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
This is a brilliant piece. If Obama can't pick someone with the gravitas to be president (which he doesn't have), he will be a guaranteed looser. He is so weak. This was shown on his recent CNN appearance. The Democrats are nice people, but they can't win a presidential election. It's the milque-toast party.
She hasn't shown herself to be anything of an attack dog to 'cain.
It's a "brilliant piece" of rightwing spin, all right. Yes, the Dems are "nice people, but they can't win" because the USA is inhabited by a majority of unquestioning dolts who fall for the devious machinations of the republican political spin machine over and over again. Next.
Ah, the old "Dems are weak" spin. An oldie but goodie.
And it's "loser," not "looser."
What you and the MSM have failed to recognize is that this country is in the middle of an generational shift. And because this shift isn't taking place on television many Americans don't see the movement and the effect that it will have on the upcoming election. Unlike the 60's where the generation shift appeared on our televisions this change which is happening faster than many people in America realize, and will elect Barack Obama the next president. For instants in Pittsburgh the local Democratic party is still stun by Obama carry the city of Pittsburgh despite zero to none local press coverage and the top two officials endorsing Hillary Clinton. Many of Hillary's young supporters fall into this generational shift. Obama will equal if not better Bill Clinton's support when it comes to white male voters. African American and the Latino support will be solid, setting new vote totals. But the younger generation which is about to make its move this election will stun many with their numbers. This is both educated and under educated young people using the Internet and cell phones as there communications tool. Their voting numbers will not only cancel out hard core Hillary supporters but racist, Reagan democrats, etc. Expect about 78% of Hillary supporters to vote for Obama. Don't be fooled by the MSM polls which are unable to poll these voters. All signs point to a Obama landslide.
Yes. WE may actually see the day (after this election) when we finally understand the existential reason for the huge increase in newer citizen immigrants who have the brains to vote for the changes Obama will bring. We will be thanking our stars for every Latino American who got voting rights.
Barack does not need Hillary to win - stop kidding yourself. Nothing will unite the Repubs more than a Clinton on the ticket. Do we think it is nasty now - just put Hillary on the ticket and they will unite and we definitely will not win. Hillary has lost credibility. She has written the Repub playbook along with Rove. I didn't like the way Hillary slimed our nominee and I don't like the fact that she isn't taking a stronger stand against our Dem dissidents. We need to win the WH and I do not believe it would be so with a Clinton.
Obama is half white and I plan on voting for his white half.
Don't insult me by saying I won't vote for his black half too because I am white and working class.
When people like you get so obsessed with race it becomes racist!
I, like Obama grew up post civil rights. We were too young to be involved in it. I went to mixed schools, voted for a black mayor (not C. Ray the other ones), date all sides of the race line and view our problems in a post race way. You, Hillery, Bill and Jesse have the old way of looking at race and that way is history now. You need to read up on some critical race theory and get with this century. It is a new day.
f HRC really cared about the Dems winning she would announce she would not accept the VP position. But no, she allows the Dems to continue to be divided. Obama may not win the election but not because he did not make HRC his VP, but because HRC failed to close the divide between her supporters and the party nominee.
**********
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 08/19/2008
- + New Bitsko See Profile I'm a Fan of Bitsko I'm a fan of this user
I was going to write the same thing. Some people don't want to believe that Senator Clinton is the most divisive politician of our times. I can't believe swing voters would be impressed with an O-C ticket. Besides, she is of the past. Time to move on.
He may indeed lose without Hillary.
That does NOT mean he would win WITH Hillary.
She'd bring the Right out in droves, to vote against her.
Besides, she said McCain is better qualified than Obama. She made racist-tinged comments ( "hard-working Americans, white Americans, vote for me"), as did her surrogates. And on and on...why would Obama EVER choose her? He'd need a food-taster 24/7.
SHE WANTS HIM TO LOSE, so she can run in 2012! HellOOOOOO!
Why should Obama choose Hillary? Because there are millions like me who would NOT vote for Obama unless Hillary is on the ticket. After all Hillary's voters (I'm talking about the popular vote) were slightly more than Obama's. But democrats are used to the popular vote going down the drain.
For the last time, Hillary did not get the popular vote! You're not even including the caucus states and Hillary also won a few caucuses. It's fine with me if you want to vote against your interests, but don't think for one second that if Obama loses that Hillary will win the Presidency in 2012 because many Obama supporters will remember this ridiculous protest by her backers.
So you are saying you would let McCain win if Hillary is not the VP? You don't care about the issues? Turns out she did not win the popular vote. Check your facts. She did not give a dam about Michigan or Florida voters until she needed them. She would eat her young to get what she wants. All she need is folks like you.
There are not millions like you who won't vote for Obama unless Hillary is on the ticket. There are maybe hundreds. Most reasonable Hillary supporters will vote for Obama. You and others like you are an embarassment to women and your behavior only gives those who would say women are not fit to be leaders ammunition.
Tens of thousands, maybe. The rest of us want to win.
And there are millions more like me who would not vote him WITH Hillary on the ticket. If he did that, I'd lose all respect for him.
Glad to see this author going with her strength, writing fiction.
Most, in the reality based world, will find her "reasoning" (or are those "feelings"? I can't really tell) incomprehensible. Hillary making Obama more palatable? What planet does the author live on? Oh, I forgot. New York City.
By any measure, Hillary has been a lightning rod for criticism for decades. She polls huge negatives nationally. However, the good news for Democrats is that the platforms of BO and HRC are soooooo close that all 18 million of Hillary's former supporters will pull the lever for Obama...wh
I do find it somewhat delicious that the NYC DC nexus has been marginalized by the Obama camp to the point of producing pathetic pieces like this one. "Low income whites and voting for Obama/Clinton as an absurdist joke?" Wow. Maybe they do in in NYC literary salons, but working folks don't typically vote "absurdist jokes". They vote based on #1 how their parents voted and #2 perceived self interest.
CritialDune,
I share most of what you posit, with the exception for your conclusion. Most/Many individuals
follow the traditions and orientations of their parents. That does not, however, equate to
decisions that benefit or accrue to one's self-interest. The erosion of middle class economic security is a function of decades of voting for social conventions and notions, nascent in
an ethos of xenophobia, racial/gender bias, intolerance and white male superiority. So
much so, that white males have consistently, pernicious or passively, undermined their
own economic interest.
In effort to deny freedoms and opportunity to certain groups, they've unwittingly denied themselves of like opportunity. That has been the strategy, and to great effect, and the legacy
of the grandoldparty for these many years.
While Curtis aptly identifies prevailing tension, polemic and inelegant rationale, inherent in our body politic, I find her solution (the hillary effect) to be perfectly flawed. I readily admit that I am
not equipped with a means or solution that would convince and motivate the majority culture to appreciate and recognize, as described by Dr. King, "Our Inescapable Web of Mutuality".
I am insulted that anyone feels Senator Obama needs HRC, 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. Truly, she LOST and should put an end to the antics of the voters she feels must be respected. What about Senator Obama's voters? Don't we deserve the same respect? I will not join those women who feel they must vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. When the primary campaign began, I would have voted for either of these two candidates in the general election, now you couldn't pay me to vote for HRC or is her name Bill? I loathe that woman.
Yes, I am a woman and over 55 but I do have a brain.
kudos
i have a co-worker who said she will write in HRC. Can you imagine that. How ignorant. She doe's not care about the issue, or the fact that the two were identical on most issues, she just wants a women President. I still say, Hillary should state that she will not accept the VP spot and get this behind us. But no, she wants to keep the fight going all the way to the convention. She wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012. Remember her concession speech? She was postponing her campaign and talking about her 18 million supporters?
Hey, look at it this way, at least she's not voting 'cain.
....and there are many more.....
One could argue that no one is qualified to be VP........
BTW, I keep hearing this statement that Obama "has all the money in the world", as if he has his own printing press.
But where'd all that money come from? And why couldn't the Clintons, heretofore the most prolific Democratic fundraisers in history, come close to matching it? For that matter, Obama's fundraising prowess also has the GOP shaking in their boots. Do you think his campaign bank account reflects his popularity
That must be a real head-scratcher for the "Bradley Effect" theorists. They'll send him millions in small donations, but on election day they'll vote for the old white guy?
That's pretty insulting and presumptuous of you to refer to middle and low income white people as racist. I'm assuming you don't fall into that category..
If Hillary supporters or anyone else with half a brain votes for anyone else but Obama, they deserve the Republican president and the effects on this country that they get. Yes, the rest of us will have to pay the price also, but each one of the will have to face the fact that they asked for the problems they got. Just like those that voted for Bush have to face that fact now. They should have known what Bush would do, and they should know what McCain will do. He has not hidden the fact that he will continue to support the rich get richer and the poor (and middle class) get nothing agenda that Bush has done to this country.
Barack Obama was my candidate and is now my candidate. The only thing he can do between now and election day to possibly turn me off is to ask Senator Clinton to be his running mate. I am starting to understand why my R friends have always hated the Clintons so much.
It's funny, I never disliked them before, and didn't mind so much when they used those attacks on the Rs, because those are the type of people who respond best to them. Not so much when they root out the very worst of the Ds and give them a say that isn't deserved and sets back race relations in this country, in the media, and in the very party.
oilpatch, good call
McCain is the "establishment" candidate. The establishment is every significant aspect
of society. The establishment does not necessarilly represent the views of the majority of the
population, however most of the publics interest is intertwined with it, enough people will vote
with the established order to to assure that McCain takes the white house.
Keep on dreaming bacaja!
The whitehouse will be integrated come next January!
You can get a real feel for the thoughts of the writer. In this case, Miss Rebecca, you must be one of those 18 million Hillary supporters that won't pay off her debt! Obama should not team up with Clinton! It is better to lose than to sell your soul!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
