« On Afghanistan | Main | Gag me with a spoon »
October 22, 2006
The Bradley Effect
Shakes here...
In light of Barack Obama’s acknowledgement that he’s considering a presidential run, I found this Newsweek article on “the Bradley Effect” rather interesting, though its focus is primarily on the Senate race over the seat being vacated by Bill Frist, in which the Democratic challenger, Harold Ford, Jr., is black.
As black candidates reaching out to largely white constituencies have discovered in the past, when it comes to measuring political popularity there are lies, damned lies—and polls, on which they rest their fate at their peril.
The phenomenon was first widely noted in 1982, when Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost a squeaker of a race for governor after being widely projected as the winner. Douglas Wilder also came up against the "Bradley Effect" when he barely won the 1989 contest for governor of Virginia, after leading comfortably in the polls.
Ronald Walters of the University of Maryland was at Wilder's hotel as a projected easy victory turned into a nail-biter. That is a night "I'll never forget," says Walters, who thinks it "naive" to believe that things have changed very much. He believes that some percentage of whites—perhaps 5 percent or so, intent on being seen as less biased than they may be—will claim to support a nonwhite candidate when they actually do not.
Other political observers think the effect may have diminished over time. "We may be seeing the turning of this," says Ed Sarpolus, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan-based polling firm.
Is it naïve to believe that things have changed, or have we seen the turning of this tide? It’s difficult to measure racism that has gone underground. The kind of covert racism that would lead someone support civil rights and say they’d vote for a black candidate, even though they wouldn’t actually vote for him, is the same kind of racism that could leave a fella like George Allen with black defenders who would swear from here to eternity that he’s not a racist and white intimates who would swear from here to eternity that they’ve heard him use the N-word. Neither of them are necessarily lying, but just speaking from their respective experiences with him, and there are plenty of white folks who express racism only when they think it’s “safe”—that is, with other white folks, or in the privacy of a voting booth.
I find it astounding that there are white people who will say they’ll vote for a black person to a pollster, when they really wouldn’t, but, then again, I also find it astounding that there are still white people in my predominantly white, redneck, red state town who will say all kinds of crazy racist shit to me with the presumption that I share their sentiments, just because I’m white.
I can’t imagine what the Bradley Effect could mean for a national election with a black Democratic presidential candidate, but I suspect that race plays a bigger issue the more similar the candidates are. In other words, if Obama were running against a wildly conservative candidate, a Rick Santorum-type, I don’t believe that his race would matter nearly as much as the vast policy difference he represented. But if Obama were running against a candidate with a reputation, even if undeserved, for moderation, like John McCain, and the contest were framed as center-left versus center-right, I believe his race would suddenly be weighed more heavily by those voters predisposed to caring about race in the first place, as there appeared less policy difference for voters’ consideration. And that seems to me to leave Obama the centrist in a rather precarious position—though I certainly wouldn’t advocate against Obama running for that reason, because it’s just one of many question marks any candidate faces.
Anyway, I just thought I’d throw it out there and see what you make of it.
October 22, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
This is kind of related to the discussions about how Speaker Pelosi will be attacked by Republicans.
The electoral costs by having a minority/female leader is more than balanced by finally for god's sake having someone of that caste in a leading role, and inulling the country to believing that class can fill leadership positions.
That said, I agree with your general take on Obama as previously posted.
Posted by: Tony v | Oct 22, 2006 7:11:56 PM
Sorry, I mean Ezra's previous posts (namely, will the real Barack Obama please stand up please stand up).
Posted by: Tony v | Oct 22, 2006 7:12:44 PM
though I certainly wouldn’t advocate against Obama running for that reason, because it’s just one of many question marks any candidate faces.
I would advocate against any kind of Obama '08 run because I don't see any evidence that he's anything other than a charismatic speaker with next to no experience or leadership qualities. The constant speculation about a presidential run by a man with no meaningful leadership experience does not fill me with confidence about the improved nominee-selecting abilities of the Democratic Party.
On the subject of the Bradley Effect, though: is it still the case (or has it ever been the case) that robopolling by outfits like SurveyUSA and Rasmussen give more accurate numbers for races with minority candidates? I've always heard this claim made but I've never seen the numbers to back it up.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 22, 2006 7:34:07 PM
We may be seeing the turning of the tide. However, although I was raised inland like Bush:
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006... I have since seen enough sunrises over the the Pacific to realize that seeing the turning of the tide is not obvious when the waves are large ... that is, after all, the point of the figure of speech, that it may be hard to see it, but behind the regular ebb and flow of daily events the underlying trend has changed.
Obviously the GOP hope that the "Bradley effect" still has enough force, since playing to "Bradley effect" is a big part of the strategy begind the recent over the top smear ad against Ford.
However, what would interest me the most about an Obama campaign is how he will stand up to the challenge that Gore made in his Sept 18 speech at NYU Law. Its not clear whether Gore's endorsement is available to some other candidate with the guts to try to close the gap between the politically feasible and the minimum actions needed ... but that would seem to be the most likely price. The question in my mind is whether Obama can Hope quite that Audaciously.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 22, 2006 7:37:50 PM
Will you now blame Ford's impending loss on 'the bradley effect'? Or racist hillbillies?
Ford and his opponent Corker, were about tied. In a local TN poll that came out in the middle of last week, it showed Ford down by about 6%(don't forget, even Gore lost TN in 2000). In an act of desperation, Ford and his campaign bus showed up at a Corker press conference screaming 'why won't you debate me?'(they have debated twice and have a third scheduled), 'why are you talking about my family?' and other nonsense. Corker took the high road, talked to Harold like the child that he is in front of the news cameras and Ford looked like a damned fool.
Here is a link to a site with video of it. It is good stuff, you outta check it out.
But I am sure the left will blame the bigots in TN because Harold Ford is black. Not because Harold Ford is an idiot.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 22, 2006 7:39:53 PM
Corker has pulled out every ugly card (it's not to say Ford is perfect, but the campaign up to now had been nicer than most)... or rather the national GOP has pulled out every ugkly card as it's become clear that Ford had a real shot at winning. Corker's run a lousy campaign. It may be that Ford cracks under the pressure of a sudden increase in ugly negativity; it certainly seems like the race is tightening up, and that's when these mixed message polls get especially interesting. That said, the only polling I am trusting this year is Rasmussen, which still had Ford leading as of last week. But Ford shouldn't have expected an easy ride, and his being thrown off message is disconcerting.
Of course people are embarrassed to admit that race plays a role in these political decisions. It's sort of interesting that some people can't even be honest with strangers about it, but it may also be that some people sincerely want to break free of old prejudices... and then find that they just can't. I'd love to think more highly of the American electorate, but that's just a mistake of optimism and good will. Really, some of Corker's ugliest under the radar advertising is done for him, every time folks see and remember that Ford is black. I think we have to be fair though: if Ford is going down because of this, so, to some extent are Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann (and possibly, at this point, Deval Patrick).
I don't want to blame bigots, Toke, but after a while, you start to notice a pattern.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 22, 2006 9:05:52 PM
Did anybody else hear Obama say that providers can't submit electronic claims to Medicare? And say it with a complete straight face as "one of the things that's wrong with government programs"?
I immediately dislike him now. Medicare has been requiring electronic claims on almost every kind of claim for well over a year now. Providers aren't allowed to submit paper claims! For him to sit there and play the whole "you can listen to me, I'm a sensible progressive" card, and be so wrong about the card he's playing... I think it spoke volumes about who he is, personally.
Posted by: spike | Oct 22, 2006 9:27:17 PM
"It may be that Ford cracks under the pressure of a sudden increase in ugly negativity;"
Or maybe he cracks under pressure (like polls showing him losing by more than the margin of error).
Why else would someone who thinks he has a lead pull something that stupid?
And before you say he was upset about his family or some other foolishness, his crooked family would have been the first to tackle his ass and tie him up to keep him from going to that Corker press conference if they thought he was winning. A lot of them are up on charges and could use a senator in the family. Let alone all the gravy a senator would bring to the family.
Do you not think that a campaign manager or someone could have calmed him down on the trip to the press conference? And if he was that pissed about his family, why did he start asking about Iraq?
"the only polling I am trusting this year is Rasmussen, which still had Ford leading as of last week."
Yeah! And I'm only trusting the ones that have Republicans winning!
You libs and your polls. You'd thunk you learned something after 04.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 22, 2006 9:45:20 PM
Spike, there are loads of substantive reasons to dislike Obama besides the fact that he's simply nowhere near ready (which is my biggest problem - nobody should even be talking about him). He's positioning himself as a hyper-centrist Clinton/Blair figure in such a ridiculously self-conscious fashion that I cannot possibly trust him to repair the country after the damage done to it by Bush. I read something like this and I see a man who wants to mold himself into the shape of what pundits think Sensibility looks like, not a man who wants to actually do what's best for the country.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 22, 2006 10:52:30 PM
The thing I learned in 2004 is that Rasmussen was closest to the actual result. I'm not following his polling because I like his results; if nothing else, his background and experience suggest a serious Republican partisan. But his methodology and his consistency in not overstating his findings seems better put together than other polliong these days. Candidly, I think Ford's numbers have slipped since the time he polled and it will probably turn out to be closer or with Corker pulling ahead this week. I agree that Ford seems to be cracking. Still, the fact that Ford's family is politically connected and some relatives are possibly corrupt tells you nothing about Ford himself (it's rather like using Neal Bush's lousy rep in business to judge his brothers), but it's the kind of negative association that sticks. I think Ford's a very political animal, but I don't know that he's such a bad guy or wrong for the Senate. But pushing these negatives, combined with some natural prejudices? That's a recipe Ford can't really overcome. In which case, which one really brings him down? Is it really that simple to separate? I'm not asking that with a particular answer in mind; I'm really not sure.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 22, 2006 10:58:48 PM
I'm growing discouraged by the online liberal reaction to the 2008 presidential field.
They hate Hillary Clinton because she hasn't endorsed a withdrawal timeline, and because she's thrown a few rhetorical bones to cultural traditionalists on abortion and video games. And they think she can't win.
John Edwards is in a good position in Iowa, and Barack Obama could break Hillary's assumed hold on African-American voters during the primaries. Besides which, they seem well within the Democratic mainstream and they're both very talented orators who go over well with the Perot/Clinton/Dubya voters we'll need to win back in '08. And yet, the online reaction is (with the exceptions of Neil and Petey and Shakes) to disparage both of them, nitpicking on the few votes or single lines from speeches where they disagree with them.
Instead, Al Gore has emerged as the progressive savior, despite a public record that was less progressive than Edwards' or Obama's, despite net negative ratings with the public, despite a problematic speaking style out on the stump, and despite the fact that he keeps on saying he's not running. He's become a hero online for giving passionate, incisive, progressive speeches against the Bush administration starting in late '02, right around the time he decided not to get back into politics.
But if Gore stays true to his word and doesn't run, there do seem to be fallbacks for onliners. Russ Feingold and Wes Clark seem to generate some interest, despite the surprisingly limited appeal Clark demonstrated in '04, (he's polling in the low single-digits for '08), and despite Feingold's obvious handicaps as a national candidate (too numerous to get into here.)
Am I missing anything? I get the feeling these comment threads are going to be depressing places to hang out next year.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 22, 2006 11:57:35 PM
Chris: you're seeing negative reactions to this field because it's a pretty weak field. The few who are substantively strong options are either not considered electable (Feingold) or aren't running (Gore). The few who are considered electable are either way too far to the right (Clinton, Bayh) or have done basically nothing in the course of their political careers (Edwards, Obama). I actually like Clark and always have but for whatever reason he never catches on with people online; maybe because nominating him makes too much sense, and we'd all like to blow the next election on some cipher who hasn't even filled in a full Senate term. Please feel free to point out if I've forgotten someone; I'd truly love for there to be a decent option that's realistic and that exists out there, but right now it's looking pretty crap.
Although really, on the subject of electability, Democrats and left-leaning pundits have absolutely shitty records on determing who's supposedly electable, and if we don't face up to that soon we're going to be in serious trouble. No one's going to elect a Democrat without national security credentials in a wartime election, so you can write Edwards and Obama off. After that it's a matter of picking between candidates who were right on Iraq (or have admitted they were wrong), and the ones who have stubbornly defended the most disastrous vote in their careers out of sheer political expediency. That's not much of a choice; I would happily vote to renominate John Kerry over Clinton or Bayh. The first thing to do is pick someone who's good and smart and can be trusted to get the job done. Selling them can come later.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 23, 2006 12:37:17 AM
Let's have him run against Alan Keyes again, this time for the presidency.
Please?
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 23, 2006 1:56:06 AM
I support anyone who is eligible (35+, American-born) throwing their hat in the ring for the 2008 nomination. Let's not make the mistake of anoiting a savior so early, and then finding that person slowly wittled down by the repub machine.
Posted by: CParis | Oct 23, 2006 11:26:00 AM
