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
You got it right, American media always underestimate racism's hold on America (wishful thinking). This country was founded on racism (think slavery and Indian genocide). It's as American as apple pie.
Sexism to the mix isn't really going to counteract all those hilloving racists, so she adds NOTHING.
Sadly, I agree...
He does not need Hillary.
The Republicans want to run against her. They have not even begun to open the baggage on her.
Apparently you havent been paying attention. They tried it TWICE when she ran for Senator and for re-electio
Obama needs Hillary like a fish needs a bicycle!
doh!
Wouldn't this be "Obama needs Hillary like a bicycle needs a fish"?
"she and husband Bill have done more to destroy the Democratic Party and the Country than anyone I can think of including the Bush Dynasty"
you are simply out of touch with what has gone on in this country for the last 16 years....
If Barack Obama and hopefully Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee cannot seal the deal during this high profile convention and show why John McCain and his continued Bush policies are a disaster waiting to happen, then this country deserves what it gets with a John McCain administration.
The Clinton's both need to step up rather than, as Bill found it necessary to practically endorse McCain's energy policy yesterday. I look forward to both Clintons pushing real hard for an Obama Presidency. If they cannot bring themselves to buck up, it will be obvious to all and I have a strong feeling many will work really hard to make sure Hillary will never be President. Bill and Hillary blew it with their primary tactics and shoddy campaign. They have a chance to (especially Bill) to further their legacy in the coming two months. I am hopeful that they both choose not to be remembered for influencing the general election for John McCain so Hillary can run in 2012. That's my personal opinion and I believe many others feel the same way.
If it turns out as you say, I would drag myself out of my deathbed, if necessary, to go out and help insure that HRC NEVER gets to enjoy the spoils of her sleazily run campaign!
Ditto.
Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm just going to tell the truth here. There are MANY white voters who admire Obama but probably won't vote for him when it comes right down to it. They love his stance when he tells blacks to become more responsible and fathers to support their families, despite Jessie Jackson's comments. Perhaps Barack needs to emphasize the fact that he is neither "black" nor "white." In fact, he is more white than black. He has a white mother and was actually raised "white." The fear so many white voters have may be irrational, but it exists, lurking silently in the background. They fear he may coddle the black extremists, such as those who tried to shout him down in Florida. Obama confronted them and momentarily scored points with the white voters. But he needs to do more of this. Emphasize that he is proud of his black heritage, but point out that he is NOT in favor of free handouts without some sort of effort on the part of those receiving. I know, he has stated this before, but let's drive it home! Otherwise, we will be stuck with more of the same disastrous leadership we have had lately.
And HIllary would not be the answer. The Clinton fatigue factor is very real, folks. Plus, the Republicans wanted very much to run against her and had a bunch of dirty tricks ready that would have made the campaign against Obama a cakewalk.
"Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm just going to tell the truth here. "
This is really the crypto-racist trash that comes from conservative pundits all the time under the pretense of "political correctness".
It's not true, and you people should really rethink your priorities in life.
and there are Blacks that feel the same way, Obama did not win NYC, why do you think so, now he will, by a landslide, and most of the Southern places that people are saying he cannot compete, have you been there, its Blacker than Harlem, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, look up Historical Black Colleges, see where they are, look at Black Enterprise see where most of the B.E. Top 100 companies in every category are from. America listen, things are changed, the people born after 65, are 43 now, the ones after 55 are 53, and they were brought up on CHANGE, Obama picked the perfect time, whether Bush was horrible or not it did not matter for most Americans, at first, now it does, people did not care about the WAR, it didnt affect them, High Gas does, High Food does, Clothing prices does, Stock prices does, Job Do, it is that simple
Regardless of Senator Obama's lineage, he identifies himself as a black man. The many white Americans who will not vote for him because he is black are racists, and to present himself as something other than what he is, not only in his eyes but in the eyes of America, solely to garner their support, is an irrational act that merely sanctions their irrational racist fears.
Obama has already expressed pride in his black heritage, but more to the point, pride in his American heritage. He has never expressed, implicitly or explicitly, that he is in favor of free handouts to blacks and he has always stressed personal responsibility. Yet, because he is black, some white Americans will never get pass the color of his skin to even hear or acknowledge this. Nonetheless, this is their problem, a problem that only they can resolve within themselves; and if they cannot accept and embrace Senator Obama for who he is and for all that he is, then it's something they will have to live with and sadly, something America may have to suffer for.
In essence, Senator Obama cannot win by pretending to be something he's not, simply because some Americans refuse to see who THEY are! Yet, if Obama loses solely because of the color of his skin, America loses!
And HIllary would not be the answer. The Clinton fatigue factor is very real, folks. Plus, the Republicans wanted very much to run against her and had a bunch of dirty tricks ready that would have made the campaign against Obama a cakewalk
----------
The probem with this statement is you're clueless.. She has won twice against the Republican machine. Obama will think the primaries were a cake walk, once the Republican machine revs up
This is the most critical election in a generation. Our country is nearly bankrupt financially and morally...
Do the people potentially influenced by the Bradley effect have to end up sleeping in cardboard boxes and becoming dumpster diving freegans before they learn that the biggest change they need is in their hearts?
How many of them have had negative experiences with AAs to warrant this animosity? Many don't even know any. The fact that college educated people (who in many cases interact with minorities daily) have a more positive view of racial diversity should tell them something.
It should really be a source of shame to vote against your own economic interest by placing your REAL enemy in power and then blaming minorities for what you don't have.
The McBush supporters would rather risk WWIII than vote for a man who might raise their taxes.
Yikes. Advertizing tricks work to part people from their money, but will advertizing tricks work to make people enlightene
This is the best written article i,ve read in the Huffington Post,and there have been countless great posts.
If this theory plays out:The election balance may hinge on whether Obama and his team are able to get beyond their personal and political differences with hilary,and her supporters
Cosell
Apparently you are not familiar with Rebecca Curtis.
If Obama does not win, it will be precisely because of the Clintons and their corrupt friends inside the Democratic Party, who have consistently sided with Bush during the past 8 years. That makes it hard for Obama to explain to the public why they should vote Democrat.
Everyone thought the Iraq war issue would be devastating for McCain, but instead, McCain is campaigning on it. What is Obama's response? It's hard for him to say that anyone who supported that war was wrong when so many Democrats, like Hillary, enthusiastically supported that war for years. How can Obama honestly tell the public that because of that war, bin Laden remains free, al Queda is organizing in other countries, gas is four times what it was, the country is broke, everyone hates us, thousands have died and millions have become refugees.
How can Obama explain to the voters that wall street has looted the country and destroyed our economy when top Democrats are in the pockets of wall street, getting more money than the Republicans do. How can Obama challenge the corruption of our justice system when Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein cut a deal to seat Mukasey, the do-nothing AG who will defend Bush at all costs ("Just because it's a crime doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it.")
This Democratic campaign is an accurate reflection of the party: corrupt, lacking ideas, uninspiring. Throw a few punches Obama, stand up and fight or lose.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. If obama does't win, can't we just blame the Bushes again!
Throughout this election, we have been told that race should not be a factor in our selection. Now we are being told that as Democrats, if we don't vote for Obama, we are racists. For those of us who could give two hoots about Obama's race, the "race patrol" has made race a factor by making racist accusations against anyone who does not support Obama. God forbid that Obama has shown his true manipulative nature throughout the process. His integrity on crucial issues is nil. Could it be that we Democrats who don't support Obama know a manipulative liar when we see one? You can blame Obama for his defeat in November. Obama has shown his true self one too many times, but since so many people are desirous for change after 8 years of inept Bush leadership, they will vote for anyone that the Democrats have to offer regardless of how treacherous the candidate is. Obama is a dubitable candidate with support from BIG money. This very fact should put a question into everyone's head as to where Obama's loyalties lie. I am not fooled by his charade, and consider him to be more dangerous than McCain. Obama has already made his bed, and he can lay on it.
One's skin color obvioiusly does NOT make a person a respectable, honest, trustworthy, nor capable candidate. This country has had its fair share of both good and bad politicians, and the politician's skin color had nothing to do with it.
Methinks the ladies doth protest too much.
Not wanting to vote for him doesn't make you racist.
Many of the reasons WHY people refuse to vote for him, and pandering to that tiny, useless, swing vote that would never vote for a lib'rul candidate regardless of party are signs of passive or active racist tendencies.
The more you complain about this, the more you sound like college repubs who complain that getting their "facts" and slant on history shot down means that there's no such thing as "Free speech".
Where are your facts? You have made a lot of generalizations with no specific facts. Yet, you, as a Democrat, write that he is more dangerous than McCain. Have you been listening to McCain? Have you been listening to Obama? Even if I were to buy your unsupported generalizations about his integrity and "true manipulative nature", is he worse than Bush? Do you have secrets about Obama that the rest of us (we poor ignorant folks) do not see or hear? If you simply do not like Obama, whatever your reasons, then just say that and don't try to put some noble holier than thou cloak on it.
You're may not be a racist, but you are a republican, so cut the crap.
You might want to pay due attention to the number of times YOUR candidate (McCain) has reversed his position.
It's Obama's fault that Hillary lost isn't it?
In reference to Obama being supported by "BIG money" : Are you trying to draw a contrast between he and McCain on this? How many more small donors does Obama have compared to John Mac?
I'm not sure which part of the rhetorical tirade above is supposed to advance your argument. If you're trying to convince others here of something, I don't think your approach will work.
In the forty-plus years that I've voted for the Democratic ticket, I have not always been thrilled by the nominee. In fact, though I have lost a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton and have at times found her conduct to be despicable, as a Democrat I would have voted for her had she been the nominee, yet my vote would not have been as much FOR Hillary as it would have been for the party and against the values and vision of the Republican Party with which I strongly disagree.
If you are indeed a Democrat, and if you truly believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party, particularly as opposed to the potential of another disastrous Republican presidency, then your argument for not supporting the Democratic nominee falls totally flat! You say it's not about color, but when you speak of Obama as a "dubitable candidate" and question his loyalties, then I would suggest that for you, it's all about color. Every candidate, including both McCain and Clinton, have enjoyed BIG money support; the difference is that they have all been white! Yet no candidate, past or present, except Senator Obama, has been questioned about his loyalty ... and the difference is that he is black! Obama has not made race a factor. People like you have, even those who attempt to disguise it in meaningless and empty rhetoric.
Hillary herself, by her own doing, completely precluded any possibility of VP choice.
Imagine the Rethuglican attack ads:
All they have to do is play Hillary's statements against Obama made during the primary against Obama nd ask, "If Obama's own VP doesn't think he's ready to lead, why should we?"
There's plenty of material for at least a dozen of these sorts of commercials. And they would be the death nails of the Obama campaign.
So, Ms. Curtis, when Obama picks someone other than Hillary this week, you have no one to fault but Hillary herself.
No matter what people say i do not want Senator Obama to pick Hillary. If he is going to lose i want him to lose picking a person he can trust. Hillary has done nothing but try and wreck Senator Obamas campaign. Hillary wasn't the nominee because people like me didn't vote for her.
It takes guts to talk about the truth when it reflects poorly on us as Americans. I fear that Curtis may be correct and that the Democrats will be kicking themselves in November when McCain comes out on top.
Given age, McCain may be a one term president.
Guess who'll be waiting in the wings to run in four years when Obama can't because he lost this time.
Hillary Clinton.
Crazy like a fox.
What makes you think that the USA will last through a McCain Presidency? If he keeps US troops in Iraq, he won't have the muscle to beat Russia & Putin. W invited a cold war. Putin has given W & the USA a 21st century cold war. Check it out with the people of Georgia. W can't respond to Russia's invasion of Georgia as Truman responded to N Korea's invasion of S Korea. Regardless of the allegation that Georgia invited a Russian attack by occupying & fighting a province with a Russian ethnic population, Russia succeeded in its premptive strike of Georgia & continues to occupy portions of Georgia. The USA doesn't have the troops to aid Georgia as it aided S Korea.
Not without a draft. And a one-term McCain administration, fearing no electoral consequences, might just start calling the boys and girls up for duty in Iran, in Georgia, for the duration. McCain wants himself a war; he'll need an army to fight it for him.
Anybody STILL think a protest vote is OK?
She can wait and wait and wait - she has shot herself in the foot and many people will never consider voting for her ever again.
My problems with Obama do not include his race, they are his inexperience in national government, his membership in the Chicago/Illinois machine politics, his immediate move to the middle as soon as he was christened the candidate, his vote for FISA, his decision to continue providing money to religious organizations, and I can go on.
His hands are not clean. He's not a candidate of change.
I won't vote for McCain, but voting for Obama will require holding my nose.
One thing Obama is NOT: a product of Chicago machine politics. To be sure, he has won over the Democratic party in Illinois, but not just in Chicago. (Obama is very popular downstate, as well.) He started out as what political machines hate, an Outsider. His success is testament to his skills.
To explain old-style Chicago machine politics, and why Obama is not a cog in it, here's an oft-quoted, perhaps apocryphal exchange:
Bright Young Man to Ward Heeler: "I want to volunteer!"
Ward Heeler (suspiciously): "Who sent you?"
Young Man: "Nobody."
Ward Heeler: "You wanna job?"
Young Man: "No, I a student at the University of Chicago and I just want to volunteer.
Ward Heeler: "Listen, kid. We don't want nobody that nobody sent. We don't want nobody that don't want no job. And we DON'T want nobody from the University of Chicago."
If you don't vote for Obama you will be voting for Mccain and the policies of George Bush for 8 more years. Can America afford that?
RIP 2
I'm absolutely serious when I say that your dedication to avoid divisiveness and a republic victory over your other concerns is admired and appreciated.
We rarely get the candidate we want through the primaries, but the important thing is to avoid the obvious and oncoming disaster, or at least to mitigate the storm of crap to come.
"they are his inexperience in national government,"
George Bush had no experience in national government when he became president. Bill Clinton had no experience in national government when he became president. Ronald Reagan had no experience in national government when he became president. Jimmy Carter had no experience in national government when he became president. And Hillary Clinton has no experience in national government. (Being First Lady does NOT count.)
FISA became law in 1978. What the latest law tried to was curb abuses and restore some checks and balances.
Also, look at candidates who ran to the left. McGovern. Mondale. Dukakis. All got ANNIHILATED in the general election. Clinton ran to the center and won twice. Gore ran to the center and won the popular vote. Kerry ran to the center and lost, but not by much, and it was during war time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
