Not being an American, or resident of America, I was totally oblivious of the name, Tom Bradley until I saw a programme about him on CNN last week to the effect that he might be a factor in the November 2008 US Presidential Elections even though he has been dead for about ten years! This immediately arose my curiosity and I decided to find out more about this man who might dare abort my American dream! So to Wikipedia I went for more information about him. Tom Bradley, it transpired, was in fact a black American politician, and a rather relatively successful one for that matter.
Not being an American, or resident of America, I was totally oblivious of the name, Tom Bradley until I saw a programme about him on CNN last week to the effect that he might be a factor in the November 2008 US Presidential Elections even though he has been dead for about ten years! This immediately arose my curiosity and I decided to find out more about this man who might dare abort my American dream! So to Wikipedia I went for more information about him. Tom Bradley, it transpired, was in fact a black American politician, and a rather relatively successful one for that matter. He became the first black mayor of Los Angeles in 1973 and held the post for twenty years, making him the longest serving mayor of Los Angeles.
In 1982, he ran for the governorship of the state of California against a white candidate, George Deukmejian and was so popular that all the poll projections indicated a Bradley win. In fact after the elections, early exit polls indicated that Tom Bradley was winning and the San Francisco Sun, in its early morning edition shortly before the result was announced splashed a headline on its front page: ‘Bradley Win Projected’. However when the results were announced, Bradley lost by about 100,000 votes. So why did Bradley lose? How come the pollsters got it so radically wrong? Or were the pollsters deceived by voters? The California gubernatorial result of 1982 was also at odd with the overall results of that year when the Democratic candidates generally did well and Mr Bradley ran a very effective campaign and was expected to win.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
A theory was then canvassed by Marvin Field who was himself a respected pollster: white Californians, in interviews with pollsters, did not want to be seen as racists and had indicated that they would vote for Bradley, a black politician. However in the anonymity of the polling booths, they could not countenance doing so and had voted for Deukmejian. Thus the ‘Bradley Effect’ theory was born! This phenomenon is not new or uniquely American. Opinion sampling is not an exact science and there is always the distinct possibility that the polls might overstate or understate voting projections. There could be a number of reasons why voters might misinform or disinform pollsters of their true intentions. This might range from wanting to be seen as being politically correct or simple fear. For example if you were living in Shagari village in 1983, it might not be prudent to go on about your Awoist credentials, just as it would perhaps be unwise for a resident of Ikenne in 1983, to profess his undying love for the NPN!
In the US and Western Europe, race might still play a part in some peoples’ choice of preferred candidates and in these days of political correctness, many voters who would not vote for Obama simply because he was black would not say so to the pollsters. They would say all the right things to the pollsters but will vote against Obama come November 2008. On the face of it, the ‘Bradley Effect’ seems valid. There had been instances in the past in the US when actual results had flown in the face of pre-election projections. For example, in 1989, Doug Wilder, a black American contested for the governorship race of the state of Virginia against a white Republican candidate, Marshall Coleman. Wilder had a solid nine-point lead over Coleman, on the eve of the election but ultimately lost the election. Similarly in 1990, black Democrat candidate, Harvey Gant was leading the Republican incumbent for the North Carolina senate post by five points. Again, against all projections, Gant lost the election.
Some have even pointed to what happened in New Hampshire during the Democratic Party primary when Obama had a 13-point lead over Hillary Clinton but lost to Hillary on the day of the election. Opinion polls presently gives Obama a seemingly unassailable 14 points lead over Senator McCain. However if the ‘Bradley Effect’ theory is to be believed, it will be extremely premature for Obama and his supporters to read so much into the poll projections: projected white votes might not translate in to real votes on the day of the election; and in any event, as Winston Churchill would say, a week is a long time in politics, and there is still 3 weeks before this election. Personally though this writer does not think the ‘Bradley Effect’ will affect the November election for one simple reason: Obama is a phenomenally lucky man; he is at the right place at the right time. Napoleon Bonaparte was said to rate luck very high on the list of criteria his generals must possess. When considering whether a particular general should be chosen over another for a particularly daunting task, Napoleon would ask: ‘is he lucky?’
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
All the indices and variables point to the fact that America needs a change of direction. The American economy has never been in a more serious danger of terminal decline; the US foreign policy is facing universal opprobrium; there are unpopular wars outside of the US where American soldiers are dying on a daily basis and all are agreed that the incumbent president is not capable of running anything, not to talk of the most powerful country in the world. The time is thus ripe for change of direction. McCain cannot offer the required change because he is, amongst other reasons, guilty by association, and in Sarah Palin, he has chosen a woman who could possibly be even more intellectually deficient than the incumbent president! Of course Hillary Clinton could not be considered because she is, well, Hillary Clinton. This leaves the coat clear for Obama; the election will be his to lose. Of course race cannot be totally eliminated from political permutations {after all, a lot of black supporters of Obama support him because of his colour}, but the American people have so far displayed that typical American idiosyncrasy to surprise and shock that it will indeed be a surprise if they do not send Obama to the White House come November.
And here again, mother luck comes into the equation. Obama is a beneficiary of a paradigm shift in America’s race relations. In 1982 Obama’s challenge would have ended during the Democratic Party primary nomination process and winning the nomination would have been unthinkable, and as Michelle Obama said, ‘If there was going to be a Bradley effect, or it was going to be in play, Barack wouldn’t be the nominee’. This is because race is not at the top of the agenda in the 2008 US as it was in 1982. For the present generation of Americans, race is not as crucial an issue as it is for the baby-boom generation and I surmise for the average American white voter these days, the colour of the candidate is a secondary issue to the ability of that candidate. Thus, there is less inclination for a white voter to disguise their voting preference and lie to the pollster; if they stated they would vote for Obama, they are more likely to vote for Obama. This writer sincerely hopes that the ‘Bradley Effect’ is dead for ever and come December 2008, we speak in term of the ‘Obama Effect’, after the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });