Cross-posted at Purple State Pundit
Yes, the polls look great right now. Obama is ahead in by 8-11 points nationally, the Real Clear Politics map shows a possible Obama landslide, and absent some big event he's starting to look unstoppable. But there's still an elephant in the room, and we do Obama no favors by denying or ignoring it. If we want him to win, then we need to accept that because of who he is, Barack Obama is still the underdog and will be the underdog until the day he is inaugurated.
Named for former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite a large lead in pre-election polling, the Bradley Effect is a phenomenon in which pre-election polling overstates support for black candidates or, more commonly, understates support for the white candidate running against a black candidate (often by showing a high percentage of "undecideds" that are actually votes for the white candidate).
There are several theories on why this has occurred, but the one that seems the most plausible to me is that people who harbor some racial prejudice but know that it's socially unacceptable either lie and say they are voting for the black candidate or say they are undecided when they intend to vote for the white candidate. A related problem is the race of interviewer effect, in which voters are more likely to say they are voting for a black candidate if the person conducting the survey is black.
There are several other theories about the Bradley Effect, and I recommend this Pew article for some insight. But my purpose here is not to try to figure out why the effect might exist, but to argue that Obama's supporters do him no favors when they deny even the possibility that there could be a Bradley Effect on November 4.
Whenever the subject is raised in the progressive blogosphere it is shot down and treated as some sort of anti-Obama smear. People who raise the issue on this site and others like it are often called "concern trolls". I suspect this stems from the primaries, when some people used the possibility of the Bradley Effect to make the case that Obama was less electable. But the primaries are over, Barack Obama is officially the Democratic nominee, and we don't do him any favors if we deny the possibility that the polls could be overstating his support or understating McCain's because of the historic nature of his candidacy.
Larry Sabato said that "Obama will need a clear pre-election poll lead over McCain to win; a tie isn't going to do it for him, in all probability. It's naïve to expect that there won't be some racial leakage on election day." Agree with him or not, shouldn't we at least acknowledge the possibility that he could be right? How can we say for certain that he's wrong when we've never had an African American presidential nominee before?
As a quasi-Washington insider, I know that some Democratic strategists are wondering if this is another 1996 and they should declare "Mission Accomplished" on the presidential race and put resources into down-ballot contests. I suspect that many grassroots volunteers and donors are wondering the same thing, debating whether to donate to Obama or to their Democratic House candidate, whether to volunteer for Obama or for a local progressive candidate. There are arguments to be made for focusing on down-ballot races as well as the presidential, but we would do Obama a great disservice if we put our time, money and effort into other races because we think he has this locked up.
Some skeptics have pointed out that the Bradley Effect seemed to subside during the 1990's. This may be true, but we should keep in mind that people during the 1990's may have gotten more used to seeing African American mayors, members of Congress, and even governors. But we've never had a black president before, and that may be a whole new comfort barrier for some voters to cross.
For those who are tempted to argue that the Bradley Effect is a thing of the past, need I remind you that the exit polls during the primaries almost always showed Obama doing better than he ended up doing? Doesn't the fact that he almost never won the late deciders in the primaries for whatever reason freak you out just a little bit?
Others will argue that Obama's aggressive voter registration strategy and the omission of cell-phone-only voters in polls will act as a counter-weight to any Bradley Effect, and that could end up being true. But what if it isn't? What if we wake up to a McCain presidency on November 5th because we got complacent and thought Obama had it wrapped up? Obama's campaign seems aware of this possibility, and I think they put out that video last week showing McCain being declared the winner to make the same point I am making in this diary. Even if the Bradley Effect turns out to be a thing of the past, don't we only improve Obama's chances of winning and even winning big if we plan for the worst?
I'm only 24, but I know that candidates like Barack Obama don't come along that often. I imagine that it will be at least 30 years before I get another chance to vote for a presidential candidate I believe in this much. I don't want to wake up on November 5 and realize that we missed this chance because we got overconfident and didn't do everything we could to get him elected. Even if he opens a 20-point lead in the polls we have to prepare for the worst and cannot stop canvassing, phonebanking, donating, and doing GOTV for Obama until the minute the polls close on November 4.
No matter what the polls say, we do Obama a disservice if we believe the polls and assume that he has it locked up. He is the first African American presidential nominee in a country with an ugly history of racism, and that by definition makes him the underdog no matter how good the polls look. Even if there's only a slight chance of a Bradley Effect, isn't it better to be prepared for it than to be unpleasantly surprised when it's too late to make a difference?