The Bradley Effect

Bob Novak discusses a political phenomenon that scares the daylights out of Democrats who are looking at a Barack Obama presidential candidacy - the Bradley effect:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When exit polls for the Pennsylvania primary came out late Tuesday afternoon showing a puny lead of 3.6 points for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Democratic leaders who desperately wanted her to end her candidacy were not cheered. They were sure that this overstated Sen. Obama's strength, as exit polls nearly always have in urban, diverse states. How was it possible, then, that Sen. Clinton, given up for dead by her party's establishment, won Pennsylvania in a 10-point landslide? The answer is the dreaded Bradley Effect.

Prominent Democrats only whisper when they compare Obama, the first African-American with a serious chance to be president, with what happened to Los Angeles' black Mayor Tom Bradley a quarter of a century ago. Exit polls in 1982 showed Bradley ahead for governor of California, but he actually lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Pollster John Zogby (who correctly predicted Clinton's double-digit win Tuesday) said what practicing Democrats would not. "I think voters face-to-face are not willing to say they would oppose an African-American candidate," Zogby told me.

If there really is a Bradley Effect in 2008, Zogby sees November peril ahead for Obama in blue states. John McCain is a potential winner not only in Pennsylvania but also Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and can retain Ohio. But there seems no way Clinton can overtake Obama's lead in delegates and the popular vote. For unelected super-delegates to deprive Obama of the nomination would so depress African-American general election votes that the nomination would be worthless. In a year when all normal political indicators point to Republican defeat on all fronts, the Democratic Party faces a deepening dilemma.

I can still remember coming home from work on election day in November of 1982 and turning on the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles. I heard pollster Mervyn Field tell the ABC anchors that without question Tom Bradley would win the governor's race and former governor Jerry Brown would be California's next U.S. Senator. I remember feeling quite depressed at the thought of those two liberals in key elected positions.

However, when the actual returns were counted it became clear that Field's polling was badly out of synch with the actual vote. Bradley lost very narrowly (by just 52,000 votes) and Brown went down 51%-45%. Bradley ran again four years later and got trounced 61%-37%.

We may well have seen the Bradley effect earlier this primary season when all the final polling showed a big win for Barack Obama in New Hampshire, and yet on election night it was Hillary Clinton who took the state and kept her campaign alive.

A few weeks ago I was convinced that Obama could beat any Republican. Not anymore. Given the revelations about his radical relationships, his snobby attitude, and the effect that race will have on the final vote, barring a major stumble by McCain, I don't think Obama can win.

Is it fair that some voters won't vote for a black candidate? No, but it's no less fair than the fact that black voters will vote nearly monolithically for Obama just because he's black. I think you can find a degree of racism on both sides.