Bradley Effect: Dead or Dormant?

While it will still take some time to comb through all the entire exit polling data from the presidential election, one thing is clear: there was no net Bradley effect. Barack Obama won the states he was projected to win, within the margin of error that the last polls projected him to win. This does not mean, of course, that there was no Bradley effect. It is possible that Whites who indicated support for Obama in the polls chose McCain in the voting booth, but if so, they were offset by Whites who indicated support for McCain in the polls but voted for Obama.
This is especially possible in parts of the Deep South, where the “norm of racial equality” is weaker – where White folks might have actually been driven to conceal their support for Obama.

Further, it is inappropriate to declare the death of the Bradley effect as a result of one election. It is possible that the Bradley effect did not apply to Barack Obama's presidency, but the salience of the campaign, the fact that Obama is half White, the fact that McCain's campaign was so poorly run, or the fact Obama is a "first" might have mitigated the effect in this election (though it is also possible that this would have contriubuted to a Bradley effect). So we're not sure we can sign the death certificate for the Bradley effect just yet, but we are certainly happy to sing it a bedtime story (and slip it some Ambien) at the very least.

By the way, was John McCain advocating a Bradley effect vote the night before the election when he was interviewed on Monday Night Football? We wouldn't speculate on his intent, but we wonder if the fact that he knew that a Bradley effect was his only chance at that point didn't affect his answer to the question. Watch (below) and see what you think.



In any case, Obama did not simply win the election – he dominated. A six-point popular vote lead may not sound like a lot, but when one considers that there have been only five Black candidates who have won high-profile statewide office (U.S. Senate or governor) since Reconstruction, Obama’s victory was impressive. Further, in many states where he ultimately lost, he was competitive up until to the end. The Electoral College tends to exacerbate a popular vote victory (when it doesn’t reverse it), so that trouncing of McCain paints an exaggerated picture of Obama’s support. And it is true that winning a third term for the Republicans was a long shot in the current political climate, but it is wise for us to revisit – as we did after Obama secured the nomination – our prediction nearly two years ago that Obama would not win.
Before noting that Obama would not win the Democratic Party nomination, here is what we said about the general election in December 2006:

Let's begin with the general election, where Republicans and other conservative types will of course be part of the electorate. It seems an almost foregone conclusion at this point that Republicans, especially in the South, have mastered and continue to refine the art of race-baiting; they know such messages will always find fertile ground to influence voting decisions at the least, and develop into vociferous anti-black/minority opposition, even hysteria, at most (especially in a Presidential race). Of course there is always convenient cover for such insidious messages; for Republicans, it is ideology.

And you can already see it coming in this week's evangelical rancor over Rick Warren's invitation of Obama to speak at his megachurch AIDS summit. Should Obama win the nomination, he is certain to face vigorous opposition from Republicans who believe Obama's real sin is his skin. This sentiment will be denied of course, with claims that it is his stance on abortion, stem cell research, homosexuals, etc. - not race - that is the reason for opposition.

Unlike our incorrect prediction about Obama’s inability to secure the Party nomination, we were fairly accurate in our prediction of what Obama’s opponents would do.

Republicans absolutely used ideology as a cover for their racist rhetoric. Rather than attacking Obama for being “too Black,” they called him “radical,” “risky,” and labeled his policies “socialist” and “Marxist.” Rather than using Jeremiah Wright to suggest that Obama was too empathetic to the cause of Black liberation, McCain supporters suggested that their concern was Wright’s “anti-American” positions. Nothing about Jeremiah Wright’s sermons are anti-American per se; they were anti-White supremacy, and to the extent that White supremacy is an inherent part of America, the point could be made. We’re pretty sure that’s not what the McCain supporters meant, though.

Perhaps because of the primacy of the economic crisis, there was little substitution of progressive social policy positions for race. We were, for the most part, mistaken about that.

At the end of the day, we underestimated the American public with respect to the likelihood of using Obama’s race against him. Our final sentence in that blog reads as follows: “Obama certainly has the qualifications to be President, yet the barriers of race make us quite skeptical about the possibility of the nation electing the first black President.”

But if there is any doubt about the role race played amongst McCain supporters, consider this map from The New York Times, which shows the handful of counties where McCain got more support than George W. Bush got in 2004. Progressive blogger Yglesias astutely notes that given the level of poverty in those areas, it is unlikely that McCain’s call for tax relief for the wealthiest Americans can account for this increase of support for the Republican candidate this year. As our good friend Rush Limbaugh might say, “It is totally about race!” (Thanks to loyal TWIR reader Matt Zanon for passing along this link.)
















“Wright” Up Until the End

While John McCain technically kept his promise to not invoke Jeremiah Wright during the campaign, the last two days (Sunday and Monday) saw a flurry of ads featuring the out-of-context statements by Obama’s former preacher. The Pennsylvania Republican Party (PAGOP) ran one, as did the National Republican Trust (NRT) political action committee, the friendly bigots at Freedom’s Defense Fund (FDF), and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Click each of the four images below to enjoy the full video.









The National Republican Trust (NRT), Freedom’s Defense Fund (FDF) and the Pennsylvania Republican Party (PAGOP) released a flurry of ads that used implicit racist messages. For the PAGOP, there was an ad called “Bitter” that brought forth a flurry of White folks (and one Black man with his child) that were supposedly the target of Obama’s “elitist” comment about his inability to win over rural White Democrats during the primaries and one that altered photos of U.S. leaders meeting with leaders of rogue nations to suggest that Obama’s believe in diplomacy with enemies of the U.S. was naïve. The spot includes an image of Obama shaking hands with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



NRT ran an ad about Obama’s tolerance for terrorists, one criticizing Obama’s opposition to denying driver’s licenses to undocumented workers, and one linking his "redistributive" economic plan to illegals and terrorists.

TWIR readers will recall that FDF is the group who made the “Willie Horton 2008” spot linking Obama with former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. This group also ran an ad using Jeremiah Wright (above), and one linking Obama to a Kenyan leader (another scary Black man!).

While not a legitimate ad that ran in any states, it is interesting to note the attempted satire in this YouTube ad that targets voters who would only vote for Obama because of his race. Please be sure to note the last frame, where the person who made the ad declares that its not racist. Thanks for the heads-up, pal.

Racists for Obama


Of course, for Obama to win, he had to put together a coalition. Surprisingly, Salon reports that some of Obama’s supporters were espoused bigots. (Thanks to psychologists and loyal TWIR readers Dr. Jon Mueller and Dr. Steve Davis for passing this along.)


Strange bedfellows indeed!



Uncle Ralph

Ralph Nader, apparently not satisfied with the degree of offensiveness of his remark about Obama “talking White” this summer, had the following to say about Obama’s win: “[Obama’s] choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.”

Fox News had Nader on to discuss the comment (see below), and Nader explained that Obama wasn’t Black enough in his policy preferences. What is so remarkable about Nader’s remarks here and back in the summer is that he feels so comfortable telling Obama how to be Black.

As a rule, when Fox News calls you out on your racism, you’re in bad shape. If Fox would have been as diligent in calling out conservatives on their racism as they were with lefty Nader, we would be more impressed.




Not Taking This Well

Our colleague, historian and loyal TWIR reader Dr. Alex Kindell, learned of some text messages that were going around Northwestern Indiana after Obama’s victory. Here’s some examples (spelling errors in the original):

1. Free bbq chicken, chitlins', watermelon, and 40's at the white house tomorrow be there & bring your own blunts. We runnin this shit now!
2. The Statue of Liberty is coming down today. Aunt Jemima is going up holdn a chicken leg!
3. ALL WHITE PEOPLE MUST REPORT 2 THE COTTON FIELDS TOMORROW MORNING AT 7 AM FOR ORIENTATION!!
4. Washington is on the dollar. Lincoln is on the 5. I heard Obama will be on food stamps. (Reminds us of the Republican women’s club email that came out of California a few weeks back).

The truth is, however, that many McCain supporters will be supportive of Obama's presidency at the beginning (during his "honeymoon" period). Many of these folks shed tears with the rest of us on election night as the historical importance of the moment became apparent. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will continue to have their coalition of the under-educated and the ultra wealthy, but there is little question that as a nation, we move forward together to try to address the most pressing issues of our day.


This GUEST

Be sure to check out Dr. David Worth's GUEST blog this week, where he discusses the work yet to be done with respect to race relations in America.





These ANALYSTS

Stephen and Charlton were busy this week providing analysis of the election. In addition to the spots embedded below, Stephen did an interview for TVN of Poland and had a live appearance on Al Jazeera English. If those clips become available, Stephen will post them on his YouTube page.










Re: Comments

We had to turn on the "moderator" function of the comments section because of the ridiculous amount of spam TWIR has been receiving. Please know that, as always, we will not filter or edit any germane comments. If, however, you are selling gold or erectile dysfunction remedies, you will have to look elsewhere for a host.

Nader Needs to Be Smacked, City Cars Get Shellacked, Dino Rossi Gets "Whacked"

Over the past ten days, a number of stories have surfaced that cannot escape our attention, even though we would like to "move on" for a bit. Let us explain what we mean.

We started The Project on Race in Political Communication in the summer of 2001 as an umbrella label for the research upon which we were about to embark, as well as to signify the immense amount of work that social scientists still had to do before we could comfortably say that we have a solid understanding of the racial dynamics implicit in political communication. In the fall of 2006, we began This Week In Race to call attention to the myriad elements of racial discourse that surface on a regular basis and to provide accessible scholarly analysis of those issues. We could not foresee in 2001 – or even in 2006, to be honest – that there would be an African American candidate as a major-party nominee for president in 2008. As a result, much of this space in the past year and a half has been devoted to Barack Obama, which is a much narrower focus than we would like. Still, while other stories are deserving of our attention, none are as salient as those about Obama. That said, we appreciate any comments our regular readers (or new readers) might have about the content of TWIR. Please leave those below.

The most visible racial communication put forth over the past week or so was Ralph Nader’s remarks to the Rocky Mountain News that Barack Obama was “talking white” and playing into “white guilt.” Here’s what he said:

There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.

Let’s unpack his remarks a bit. First, let’s examine the validity of Nader’s claims.

1. Barack Obama is half African-American. True.
2. Obama hasn’t vocalized a plan for a crackdown (strong or otherwise) on economic exploitation (in the ghetto or anywhere else). True.
3. Obama wants to talk white. Doubtful, but we can’t technically rule it out, we suppose.
4. Obama doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson. We don’t even know what that means. That he won’t be reading Green Eggs and Ham on Saturday Night Live?

Nader continued:

I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing.

We wonder what, precisely, qualifies Ralph Nader to know or feel confident to determine the “number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency” should be doing. Does he not recognize how condescending it is to tell Barack Obama what he should be doing AS A BLACK MAN? This continues a very old tradition of paternalistic treatment of African Americans by whites. “We know what’s best for you, so here’s what you need to do.”

The truth is that Nader is correct in terms of his analysis of the situation in poor areas. Obama undoubtedly knows it, too. And if that’s the case, there are only two options: 1. Obama doesn’t care about folks in those communities, or 2. he has made a conscious decision not to address those issues in public during his campaign.

In his accusations, Nader either assumes the former (which is quite presumptuous given the paucity of evidence to support it) or is too stupid to recognize smart political strategy when he sees it (given his success at presidential runs, this is a possibility). Does he really think that Obama would have secured the Democratic nomination if his campaign had been centered on helping folks in impoverished areas? While those of us concerned about economic inequality might dream of such a successful campaign, it is completely unrealistic to expect that ANYONE, but specifically a black candidate, who has to constantly battle stereotypes about his race, to be successful employing such a public persona. Just because Obama is not talking about it does not mean that he is not planning to address it while in office.

It is revealing that we have very few black leaders publicly making such claims. Does Nader just know better than they do what a black candidate should advocate, what the black community most needs? The difference between black leaders and voters and Ralph Nader is that the former are smart enough to understand that calling attention to what might be considered “stealth” plans to help those whose voice in the electoral process is not traditionally strong would be counterproductive.

Ralph, please listen to us for a second. If you really are concerned about the folks who are being exploited economically (and your life's work makes it clear that you do), do you really think that undermining the campaign of the one candidate who might actually be in tune with those concerns (as much from his community activism as from being African American) is really a good idea?

And finally, Nader displayed his remarkable grasp of the obvious:

He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

You don’t say! He’s a black candidate running not just against an opponent, but against stereotypes of black males as lazy, violent and untrustworthy, and his plan is to appear to be not threatening? Wow, Ralph. You’re right. What a stupid idiot this Obama character is!

It’s a good thing that whites did eat it up or else he would not be where he is now.

To be fair, there is a fine line here. But Obama and the black folks who support him can hardly be called Uncle Toms, as Nader suggests. Further, if they are to be considered as such, it is not up to white folk to make that determination. If we wish to have a thoughtful discussion of whether Obama’s strategy is too much Booker T. Washington and not enough W.E.B. DuBois, there is certainly merit in that. But to publicly accuse him of selling out his race is counterproductive to what we might assume to be a common cause of moving toward a more socially and economically just nation.

For his part, Obama has released two new television advertisements to correspond with his Middle America tour to prove his “patriotism.”





Both ads follow a pattern that we revealed in an article published in The Journal of Black Studies last year:

[M]inority candidates (Blacks in this instance) use racial appeals too. But Blacks use racial appeals for different reasons than their White counterparts, and they construct racial appeals in different ways. Whereas White candidates attack, Blacks advocate. The dominant image in Black candidates’ ads with racial appeals is their own, not the White opponents’. And when appealing to race, Black candidates more often than not focus on substantive issues rather than talking about their own or their opponent’s character. When one looks back at the actual ads of Black candidates that feature a racial appeal, one can clearly get a picture of why such appeals are used. First, they are likely to be responding to and defending themselves against a race-based attack made their White opponent, thereby invoking racial language as well because it was the substance of the initial attack. Second (and in most cases), Black candidates are inoculating themselves—if not from possible race-based attacks from their opponent, then from likely stereotypical attitudes held by Whites. Third, Black candidates are using racial appeals targeted toward other Blacks in contests against Black opponents.

In an endnote, we indicated that in the second condition (one that is evidenced by Obama’s ads released this week), that “[g]enerally, such forms of inoculation take place in election contests where the Black candidate is running in a majority White district.” Since winning the presidency requires gaining a majority of Electoral College votes and Electoral College votes are won by winning (in most instances) a plurality of the statewide vote, Obama is effectively campaigning in fifty-one majority-white districts.

Expect to see more of this as we move into the summer and toward the conventions. In effect, Obama has to show white Americans that while he is black, he is not a repository for their stereotypes. Does that mean he is “talking white,” as Nader claimed? If by “talking white,” one means appealing to white voters (who make up the overwhelming majority of the electorate) by diffusing their unjust, harmful and debilitating stereotypes, then we suppose so.

While this was going on, dozens of city vehicles in Orlando, Florida were vandalized, apparently by rouge supporters of Hillary Clinton. Some of the cars contained racial epithets and other insults about Barack Obama spray painted on the cars.

And finally THIS WEEK, lest the Democrats become too smug about their inclusiveness now that the Clinton campaign’s racial insensitivity has come to a rest, there is this story out of Washington state, called to our attention by Race Project Senior Research Assistant Shannon Lausch. The state Democratic Party produced an attack ad against Republican gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi that played on stereotypes about Italian Americans and organized crime. In a spot that charges Rossi with a number of shady relationships, the theme song from The Sopranos plays in the background.




After complains by the Italian Club of Seattle, the Party re-issued the ad without the music from the popular program about mobsters. In a pathetic apology, Party spokesperson Kelly Steele issued the following statement:

It's a catchy song, which we thought jibed stylistically with our communication about Rossi's designated attack squad — the BIAW — who continue to pour millions into false and misleading attack ads against [Democratic incumbent] Gov. Gregoire.

Ok, Kel. We got it. What a co-inkydink that attacks on an Italian-American opponent centering around shady business deals (in the CONTRACTING industry, no less) happened to be accompanied by a “catchy” song that calls to mind the mafia. Are you kidding us?!

Then, to top it off, Steele continued:

That being said, we'd like to apologize to Rossi's friend [Italian Club of Seattle president] Mr. [Brian] DiJulio, his organization, and anyone else we may have inadvertently offended. The video will be replaced shortly with an identical message regarding Rossi and the BIAW's sleazy attack campaign, using a different song.

The implication here is that the offense taken is not even genuine, but rather merely a product of Rossi’s “friendship” with the president of the club who complained. This is inexcusable and would never have happened in an area with a larger Italian American community such as New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Boston or San Francisco. Clearly, the Washington Democratic Party saw the risk of offending a few Italians as minor compared to the payoff of playing off negative stereotypes for political gain. Pretending that it was an accident is possibly more insulting than the act itself.