The Reverse Bradley Effect?

Last night’s nail biter Super Tuesday election would probably best be described as a tie for the Democrats. Obama won more states than Clinton, however Clinton secured the most populous states. At the end of the night Obama stood with a narrow lead in delegates won.  If you add this to the prior totals, however, in which Clinton leads Obama substantially among super delegates (made up of members of congress and party leaders), it leaves Obama with a slight disadvantage.

While last night’s returns were a bit nebulous, the interesting trend that remained apparent was the relationship between Obama and the African American vote. Since the South Carolina primary a couple weeks ago he has been dominating the black vote, usually receiving support north of 80 percent. This surprisingly comes after Hillary (on account of Bill) dominated the black vote throughout most of the election so far.

So why did black people tell pollsters one thing earlier on, but then flock to ‘the black candidate?’ Some credit Bill Clinton’s borderline racist comments made in South Carolina. I, on the other hand, credit ‘The Reverse Bradley Effect.’

The Bradley Effect refers to the failed candidacy of Los Angeles mayoral candidate Tom Bradley, in 1982. Bradley was ahead in the polls by double digits, but in the election itself he surprisingly lost. After analysis, it was found that the discrepancy occurred because a large number of white voters had indicated support for Bradley in the polls (so as not to appear racist), then voted for the white guy in the election itself.

Meanwhile, in this election, I posit African Americans offered one opinion to pollsters, along the lines of “we don’t want to be seen as a monolithic people who will vote for a candidate because he’s black,” then promptly voted for the black candidate when it came down to it.

Now clearly this election is a bit more of a special case than the Bradley campaign. Obama has a inspirational appeal to voters which many claim transcends race.  But the question still lingers; why did black people overwhelmingly support Hillary in the earlier polls?

Obviously, Obama isn’t the first black candidate to run. Just in the last election we saw Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley Braun fail to capture even a majority of the black vote. So it’s clear that black people don’t routinely vote based on skin color alone.

But maybe, just maybe, in such a close election with two candidates whose policies are similar, and who both have an excellent chance at being elected president, black people routinely broke in favor of the black candidate.

Now this does demonstrate a lingering unity within a persecuted community. But at what point does that unity become the same prejudice that cost Tom Bradley the election in 1982?

And not to let white people off the hook either, why is there seemingly an inverse relationship between black and white support? In South Carolina where Blacks turned out for Obama in overwhelming numbers, his support amongst white voters plummeted. Does something about African American support for a black candidate signal that something’s wrong?

|  Print