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

[gvidal]

Dis anyone watch Bill Maher on Larry King??? He was dead on.

C'mon folks - WAKE UP. He can only WIN with Clinton.

A Clinton on a ntional ticket has NEVER lost!!!

All you newbies and youngsters need a good civics lesson -

[norkas]

Obama who i supported before he decided to run would be foolish not to take Hillary as V.P.

If there is no ego here and a new start then Hillary helps him to represent that.

Women are still treated like a minority in some subtle ways and often abused in many other ways.

Hillary is BRILLIANT and ever person know that. Yes she made some mistakes but corrected them and made it very close race.

Lets grow up people I would be Proud if Hillary was V. P.

[Daps]

She is a very smart, capable lady. She will however only hurt Obama in the election.

[Marcantm]

Correction: Bill Clinton on a national ticket has never lost. We don't know anything about his wife.

[craigdawson]

Actually Hillary Clinton lost the national Democratic Primary. Remember that day in Early June of 2008?
I am sorry but your analysis of a Clinton never losing on a national ticket is incorrect.

[patti1203]

Primaries are run by the STATES. So technically she has not lost a NATIONAL ticket...

[gvidal]

This is the best, most intelligent analysis in a long time.
YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET - EXCELLENT ARTICLE!

[WritusMaximus]

I must sadly agree with what other folks have pointed out. Obama is beginning to look like an appeaser. He shoulda scheduled both Hill & Bill the same day for their appearances and speeches. Obama should have insisted on a voice vote at the convention. The Clintons do not control a single committee, and Hillary would pay through the nose had Obama stood up to her demands, but Obama just said Yes, so we now have focus-on-Clinton convention. Over two days of All Clinton. Not bad, not bad at all. Makes you think that Hillary should have been the nominee.

The Dems got an appeaser for their nominee, unless somehow Obama turns into Mr. Hyde because Dr. Jekyll sure is a push-over. I want to vote for a Dem fighter. Hillary got what it takes, played hardball and got concessions. Imagine the beating she would deliver on poor McSame! The girl got tough as nails in-your-face attitude, and respect she demands and receives. Hillary right now makes for a better candidate. Hillary/Obama is the right choice and in that order. So who knows, it may just happen! Go, Hillary, go!

[Beka13]

Unless Hillary is introducing General Clark as the VP pick.

[Daps]

That would be a very wonderful thing.

[Donald Wolberg]

Once suspects that the desir to see what is not there clouds the vision of many and they are unable to see what is there. My Democratic lineage streams back to grandparents who actually voted for FDR and organized for Harry Truman. Unfortunately, the discovery and estimation of Mr. Obama as a candidate has spiraled downward with each successive mosstep or less than adequate struggle for substance. My early atrribution to a campaign and candidate struggling to identify the high ground has given way to a critical appraisal of just another Chicago politician with a largely empty suit, and I am struck by the harshness of my characterization. Unfortunately, each passing day has had a "verification effect" of that judgement. Mr. Obama is not only out of synch with the "real folks" I know, but he seems completely oblivious or incapable of making it right. What has emerged in my view is a completely inexperienced candidate with serious intellectual limitations and an unusual superficiality that no amount of hubris can hide. It is likely that this "discovery" of Mr. Obama's limitations will continue and more and more voters will judge that Mr. Obama is not a satisfactory candidate. Mr. McCain may well be victorius not just for who he is, but because Mr. Obama is not who voters thought he was.

[elr50]

"An inexperienced candidate with serious intellectual limitations and an unusual superficility that no amount of hubris can hide." Are you sure you aren't a troll and you are really describing George Bush?

[gvidal]

No - she is describing the facts....

[markdolph]

Obama must understand that the presidency will not be given to him and he will need to fight "tooth and nail" to get it. Frankly, he is coming off a bit like Kerry did in '04 lately. I became disillusioned with Hillary during the later stages of the primary season, however, she's just what is needed for the general election. She is a fighter and she will respond point-by-point to McCain's attacks. In addition, she will unite the party and that's essential. Obama and his supports must realize that he can't rewrite the rules of politics starting with a clean sheet of paper, but rather he'll need to deal with the mess the Clintons bring. Winning is the most important thing!

[metalpipe]

McCain has no principals, and it turned out Hillary found hers a little too late in the primary. Obama has held fast to his, and has a strong, relentless campaigning machine. If he loses in November, it won't be because HRC was left to watch the election from her opulent living room.

That said, you have a point about keeping the enemy close to home, and the old school dems are just as much a threat to the survival or our nation as the GOP.

[CrittersRTasty]

Nice to hear he's held fast to something!

[presto]

I agree. My worst nightmare is that he picks Kerry as his running mate.

[Texas4Obama]

I'll be glad when Saturday is over and then everyone will stop talking about Hillary after Obama announces his non-Hillary pick ;)

Obama/Sebelius '08

[Jezreel]

Amen to that Texas4.

[Demsneed2win]

He He He

"....I'll be glad when Saturday is over and then everyone will stop talking about Hillary after Obama announces his non-Hillary pick ;)....."

Think so eh?

[gvidal]

haha - Sebelius?? Now talk about a LIGHTWEIGHT!

[presto]

Yes, they will stop talking about Hillary and start saying things like "Maybe next time". Sebelius, of all the contenders, is the worst possible choice. Two candidates with such limited world experience would frighten off even staunch Democrats. He needs strength. He needs fight and backbone. Maybe Joe Biden, but definitely Hillary.

[closerthanuthink]

Did you read Adele Stans post "How Soon They Forget: Megachurchgoers See No Evil In McCain"? Well it just goes to the core of the Republicans successes over the past years: they rally behind their candidate, even if half of them can't stand the fellow - because to them their candidate, no matter who, is BETTER than the oppositions! Not a single negative word from any of them, even when you just know they´re freaking out! Sadly one can't say the same about the dems, liberals, progressives...the whole gamut of folks who aren't Republican, who should know better but who unfortunately are, as a savvy repub friend of mine calls it "too smart for their boots!" Not a day goes by where all over the blogsphere well intended Dems dole out advice, talking points, vent their frustrations, search for "catharsis " or whatever, while the enemy creeps up trolling and stoking the fires! Ms (Mrs) Curtis, you are WRONG! In an election where the issues are (as usual) being replaced by intangibles like patriotism, religion (is this America?), americanism (don't even know if thats a word but you get the point), "uppityness", elitism and what not, Hillary being chosen as VP would do so much damage that we might as well all move to Hawaii for the winter....and stay there for the next four years - or at least to avoid the nuclear fallout! WHY?

[closerthanuthink]

WHY? Simply because it'll confirm one of the messages the GOP's been sending out there, that Sen. Obama is WEAK! Look at him, they'll say, he got bullied (we're dealing with infants here!) into the Roll Call at Denver, bullied into accepting her as VP, doesn't have the support of his fellow partisans! Please!
Unless your real cause is a Dem loss now in hope of a comeback in 2012! So how can it be a good idea? And as to the Bradley effect, you talk about the polls giving McSame a lead and them go on to state how wrong they where in the Bradley case? But since we're being fair and balanced here, heres one for you: at Pollster.com, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election. So please, give it up, get behind the candidate, or don't, but quit with the useless advice that only demonstrates a damaging divisiveness - and this is (or should be) life or death! FYI, there're plenty of fantastic women out there capable of filling the slot (as you should know but tend to ignore...then talk about Obamamania!!); no presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000; and a landslide victory in an American presidential election? Never going to happen. All we need to do is WIN!

[gvidal]

Bradley effect is real. You will see. I'd guess BO is 6 points down right now.

It's going to be an UPHILL battle - and unless the youngsters come out and vote it will be a 10 point loss!

[londongal]

Thank you for that. Well said!

[CrittersRTasty]

Well Said!
The only distinction I might make is that, as a Republican, I'm not voting FOR McCain, I'm voting AGAINST Obama.
There are some very basic ideas that I cannot endorse. Frankly, I'm disgusted with the candidates offerred by BOTH of the major parties. I just find one more objectionable than the other.

[Daps]

Why are you posting here, out of curiosity? If you hate McCain because he's too liberal, hanging around on a site for progressives seems a bit misplaced.

[presto]

The words you use to characterize this election are exactly the reason why Hillary is needed. None of those words should be taking center stage and with her they don't. She does not attract such vagaries. She will return the conversation to what matters - the war, health care, education. This campaign is melting into mush.

[djelimon]

"The words you use to characterize this election are exactly the reason why Hillary is needed. None of those words should be taking center stage and with her they don't"

She put them there in the first place. One could easily attach them to her. O just hasn't gone that negative. Don't kid yourself, the GOP has accumulated 15 years worth of slime for Hillary.

[Dave01]

Ok, so you make the claim that people will be offended if a black man is positioned over a white man, would it not be the case that a people would be equally if not MORE offended that a black man is positioned over a white woman? Many people are still so damn closed minded they still can't wrap their simple little minds around the fact that interracial marriages are allowed in this country. Yes there are people out there that ARE that racist.

[ibsteve2u]

I'd be interested in seeing how all of those "A black President makes me nervous." polls would look were they broken out by gender.

Just like I'd like to see the membership of PUMA polled upon the same race-based criterie...if only I believed they'd answer honestly.

[kroses98]

And WHY Billary? Her NEGATIVES are higher than the Empire State Building! We can do better, and we will!!! What a poor excuse for a Billary Pusher!!!

[gvidal]

spoken like a true republican - you are obviously not politically intelligent using those biases Billary? Well you support a guy called "B-O" -
Try getting around the bad smell of a "B-O" remark - so stop the name calling.

[Darkdonnie]

Wow I was going to make some pithy remarks about libs. And dems. and how they are wrong for the country but after reading most of this blog I realized you guys are a great source for information on how to beat you. You are on the same team right??? Oh well a bright spot for me are the polls turning. O's are down with his negatives up and John's are holding per a right wing, oops no per the Los Angelus times poll an extreme left leaning paper. Wow who would of thunk it! OK back to collecting information for the vast right wing.

[Daps]

" extreme left leaning "

Everything other than Fox is "extreme left leaning" to you people.

[schicklett3]

The announcement is in Illinois - that means it's going to be Hillary! Hillary is a native of Illinois and she will definitely be the choice.

[Texas4Obama]

Senator Obama is the senator of Illinois - that is why he is making his announcement there with his original supporters.

Obama/Sebelius '08

[Mark99]

Dream on. If there's a reason for the announcement to be in Illinois, it's because Obama is that state's senator. Or did that detail escape you?

Hillary is about as connected to Illinois as Bolivia is to whaling.

[gvidal]

There are only a few true disasters he can make

One is to pick Kaine - The other is to pick Sebelius -
He loses with both. In fact its so close he may lose with anyone but HRC.

[presto]

You make sense if you are actually able to discount the fact that Hillary was born and raised in the Chicago area. Or did that detail escape you?

[Nooneyouknow]

Interesting post and comments. "It will offend Middle-America to see a black man positioned above a white one."
Assuming we're not talking about Harold Ford and Karl Rove, I don't think this is so true. I think Middle America will be much more offended by the idea of four more years of the policies that have screwed them so badly. Maybe I just have more faith that Americans aren't as racist as some would have us believe.
I also think that having Hillary (or, really Hillary and Bill) as vice president would be worse than hazing. Hillary's proved her thirst for position and power knows no bounds; her sense of entitlement, and that of many of her supporters, would make her less a vice president than a competitor for leadership of the country. The U.S. doesn't need that right now.
As for the Clintons being the only people who "can take care of the Bushes' trash" -- keep in mind that Bill is very good friends with Bush Sr. now. They work together, play together, do business together. I don't think the Clintons are necessarily all that interested in taking out the Bushes or their trash; they seem far more interested in business as usual and profiting from their political position. Obama strikes me as a far better candidate, as a relative outsider, to take on the entrenched permanent government in D.C. I'm not all that confident about him either, really... .

[Darkdonnie]

Racist, 20+% of American Africans will consider race when voting and less than 5% of American Americans or the white party as the leader of the Dems. Said recently. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure who is racist.

[dawn2dusk]

I'm pretty certain, like 100%, that A-A have voted more times and in higher #s for white/other candidates than they have in turn voted for A-As.

[Demsneed2win]

Its much more than 20+%...come on. Bill Clinton got 87% of the Black vote when he ran and now Obama gets 90%. me thinks 90% of the black vote is thinking of race.

[gvidal]

The black community has been the most racist voters in this election. If they continue this rant, women will leave in droves and as a minority, they will have a hard time ever being elected to major offices in the future.

[presto]

I think you have some clunky statistics there.

[plafayette]

Forgot to site credit for my musings. Please see open letter to Caroline Kennedy.

www.michaelmoore.com

[plafayette]

meant cite...damn!

[plafayette]

Hey Rebecca....can you say CAROLINE KENNEDY? International love and acceptance, name recognition and she has been a life-long US Ambassitor. Obama - Kennedy = Camelot!
Loved and respected by democrats, independents, and republicans. She was against the war from the beginning, she is a washington outsider. Husband not a former US president.

There are OTHER CHOICES Rebecca that would ignite the electorite across all party lines - and be a BETTER FIT for the country and for Barack. Please give the Hillary or die thing a rest as most people are aware that there is a lot of talented and worldly prospects to choose from. And yes, we recognize Hillary as one possible choice out of many. The whole one and only bit makes people want to prove you wrong, as I just did (from wayyyyyy out in left field).

[Demsneed2win]

I can tell the age of the poster by the way the mind works.

Caroline Kennedy? For the love of God. (Head shakes, eyes roll..)


Sorry plafayette, it is Hillary and only Hillary that will put Obama back up in the polls.

You didn't listen to us in June, and you are not listening now.

Obama c an not win.

[gmgl]

Hey, yeah, Limbaugh actually has Biden up with an "afro" haired chia pet. Yes of course I know Limbaugh built his career on mysogyny with racism as a nice sidedish. Limbaugh totally understands an attack approach that appeals to bigots which is why I looked there to see what the attack would be on Biden, who is my personal second choice for VP by the way, so I like him. Yes of course I know what site supports whom. This site is full of Obama supporters, and is an Obama stronghold and is rather far removed from the standpoint of Hillary supporters to put it mildly. My point was the article appears to be correct. The Rush Limbaughs of the world will definitely try to portray a white male VP in a racially charged context that would not be the same issue for a female VP such as Hillary because it is "okay" for a woman to be in a secondary position to a man. The article her appears to have a point. I think the polls out there are agreeing that Hillary is the strongest VP and strong Obama supporters ignore them at the risk of deluding themselves and not getting our guy Obama elected.