Day: January 4, 2008

Barack Obama’s historic win in Iowa last night was a major step forward in American politics not just because it was the first time a black presidential candidate has won a state contest but also because, for once, white voters who told pollsters they intended to vote for Obama actually voted for him on caucus night.

It is way too soon to write the epitaph for the Bradley Effect — in part because Iowa, with its 1 percent African-American population, is hardly a bellwether for American race relations.

The final polls before the caucuses consistently showed Obama surging. For example, the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll from yesterday showed Obama with 31 percent, Edwards with 27 percent and Clinton with 24 percent. The final tally was Obama 38 percent, Edwards 30 percent and Clinton 29 percent.

The phenomenon of white voters lying to pollsters about their intent to vote for black candidates has been so commonplace that it has a name: “Bradley effect,” named for the late Tom Bradley, an African American who served five four-year terms as mayor of Los Angeles.

In 1982, Bradley ran for governor of California against a human cipher named George Deukmajian. Polls consistently showed the popular mayor of the state’s largest city with a comfortable lead over the Republican, but on election day, Deukmajian won handily. This phenomenon has been reproduced in elections in New York City and Illinois as well as North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.

Obama has been quite aware of the Bradley effect from the start, of course:

When Obama, in effect, launched his presidential bid in Manchester, N.H., last December, he made a point of playing down the potential hazards of being a black (or mixed race) candidate in a country where four out of five voters are white.

Reflecting on the 2006 Senate election in Tennessee, Obama said, “I don’t think Harold Ford lost because of his race.”

Ford, an African-American, was the Democrat defeated by Republican Bob Corker.

“I thought that the Harold Ford election showed enormous progress. Something that hasn’t been noted is the fact that Harold Ford did better among white voters than the polls would have indicated,” Obama said.

When black candidates Doug Wilder and Tom Bradley ran for governor of Virginia in 1989 and California in 1982, respectively, polls predicted that each would get a higher share of white voters than they in fact won on Election Day.

It is way too soon to write the epitaph for the Bradley Effect — in part because Iowa, with its 1 percent African-American population, is hardly a bellwether for American race relations. Still, Obama’s success in Iowa is both a personal triumph for the senator as well as a much needed success for the American political system.

I wish nobody cared about Iowa. Not literally, of course — I’m sure it’s a wonderful state with lots of corn and hearty, pious white folks who will soon be fabulously rich off ethanol. And it’s not because my guy came in second or because I fail to see the significance of 71 percent of 220,000 participants not choosing Hillary Clinton. I get it.

I wish nobody cared about Iowa because in the endless obsession over who was going to win in this bizarre and byzantine caucus ritual, the Current Occupant has been given a free pass.

I sat through an entire episode of This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday and the sole topic was the upcoming Iowa caucuses. The only reference to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was in asking the pundits what they thought of the candidates’ responses to the news. And there was no mention at all of Bush’s pocket veto of a bill that would give pay raises and better medical care to veterans.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department announced it’s beginning a criminal investigation of the torture tapes destroyed by the CIA. The Current Occupant says he welcomes the investigation because it means from now on, he can tell reporters he can’t comment on the matter because there’s an investigation under way. O.K., he didn’t say that last part but we know that’s what he meant. And all the other news is bad — unemployment and debt delinquency and gas prices are up, housing sales and the stock market are down. Recession looms.

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) is calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney when the House reconvenes Jan. 15. I predict very little will come of this action because the New Hampshire primary is Jan. 8 and South Carolina is Jan. 26. I doubt Wexler can outshout the media as they chatter on endlessly about the meaning of each primary and its significance for the next.

And besides that, Britney might be having a new meltdown or Lindsay might quaff some more champagne, and we all know those events take every bit of video and ink that can be thrown at them.

My personal theory is we are so over Bush that we are happy to ignore his last year in office. This is dangerous. If we allow him to leave on his own terms, like a CEO forced to resign after a spectacular failure but with golden parachute intact, we are only asking for trouble from his replacement. If Bush’s actions are allowed to stand, what’s the next president going to do? After all, precedent will be on his or her side.

If you haven’t signed Wexler’s petition yet, please do so. If you can spare a few minutes for stuff besides zoo tiger attacks and mud-slinging by the two most religious candidates running for president, please do so. And if you can think of a way to get Bush out of office now, please let me know.

How do you screw up a campaign victory speech? It is a Politics 101 fundamental rule that during the post-results speech the candidate must be surrounded on the stage by his family — particularly if the candidate is a Republican “family values” type, and especially if the candidate is the winner.

[…]