No, this diary is not about the phenomenon of white voters who say they'll vote for a black person then end up not voting for him/her. That's the Tom Bradley Effect.
What I want to talk about is something interesting Chuck Todd mentioned today on some MSNBC show. It's a rebuttal to Bill Clinton's contention that Hillary is "winning the general election" based on current general election polling against McCain. The nationwide and state specific general election polls are key to Hillary's argument that she's more electable than Obama. If you go over to MyDD, their electoral map based on the most recent state polls shows Clinton with a whopping 300+ electoral votes to McCain's 200. Obama, on the other hand, is about even with McCain.
According to Todd, Bill and Hill's argument is wrong. The fact that Hillary is doing well in general election match-ups proves only that she has, in effect, lost the nomination. For an explanation of what Bill Bradley has to do with any of this, see below the fold.
Chuck Todd argued that Hillary is doing a bit better than Obama in general election polling because she's been getting a free ride since May 6. What happened on May 6? That's when Obama's NC victory and close Indiana loss sealed the delegate math for Obama and he in effect was declared the presumptive nominee. And since then, Obama hasn't been campaigning agaginst Hillary, as his attention has turned to McCain, his general election foe.
Thus, because Obama has been ignoring Clinton, she's getting a free ride of sorts, being able to just spout positive things about herself without getting challenged, and consequently is enjoying a boost in her polling numbers.
Todd said the same thing happened in past elections, where a candidate like Bill Bradley actually started to poll better than the presumptive nominee after it became clear Bradley would not win.
So, when Bill and Hillary cite to the general polling numbers to say she's more electable, actually, the numbers only prove that she's being ignored by the presumptive nominee; in other words, she's doing better precisely because she's lost the democratic nomination and is no longer being actively challenged by Obama. Moreover, she's actually had a news channel, Fox News, actually actively supporting her campaign in a blatant and cynical attempt to try to lengthen the primary fight between Obama and Clinton.
So, since May 6, Obama's been subject to rigorous press scrutiny, having to address the various claims that HRC has been making in continuing to pursue her failed campaign. Moreover, since May 6, HRC has been framing the coverage of the primary with her flood of incendiary accusations and claims meant to keep the spotlight on her; e.g., her white working class meme, her running up the score in KY and WV; her sexism meme; her FL/MI slavery & disenfranchisement meme, etc. And while Hillary's been doing all of this, Obama hasn't directly engaged or aggressively responded to the charges, having shifted his attention to McCain. Given all of this, I think Todd is right to say that Clinton's polling numbers are artificially inflated precisely because the the republicans, Obama, and the democratic party have all been leaving Hillary alone, and as a result, Hillary's been able to control the media narrative for the past few weeks, up until her RFK gaffe last Friday.
If Todd is right, then once Hillary finally suspends her campaign, we should see a big shift in the polling data. We might also see some movement in reaction to the bad publicity she received with her reckless statement about RFK. But, at the very least, Todd's Bill Bradley effect pokes a huge hole in Clinton's electability meme, as it deprives her of the ability to rely on her good general polling numbers as evidence of her superior electability. In short, Hillary is "winning" right now only because she has lost.
UPDATE 10:26 a.m.: Onanyes tells us that Bill Clinton, the presumptive nominee in 1992, also suffered from the Bill Bradley effect. In 1992, around this time, Bill Clinton was running third in general election match-ups against George Bush and Ross Perot, receiving only 25% of the vote! I'm sure democrats were panicking back then, afraid that they had picked someone "unelectable." Too bad the supers didn't trump the pledged delegate vote and annoint Jerry Brown as the nominee.
Thanks also to notquitedelilah (great name!) for posting a link to the Hardball segment with Chuck Todd discussing the "Bill Bradley Effect." The discussion starts about 2 minutes into the video.
Youtube video of Chuck Todd explaining the "Bill Bradley Effect" on Hardball