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
The universe does not revolve around h. She is one of many senators. Her husband acted like a d unce throughout the primaries and still has his foot in his mouth. Who needs this kind of disloyalty around O, who needs the drama and unpredictability?
The the Repubs would dig up scandal after scandal, and start talking about maintaining morality and all that b ull. Who needs all that baggage?
There's no such thing as the Bradley Effect. I know this because white people say so.
There IS such thing as the Bradley Effect. I know this because people who couldn't pass muster in Poli-Sci, Sociology say so.
We obviously need to run things based on anecdotes and pretend that racism matters, but sexism doesn't.
Sexism was only worse than racism during the democratic primary fight.
During the general election sexism is nonexistent and Hillary would win in a landslide.
The Clintons and their supporters use the best "logic"!!!
As an African-American proto-feminist, I must agree with Rebecca Curtis's analysis. Hillary will energize the ticket more so than any white male. Think of the historic quality of that ticket. I fully realize that the Clintons believe they own the Democratic Party, and that they are owed homage because of the incredible hard times they suffered while he was president--endless investigations and focus on his private life while the hijackers were planning 9/11. Since this election is about whether America will have a future at all, it's important to put away the Hillary-hate and do what it takes to win.
It's not about "any white male" or "any white female", it's that people considered him the best candidate possible. She's certainly an admirable person, but she has damned herself through her husband and his choices of person to run her campaign. A bunch of angry, stupid, men have told her how to fail, and she happily listened to every word and torpedoed her career to such a point where she would only curse Obama with her presence.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have sucked the historic quality of this election and of a potential Obama/Clinton ticket out of our reach. They have so tainted this election process with their selfish and self-absorbed all-about-me drama that few of us really care anymore about the hard times they suffered while he was president. In fact, many of us now understand that he brought most of those "hard times" on himself! I do not hate the Clintons, but I have very little respect for them and no confidence in either of them either helping Obama win the election or potentially serving in a President Obama administration.
I too am a black woman who once supported Hillary, would have voted for Hillary if she had been the nominee even after I aligned my support with Senator Obama ... and thank God each day that I don't have to make that choice!
....and if Obama had not run, you would have still liked her. But HOW DARE SHE play politics and say anything negative about your Chosen One ...Obama.
You're right, she'll energize the REPUBLICAN ticket more than any white male.
An African American proto feminist?
You're all about identity politics I guess.
This is absurd. The USA may not be ready for a black President, but we're certainly not ready for another Clinton in the white house, whatever the first name or official title.
If Obama chooses Hillary as his VP, he will lose votes from his own supporters.
Also, I would like to point out that you ask "What can be done?", but don't give any real answers. You talk about political mumbo-jumbo...appeasing the electorate, treading lightly...relying on old formulas.
What can be done? Vote for the better man, regardless of his skin color. And go tell all your racist friends to do the same....that's what can be done.
Choosing Hillary to appease the racists? You should be ashamed for pushing this hollow idea.
"Choosing Hillary to appease the racists? You should be ashamed for pushing this hollow idea."
My sentiments exactly!!!
Hillary Clinton, when not if she runs again better hope the pumas multiply by thousands because if she thinks all the rightwing pandering to her means anthing more than " come inside my web said the spider to the fly " then she's whistling more than DIXIE. There is no way the Obama supporters will vote for her after whar she and Bill have done to undermine the best candidate we've had in years.
As someone who has worked with the Obama campaign I can tell you that what I have observed is the opposite of the Bradley affect. People who would never vote for a "black person" go into the voting booth and realize - this guy is different. He's the real thing.
Now that McCain is the Republican's tool, people will begin to see that he is NOT a maverick - Arianna's message today is the truth, and once middle America realizes this, he may lose some of those "white" votes - some people actually read "What's the Matter with Kansas" and want to stop voting against their own interests. We just need to keep reminding them.
Biden is the best of the VP choices due to his ability to comeout and say B.S. is B.S. I don't acare how they "look" standing together - Obama needs a really good attack dog with foregine affairs experience and Biden has it.
Great post - Obama/Biden '08.
Clinton, friend or foe? The answer is in the question.
As Bill might say, "I don't think anyone is ever fully qualified to answer that question". :)
I do not look on Obama as a black candidate. I couldn't care less about the color of his skin. I do care, however, about his behavior & this, I abhor! At first, I loved his speeches but when I realized that all he did was talk, I soon became disenchanted with him. I believe that this is now happening with many of his supporters. They are beginning to see that he talks & talks & talks, often not even getting to his point, if he has one. It is very tiring & boring. Perhaps, they are also seeing that there is no action that he can brag about. Unfortunately, many that he brags about are not his actions but those he has assumed from others. I used to condemn his non-action in Congress but I now have a different perspective on this. Hearing some of his proposals for what he would do, if elected, & realizing that they are too expensive or too far-fetched, I suspect that possibly when he did offer an idea in the Senate, his fellow Senators would not endorse them because of these problems. As President, would he still have foolish, expensive ideas for the country? I think so.
You used to like his speeches? You liked his speech in 2004, but the moment he challenged the entitled queen suddenly, you hate his speeches.
All politicians talk and talk. H talked alot, jmac talks and puts us to sleep.
The rest of what you say is purely hypothetical, and baseless.
John McCain is a phony. As far as not votign for Obama, thank you for writing this. That is the only reason this race is close is because of his race. Until whites can deal with the bias, they are told this from day one. I did color poems for my elementary school. My students are
60% caucasion
20% black
10 Asian
10 other
I gave them the colors red, blue, yellow black. I asked them to write the wrod that coem s to min
Here are some examples
Red is like a delicious tomatoe, a ripe apple,
blue is like the sky in the morning, like my grandmoms eyes,
yellow is like a beachball, or the sun shine
by the time they were in kindergarten 99 of the students said,
black is evil scary, horrible ugly.
Only my preschoolers said, Black is like the night sky with the stars, beautiful like the keys on a piano.
And you wonder why the race is close.
I dare say you DO NOT speak for most, many or even some of Obama's supporters. I personally do not know any Obama supporter who sees him through the lens that you are looking through, which leads me to doubt, very seriously, that you ever were among those who support him.
His REAL supporters are not intimidated by his intellect, that you see as "talk," understand the substance of his positions, that you find tiring and boring, are familiar with his experiential record, that you perceive as no action, and realize that his proposals on matters of the economy would not only serve to benefit middle America as opposed to the wealthiest top percent, but are certainly no more far-fetched than sending billions of dollars to an endless war effort in Iraq for the benefit of the military industry and investors in oil. His vision for the party and for the country are in line with the party itself and with most Americans, and his fellow Senators have not only endorsed many of his ideas, but have endorsed him as well.
As president, foolish and expensive ideas have already been usurped by Bush, and McCain promises no better than Bush has given us.
So you loved his speeches about what he'd do as president, but you're disenchanted because he hasn't done any of that yet? Do I need to remind you he's not president yet?
We've thrown a trillion dollars into a bottomless hole in Iraq, in a war Hillary happily helped to authorize, and you're worried about "expensive" ideas Obama might propound??
I totally disagree with this writer. I wish the people who supported Hillary and certain TV pundits would stop trying to shove Hillary down Obama's throat. If he loses, because she is not on the ticket, then it was not to be. For those people who are stuck on the Bradley effect, then I say we get the Govt. we deserve for you to even remotely think of putting McCain in as president. This man has totally done a 360 degree turn to get the Bush, evengelicals, and neo-cons to support him. Are you happy with the war and the economy and all of the give-aways to the rich and powerful, while the country suffers? Again We GET the Govt. we deserve.
Hillary Clinton's campaign along with Bill showed the Republicans how to go after Obama. As a matter of fact the Republicans and the McCain campaign are taking all of their attacks from the Clinton playbook. So no, she should not be his running mate. She is not change and fresh ideas. There are other areas she would be good in.
As far as all of those women are concerend who want her so bad and are threatning to disrupt the Democratic convention, McCain's interview at Saddleback should send a shudder down their spines.
The Republicans would love it if Obama but a Clinton on the ticket - they have a whole cottage industry of anti-Hillary attacks waiting.
Good Lord, so Obama is tan, big deal! People don't think with their skin.
There is another issue, though. If he runs with Hillary Clinton he WILL lose and we can't afford it.
It has nothing whatever to do with gender, it has to do with the cemetery - correct, not skeleton - in her closet. I couldn't care less whether he selects a cute blonde - as long as her name is not Clinton (did I say 'cute'? I mis-spoke.
Brilliant. Not only cogent, realistic, and convincing, but a pleasure to read in terms of the purity of its craft.
Continuing to beat the Hillary drum is way counter-productive. She will get her moment in the sun at the convention and will be well-positioned for 2016, but if she is seen as a spoiler who helps McCain get elected, in 2012 she will be about as popular as Ralph Nader is today.
Kathleen Sebelius as vp would smooth things over with all the Hillary-lovers without all the baggage of Clinton herself. Sebelius would also help bring in Kansas and Ohio. Obama will probably choose a man with military experience like Clark or Webb, but if he thought he needed a woman to win, Sebelius would be the one.
A serious dark horse? Max Cleland
And btw, Kathleen Sebelius has more baggage than them all. So to get her on board without problems is highly unlikely. Let's get Hillary on the ticket and win this thing.
"And btw, Kathleen Sebelius has more baggage than them all"
Outside of your little bubble Hillary is loved by many Dems but HATED by many more Republicans and otherwise swing voters that Obama can reach.
If Obama picks Hillary, he will lose.
Senator Clinton may I remind you won the popular vote, Kathleen Sebelius is no Hillary Clinton!
Listening to people talk has me on edge, the "average joe" is not enamored with Obama and we need their vote. I wish Obama would have waited this election is too important to lose due to inexperience or racism.
The place for Hillary Clinton is on the Supreme Court as a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Obama needs someone with military or foreign policy credentials. Senator Reed would be my first choice but Caroline Kennedy will vett the best VP candidate for Senator Obama. What Senator Obama needs to do after the Democratic Convention is to go on a road trip talking and listening to Americans in little pink houses and on blue highways. And as for the polls, I think that there is a huge amount of voters under the radar that don't get picked up by the polls who will vote for Obama. You will see a huge voter turnout like nobody has ever seen before. And one more thing......Bill Richardson has to be out there lurking as a possible contender for VP also. He took a big chance backing Obama.
Richardson? You've got to be kidding. Another sure way to piss off Hillary supporters.
Pander pander pander. There's nothing he can do at this point that won't piss off SOME of them.
I forgot, it's always about Hillary and her supporters. She lost, deal with it!
Hillary on the Supreme Court? I wish people would think through these talking points before repeating them ad naseum.
Have you not followed this election? Have you not seen Senator Clinton's inability to make decisions? Have you not read the memos from her own campaign?
She voted for the war, then changed her mind.
She helped push through NAFTA, then changed her mind.
She supported Gov. Spitzer's immigration proposal, then changed her mind LIVE in a debate, on national television...and Senator Dodd called her out on this immediately.
Should I go on or do you now understand?
This is not a woman who makes good decisions.
This is not a woman who even has long-held ideals.
She should NOT be on the Supreme Court.
Didn't she flunk the D.C. bar too?
No to Hillary on the Supreme Court. How about picking someone with some judicial experience, and maybe someone who wasn't cited negatively by the firm where she worked?
Hillary should stay in the Senate.
Lol, people act like it would be a lock with Hillary on the ticket, it's not a lock no matter what. Obama-Clinton 08, would be a lobster stuffed with tacos. If Obama loses, then I'd rather him lose doing it his way with who he wants, not strong armed. For all the Clintonistas who say they wont vote Obama if Hill Rod isn't on the ticket, you people trip me out. The thing to me is the people who are in cult Clinton act like if Obama loses and Clinton runs in 2012 it would be a lock for her. Not so fast my friends, it would be anything but, because all the people who support the Democratic Party and Obama who had to listen to the Clintonistas self destructive bickering against the party and Obama, those same people will turn their back on Hill Rod in droves in 2012. I'll support whomever the VP pick is Hill Rod included.
Have they factored in how disappointed Obama's supporters will be if he is seen as capitulating to the Clinton strongarming if he selects her as VP?
No, they assume we'll vote for her anyway, which goes contrary to their claims that the rest of her fans won't vote for O.
"Wilder was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1986 by Gerald L Baliles, the then-Governor."
What?!?! Doug Wilder ran and WON statewide office in 1985 on the same ticket as Jerry Baliles. In arch-conservative Virginia! I worked in his canpaign in Alexandria!
There is no such thing as "the Bradley effect." Its called racism folks, and its not going to matter, not in this important election. Senator Obama is not Black, he is not White, he is both and he will prevail regardless of who he chooses for VP! Obama has run a clean, grassroots funded campaign while Clinton has run a down and dirty, sleazy campaign so I dont see them on a ticket together. No-one would be afraid to vote for Joe Biden. He is truly the strongest candidate for Democratic VP.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
