Why Obama's Loss Wasn't About Race
Memo to all pundits analyzing the New Hampshire returns: Barack Obama's surprise loss should not be attributed to "the Bradley Effect."
In 1982, Tom Bradley, then the mayor of Los Angeles, seemed poised to win election as California's first black governor, building a solid lead in pre-election polls, only to inexplicably lose on Election Day to Republican George Deukmejian, a verdict that was chalked up to the unwillignness of many white voters to side with a black candidate in the privacy of the voting booth." Since the final pre-primary polls showed Barack Obama comfortably ahead of Hillary Clinton—and in light of the predominance of white voters in the state—some pundits are now suggesting that the Bradley Effect reared its head in New Hampshire last night. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson even talked up the possibility on MSNBC last night.
But the data does not support this theory. Hillary Clinton's unexpected win can be attributed almost entirely to women voters. In the final primary polls before the primary, she and Obama ran virtually even among women. But in the primary itself, Hillary won among women by nearly 15 points, accounting for her overall two-point victory. And there is a reasonable explanation for why women flocked to her in the end: her much-publicized tearing up episode on the primary's eve, which seems to have reinforced among women (especially in light of Saturday night's debate) the idea that she was being ganged up on and unfairly targeted by her opponents and the press.
Moreover, this same phenomenon did not happen in Iowa, an equally white-dominated state where Obama and Clinton ran even among women on caucus night--thus accounting for Obama's win in that state.
To believe that the Bradley Effect played a role last night, you'd have to believe that Obama's race gave pause only to a narrow group of voters—late-deciding women—and that it only affected this group's thinking in New Hampshire, and not at all in Iowa. And you'd have to ignore a very plausible and reasonable alternate explanation—Hillary's extraordinary, open display of emotion—for why these women broke against Obama at the very last minute. On top of that, you'd have to explain why the Bradley Effect didn't materialize among independent voters in Tennessee in 2006—where African-American Senate candidate Harold Ford's actual vote total was no worse (and in fact, slightly better) than his showing in the final pre-election polls—but did among Democratic-leaning women in New Hampshire in 2008. It just doesn't make that much sense.
One only has their head in a hole, like the ostrich, if one does not understand that it is politically correct to say one will vote for a black, unknown, person, and not go into the polling booth and vote for a known white person.
The writer should get out more often.
Please don't compare this to Iowa. This was the Bradley Effect in full effect. The difference between this and Iowa is that in Iowa there is no secret ballot. You would have to justify why you said you would support the man and why you've changed your mind in front of your friends and neighbors.
When white Americans are behind closed doors their racism knows no bounds!
I think it is obvious that white women were scared that a black MAN won Iowa. They wanted to make sure Hilary stayed in the game. They feel that it is more important and timely to have a 1st woman president than it is to have a 1st black president. They thought Obama had a chance at getting the nomination and they got mad and they came out. Scholars in education and publi policy have noted the tendency of white women to be racist because they are a marginalized group and the want to be remembered.
What funny to me is that fact that the largest number of people who receive affirmative action or help with opening a small business are WHITE women not minorities.
thank,lcg
What I find ridiculous is that this is not a race for the best individual to represent the United States of America; it is a race of black against woman. And, as seen here, any time Obama does not win against the woman it will be blamed on racism. You don't see woman claiming sexism or the glass ceiling. Get off your soap box and accept that there might actually be people out there that are going to pop up when it makes a difference for what they believe rather than a poll. A poll is a waste of time. A front runner in the last election was castrated for an unexpected yell; he was top of the charts, till he hollered. Now a PERSON who does not support the NATIONAL ANTHEM didn't get the win in one state and it's all about the racist white woman and everyone behind closed doors.
My greatest fear is that some other less than competent person will be voted into office because the right celebrity supported someone or because they bought enough big business, or worse yet, that this will turn into enough of a race/sex race that the voting will be split and a total fool will get the vote, someone no one really intended... Wouldn't that just be a kick…
Well, let's see: First we have Iowa where voters have to stand up and be counted, one hand at a time. Then we have the Clinton's "Firewall" state, New Hampshire -- you know, the state where the Clintons have "powerful political influence" to "cover their backs" if needed. They needed their backs covered last night and they got covered, not only from white voters (women or otherwise) who said they would vote for Obama outside of the voting booth but voted for Hillary inside the voting booth, but also from the big electoral machine in New Hampshire, period -- the companies that make the voting machines, the companies that count the votes and release the results. Only heavy hitting, long-time Washington insiders like the Clintons have access to the ins and outs of that otherwise impenetrable fortress.
So did the Bradley Effect play a role in last night's primary? I think you'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. And for the press to take the Clinton's bait and now promote her as the new "Comeback Kid" in the Clinton's own "Firewall" state is preposterous at best. While we're at it, I couldn't help thinking "what took you so long," when I heard Hillary Clinton say she "found her own voice in New Hampshire." With all that "experience" (35 years), it took a 3 point victory in a "Firewall" state to find her own voice? I thought she said she'd be ready from day one for the Presidency. I seriously doubt that claim if she's just finding her own voice after 35 years on the job "bringing change to the American people." So the press is going to fall for more Clinton theatrics again!!!! How sad and how gullible your institution has become. Wake up and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
To those who think that Obama's race was responsible for his loss in a DEMOCRATIC Primary (or that powerful forces rigged the voting machines and the count), I say that if you rightt then Obama should drop out of the race right now. After all the same factors will be in play in November if he is the nominee and those racists and voting machine riggers will stop him from winning then.
I agree with Kornacki's assessment.
We all know tolerance and acceptance varies quite a bit in America due to a broad sprectrum of political and religious beliefs. I find it difficult to fathom that the Bradley Effect would be alive and well in an area of the country that largely embraces gay unions. For the most part, Northeastern folks are quite accepting and tolerant. The Bradly Effect may rear its ugly head somewhere else in the South, but not so much in the Northeast.
Factor in a lot of MSM hype and a very short polling time period, and you're looking at flawed polling data. Nothing was really fluid in New Hampshire for five or six days as this Obama hysteria stormed through New Hampshire like a tsunami. And make no mistake, it was hysteria.
According to one journalist, Obama was almost giddy after Iowa. After New Hampshire, I think Obama isn't walking on air. He was walking on air for quite a few days, but not now.
Political fortunes can change very fast in politics. It was just a little premature to write Hillary off, after the process had just begun. Let's get real.
Obama is trying to convey to America a bipartisan candidate, while his actions prove otherwise. America stands for equality! A vote for Obama would be a vote to segregate America, as he has done himself.
Yeah, the same factors will be in play in November no matter who the nominee is. It's just a matter of who the power brokers want to win. You know, with all this talk of "change," it seems the American people dont' really want change at all. If you do, fight for it. Ask hard questions. Demand answers. Don't accept easy explanations, especially when they start to sound like across the board talking points from every talking head you listen to. "Comeback Kid" is a very easy answer. For goodness sake, consider less popular points of view because truth may well be what is hardest to hear. I'll tell you this much, If John McCain and Hillary Clinton wind up as the nominees of their parties in November, then it will be clear that this country wants business as usual -- a war that grinds on for another decade or more, a larger military industrial complex, no healthcare reform, higher taxes for everyone, the draft, a worthless US dollar, a deadbeat Congress -- basically a carbon copy of what we have in Washington now only with either a new Republican hawk in the White House or another Clinton in the Oval Office. If it's a Clinton, America would've voted to entrust the Clintons with a total of possibly 16 years in the White House. And I thought Bush wanted to be King!!!!! Looks like we have a couple who want to be King and Queen of America. Enough!!!!!
Theatrics, huh? Fake tears, huh? Give me a break.
If Hillary is such a good actress turning on the tears faucet when the campaign director off in the distance says: "Action", why do more than a few people view her as cold and calculating? Aren't most male politicians cold and calculating?
Gee, Hillary's perceived acting prowess would surely have these doubters pontificating Hillary's warmth, and graciousness. Hillary's star power is in politics, not acting. All of us have a few acting abilities, but turning on a tears faucet is rather difficult.
Where was this great Clinton machine for most of the Clinton Administration?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TWO POINTS....(about race)!
Let's get real, this was a balance showing
of what lies ahead, Election '08.
Grassroots, Political Analyst
Acutally, the Clinton Administration would've been a smashing success had it not been for White Water, Impeachment (now this is something Bush really deserved, but the American people prefer to hang their presidents for infidelity rather than for waging illegal wars), failed healthcare policy, misadventures in Somalia (at least his intentions were good), etc. But the biggest of these is Impeachment, and not even the Clinton apparatus could resist the power of the "I" word. In the wake of Impeachment, Bill fessed up and said he did what he did because "he could," a testament from the man to his own sense of power if not invincibility. Hillary was his co-president at the time. Don't forget his favorite slogan, "two for the price of one." That's why she feels she's well equipped to take the reigns of power from day one because she was closer to making both domestic and foreign policy decisions than Americans are aware of. Her candidacy is a statement of entitlement. I supported Bill and Hillary's co-presidency in the 90s. Remember "don't stop thinking about tomorrow.....yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone!!!" It was a tune they shouted back in the day when they thought it was time for a new generation of leadership in Washington, but suddenly, when they hear the song shouted back at them, they take offense and call the messenger unprepared, unqualified, reckless, irresponsible, even dangerous for the future of the country. Shame, shame, shame.
"White women are racist"? What kind of statement is that?! If I made that kind of generalization based on race, what would your reaction be?
As a Democrat in NH I must admit there might be some people here in NH who say they would vote for a black man but not follow through because of race but I don't think it was a big factor. First, I know of many including myself who didn't come to a firm decision till a few hours before voting (voted for Obama)so that may help explain the polls. Second and more importantly, the Bradley Effect requires not only that a black is one of the candidates but also that telling a pollster that you are going to vote for the white candidate instead of the black one is seen as politically incorrect. Saying you are going to vote to put the first woman in the Oval office is politically incorrect? I don't think so. There was no politically incorrect answer when choosing between Clinton and Obama. The article got it right when saying that Clinton was able to bring a large number of women over to her side because of the debate and the now famous Q&A in Portsmouth.
The only thing that's going to solve this sort of crap talk about the bradley effect against Obama is a string of victories for him in majority white states on February 5th.
Obama did not loose becase of Racism, instead he lost due to another ISM - Sexism. It's OK for women to vote for the woman because she is a woman as some in NH stated? That is as much sense as a white voting for a white because they too are white. Any one who would say that would be media-crucified, YET reverse-sexism is OK? So much for women's lib., they can be sheeple too.
Pace (#2 posting)-
As a white American campaigning for Barack Obama, I'll forego being offended by being lumped in with white American racists and say that to a degree, I agree with you. I think the Bradley effect probably was at play here...but only up to a point...maybe one or two percentage points. The rest was clearly New Hampshire women responding to Hillary's tears. From here on out, it's going to be a fight and I hope you don't let one loss get you defeated. Obama is the best man for the job and a tremendous number of Americans of all colors know it. Now let's both stop pointing fingers and roll up our sleeves. Those people need to get out to the polls.
Women voting for Hillary's tears? What happened to the issues -- you know the war in Iraq (close to 4,000 American soldiers have died over there, over 30,000 seriously wounded), the economy (the US dollar is sinking like a rock and we are heading for a recession), and healthcare (lots of uninsured people, even more now since unemployment is climbing -- and up in NH women are voting because Hillary is in tears?!!!! Is that what they're really thinking in the "Live Free or Die" state? I guess slogans are just slogans and tears are more important than the issues.
To those of you who are posting here and black - IT WAS NOT THE BRADLEY EFFECT. Steve nails it quite simply here.
I am a staunch Obama supporter and a female baby boomer. I do not believe that Hillary was shedding "crocodile tears" at all - that was a real moment and that's how she won New Hampshire.
Every woman on Earth can relate to being tired, unappreciated, and standing in the shadow of a man. When I observed the "breakdown" I knew it was real because I had a visceral response. I wanted to hug her and tell her that all her hard work is NOT taken for granted by Democrats. If I were in Hillary's camp, I would have been jubilant to see that moment of vulnerability.
But the Clintons are they Clintons and they WILL do anything to win and they don't care very muc about YOU.
Obama is the kind of leader that only comes along every few decades. His many years service and experience and his expertise in bringing people together is what America needs NOW.
I guess you can throw all the rhetoric out now, the "uniter not a divider" candidate once again shows their hand.
Like Bush, claiming the same mantel, only later to use faith as a wedge and divide, we now have Obama claiming to be the great uniter while using race to divide.
I don't think you can discount the "Bradley Effect", but... I do think there's more to it. I am not a Hillary supporter. Can't stand her. Would never, ever, ever vote for her. Can't understand why anyone would vote for her. That being said... when I saw her emotional remarks, it touched me... and I can't stand the woman! She seemed almost likable... and I felt for her. Now... if caused that reaction within someone who genuinely despises her, it's easy to see how that could have led to an avalanche of support for her. She should show that side more often. I still wouldn't vote for her, but it makes her so much more likeable.
Dinkins in NY, Steele in Maryland, Ford in Tennessee, are black candidates who received far less votes than polls showed. There was a Virginia race as well, but the candidate's name escapes me. Anyone have exceptions refuting the Bradley Effect?
In the final analysis, women said to the pollsters they would vote for Obama and then they did not and, in fact, later claimed they supported Clinton all along. (The exit polls showed no shift among late decider's.)
My theory is that Clinton women shifted to Obama as he came out of Iowa (trumpeted by the press), but that shift was transitory.
No doubt women were quickly pulled back to Clinton, in part, by Obama's behavior at the debate and in part by the inappropriate anti-Hillary media frenzy.
Every time this happens, we bend over backwards to explain it. It was Hillary's tearing up, or Ford's negative campaigning, or some exit poll question (which we now know may be questionable so how can the answer mean anything) as proof of the non-existence of the Bradley effect. Just show me some examples where a black candidate in a statewide race did not perform worse than polled. Iowa and its open format tends to prove the Bradley effect in my opinion.
It is not very surprising to me that an old white woman would beat a young black man in New Hampshire. I live in Boston, and I can tell you New England may seem progressive, but there is a much larger undercurrent of racism up here than there is where I am from (Georgia).
Why else would anyone vote for an obviously radioactive, divisive individual like Hillary? Who are these people who are 'standing up for what they believe,' and more importantly, why would be these people vote for Hillary? What does Hillary really stand for? Her campaign is essentially based on, "Vote for me because I have the best campaign tactics and I married up!!" Now that's a bumpersticker!
Any Democratic primary voter who actually thinks that Hillary stands for anything but herself, and that she can actually win a general election is either: 1) a moron; 2) a fairly shrill, unattractive femi-nazi; or 3) some combination of both.
You write an entire column supposedly arguing away the Bradley effect by comparing NH and IA polls and votes. And not even acknowledge that the two are like apples and oranges - secret ballot and not secret.
I want to echo what Sheridan1 says above but still add that the outpouring was about race.
Hillary's white sisters saw her pain and responded. And I wouldn't expect anything different. The response would transcend her conniving, evil ways.
If a black woman was in the race and was seen as cold as Hillary, it wouldn't take but a tearful moment for every black woman in the country to want to come to her aid.
Barack's withstood a torrent of criticism himself but he has yet to come across as personally wounded. The moment he seems personally wounded, not politically, but personally, you'll see a flood of vocal support from the people who look like him and it will transcend the fact that he has nothing in common with american blacks but the way he looks. Of course, that vocal support will cost him his candidacy but I'll save that for another post.
Hillary's "show of emotion" is not that different from Britney's latest "show of emotion" or Lindsay Lohan's... It's an easy story line for a public used to being bombarded with (female) celebrity drama. Calculated or not, Hillary finally delivered some theatrics and was rewarded with non-stop media coverage for 24 hours and a sympathy vote.
This is what I took note of: the woman in NH who asked Hillary the question that provoked the tears voted for Obama. Obama is the clear better choice, not because of race or sex, but because he's not mired in the old us vs. them politics of the Clinton-Bush era. We don't have to accept two family dynasties ruling our democracy. Obama should be the choice of anyone who dares imagine a future where, to quote Clinton, it's not just about "some people are right, and some people are wrong." Does anyone really imagine that's going to work???? Can we bring an end to the reign of the baby boomers over the rest of us, PLEASE????
ps-- Yes, I think some NH-ers were subject to the Bradley Effect. It's obvious. In Iowa the whole thing went down in public. Private voting permits prejudice to resurface. But that shouldn't stop us Obama supporters from fighting on. He's the best candidate!
This message is for Obama and his supporters: 104,757 votes for Obama verses 112,238 votes for Clinton is no Bardley effect. Obama should feel as the winner just as much as Clinton. Remember, many people did not know Obama the way they knew Hillary Clinton. Familiarity is what gave Clinton the extra votes. she should have had many more voters than what she had to call it a serious victory against Obama. If I were in the Clinton Campaign, I would be real worried. Obama is the new kid on the block and he is able to move the masses in an unbelievable way and will continue to do so. Hillary barley won and I truly think it was due to many phone calls mobilizing voters to get to the booth and cast their ballots.If Obama's team mobilizes the voters by a serious phone campaign as well as any other means of motivating the voters to get to the booths, Obama WILL be heading to the White House.
All the polls had Obama's level of support quite right...around 36 percent ...which is what he ended up with.
What pundits and alike failed to look at and/or report is that most of the polls also showed a lot of undecided voters ...upwards of 20 percent or more...which accounts for Clinton's narrow victory. Obama also got the same results in the exit polls....36% or so....no Bradley effect...Look closely at the polls... Undecideds threw it to HRC.
Not to say that the BE cannot happen later on.