the president's spouse. McCain will hit her saying without Bill, Hillary wouldn't have won half the primaries that she did against an upstart. He'll use her own clip about Obama only having a speech and ask how good can they both be as a team if, DESPITE her name recognition and connections, she was beat by a guy with just a speech. I know folks are giddy with the idea, but in reality we need to look beyond a single event poll.
She is also an two term elected senator, so the she's only the President's spouse argument does not work anymore. She has earned her position in politics in her own right at this point. The same thing is being said about O, he is a one term Senator. So what's your point?
We're really splitting hairs if the comparison is Hillary was elected to the USSenate twice, Obama once, because McCain's been elected for decades and, given McCain's campaign strategy he'll be VERY sure to point out the very REAL similarities between Obama/Clinton. They look like twins compared to McCain.
In your rebuttal, your shore up my point as you said nothing about her econmics, military, foreign/security credentials, etc. You're argument is that she's a twice-elected Senator. Sounds like a great McCain campaign ad. "He's got a speech, she's got a name, what else have they got? Celebrity!" Or perhaps, "His VP choice has been in the Senate one-term longer. I was in a POW camp for one-term."
My post was not to knock Clinton. This was a reflective call to people who are stating that she gives him a win. I'm thinking about it from the other side of the fence. What's McCain hitting Obama on: experience/not ready to lead, which he borrowed from Clinton. Obama needs someone to help him deflect/counter that: Folks like Kaine/Clinton/etc. are not going to help him against those charges because they are also vulnerable to that attack line. My statement that she's only the president's spouse was putting on my McCain hat for how she's going to be attacked. It's an examination of what SPECIFIC things she's brings that will blunt the current McCain attack strategy. Respectfully, "2terms in the Senate" probably won't do it.
"It's interesting that people who didn't believe in Obama when he was 6% ahead of McCain all of a sudden believe in the value of a polls showing HRC 6% ahead of McCain. "
Polls only matter when they're the few ones benefiting her. Every other one that shows him beating McCain without her is useless.
I think Curtis makes quite a compelling case, and it was a good read too.
But the Obama camp has to be concerned with the baggage.
Where did all of the Clinton's hundred million come from, the 'who supported the library' thing(relevant if BIll is going to be part of the package), and just how much would the real prospect of "The Clintons!" being back in the WhiteHouse mobilize the Republican base?
And really, aren't all those alleged working-class white males who favored Clinton over Obama going to vote for McCain/Nearly Anybody over Obama/Clinton?
Is it possible for Senators Obama and Clinton to put enough of a leash on Bill, yet use his administration's success and his ability to pull the party in, to to pull it off?
I do not think Curtis, "made a compelling case" at all.
Think of all the money, monopolies, corporations, Republican hacks that are spouting all kinds of lame theories, anything to get McCain elected.
Hillary will not help Obama's chances for election. He has been doing fine.
Check the agenda of the polls, the publications initiating the polls, the desperation of Corporate ,and the GOP.
Many of the Republican politicians will not even be at the RNC, McCain has problems getting people to show up for his campaign appearances.
Eight years of economic disaster, wars based on nothing but personal profit, a country neglected and left in great danger by its self-appointed and non-elected "leader" is the reality we all face, should we forget the Party and agenda that has stranded us in falling markets, disappearing infra-structure, embarrassment, an endless money-eating war, and allienation of our allies because of our inept administration.
McCain is part of the Bush train and it is on fast speed for a bad wreck.
No repeats of the former nightmare political machine--America and the World deserve much better--Obama has the lead--the Republicans own the press... The picture they are attempting to paint, is false and the journalist who did this article is part of the problem.
I know all the reasons Obama should be way ahead.
The fact is, he isn't. "He has been doing fine" is faint praise indeed.
"McCain is part of the Bush train and it is on fast speed for a bad wreck."
Well. You can say it over and over if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
I despise the Bush administration as much as anyone, and think McCain would continue too many of Bush's policies. But I guess I don't have as much faith in the American people as you do because if I had to bet at this point I'd bet that McCain will be elected.
They re-elected Bush didn't they?
Hence, my "support" for this article.
Pick a VP candidate(JB) who pulled single digits in the Democratic primaries over a candidate who captured all the states needed to win the presidency and matched your final vote tally plus is married to the most popular poitician on this planet....yah, that is a big problem.
The Bradley effect will pale in comparison to the Bubba effect. Or are we really naive enough to think that Bill has kept it in his pants these last seven years?
Thank You
who cares for God sake!!!!!! They all cheat, they are politicians!!!!
Sen. Obama seems poised to squander this golden opportunity based on personalities....and in the process; give "the finger" to exactly half of the party he purports to represent.......
Evan Bayh? Tim Kaine? good grief!...why not nominate Sam Nunn himself and be done with it?
Don't shoot the messenger (Ms. Curtis)
You KNOW she's right!
tm
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
