Recently I was talking with a old friend about the election. We agreed that Senator Obama was not what the country necessarily needed at this particular moment in history and then the subject of John, her husband who I have also known for many years, came up. “Oh, I can’t talk to John about this at all,” she confided. “I have tried but he just gets hysterical.” After a brief inner smile at the image of the bearded 6′7″ 300 plus pound John becoming hysterical, the conversation continued. “He is so invested in an Obama victory,” she said shaking her head. “I just can’t tell him I’m not going to vote for Obama. I just smile and nod and agree with everything he says.” In another conversation with an African American friend, Margie, I heard a similar story but this time it was her children she was “protecting” from the truth that she did not intend to vote for Senator Obama. “It’s so important to them, and I really am pleased that they have a black candidate for president to root for but I just can’t vote for him.” Both these women had been ardent Hillary supporters, for whatever that is worth, but I have heard similar stories for months, and not just from former Hillary supporters. There has been a lot of talk about the so-called Bradley effect, or the Wilder effect depending on your location I suppose. Wiki gives us this:
The term Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.
There is not much agreement on the actual extent of such an effect. Stephen Green says, “Call it … two points? Three? I’ve seen estimates as high as five percent.” Last night on the O’Reilly Factor (yes, I watched the O’Reilly Factor. I am now able to admit that without offering an excuse) Dr. Marc Lamont Hill said something that surprised me, something that was almost exactly what I have been saying. He said that if Obama is not up by 7 or 8 points on election day he will lose. I think that sounds about right but I also think the number could be even higher. Another guest on O’Reilly, Scott Rasmussen, said that the race factor will count for “a percent or two” on election day. I think that also sounds about right. The interesting thing is the difference between these two numbers. My two friends above fit into the demographic represented by the difference in those two numbers. They will not vote for Obama but it will have nothing to do with his race. The sad and scary part is it will be described that way by the “main stream media”. And in fact if we accept the WIKI definition many of the people who surreptitiously vote against Obama for reasons other than race may indeed be included in the “Bradley effect”:
One theory for the Bradley effect is that some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will appear to the pollster to be racially prejudiced.
Fear of appearing racist to a pollster or being called a racist by your friends or thought racist by your family, its a very slippery slope. Does the fact that a person would conceal how they vote because they fear being called a racist somehow validate a racist conclusion? Thinking about it makes my head hurt. In the comments of a rather clumsily worded post about this recently my friend Charles Lemos said, “Lastly on the race thing. I think it is a mixed bag honestly. It both helps Obama and it hurts him but Capt Howdy is right should Obama lose it won’t be because of his race.” I agree with that completely. I believe there will also be a “reverse Bradley effect”. Many whites, particularly young voters, will vote for Obama because it is the opportunity to vote for an African American president, and I see nothing wrong with that. I believe the number will be high enough to make any actual disadvantage Obama has because of race meaningless and void. Writing at HuffPo Chris Weigant gives us this:
But there are two other factors in this race that are unknown (and, to a large degree, unknowable) and they point in opposite directions, so they may even cancel each other out to some degree (meaning that, even after the election, it may still be impossible to accurately quantify these). The first of these is the infamous Bradley Effect. Will Obama’s white voter support in the polls be higher than his actual support on Election Day? Will this be a regional factor, or a nationwide factor? And how big a factor is it? All unanswerable questions now, and possibly ever.
The other factor works in Obama’s favor, but since it is such a unique phenomenon it too may be impossible to predict before the election. How overwhelming is Obama’s youth support going to be? How many of them will actually turn out to vote? How many of them have no landlines, and are hence being woefully undercounted in the polls (which usually don’t call cell phones)? Will “The Obama Effect” be a tidalwave of new votes, or will it fizzle as it has almost every time in the past? Impossible to know at this point.
I have written recently about the abundant ironies in this election. They seem to just keep coming. It would be ironic indeed if, after all is said and done, race is used as an excuse for an Obama loss. The only thing that would accomplish would be to reinforce that glass ceiling that the Senator came so close to breaking through. For this reason and for the more selfish reason that I cringe at the thought of my country and my friends unfairly being called racists, I hope we can see the results of this election with eyes unclouded by preconceptions. Based on what we have seen so far I am not betting the farm on that.
Speaking only for me.