The Bradley Effect or Left At the Altar?

Blair Levin, a veteran of the 1982 Tom Bradley gubernatorial campaign that has earned a place in political lore for Bradley's electoral meltdown, says in the New York Times that the "Bradley effect" is "widely misunderstood."

Levin contends that Bradley lost not because he was black but "because an unpopular gun control initiative and an aggressive Republican absentee ballot program generated hundreds of thousands of Republican votes no pollster anticipated."

While he acknowledges that race was one of the issues of the campaign, Levin says "[i]t’s more complicated than you think."

And he argues that Bradley's name should be dropped from the theory because the concept is contrary to Bradley's approach to governing as mayor of Los Angeles.

Actually, while I've most often heard the theory referred to as the "Bradley effect," I've heard it given other names to reflect more recent examples of this phenomenon.

In the early 1990s, Doug Wilder nearly lost the governor's race in Virginia after leading substantially in the polls, and the phenomenon was referred to as the "Wilder effect" for awhile.

In the last couple of years, since Rep. Harold Ford was beaten in the Senate race in Tennessee, I've heard the theory referred to as the "Ford effect."

And there have been other variations over the years.

Clearly, it is referred to as the "Bradley effect" because it was first observed following Bradley's loss.

But Levin is probably correct when he suggests that it isn't fair to name this effect after Bradley.

If Levin has a better alternative, he should suggest it after this year's election — when the votes themselves will tell us if all this has been much ado about nothing.

Whatever those votes tell us, I think Levin makes a valid point when he says it's "more complicated" than just black and white.

Two months ago, I wrote in this blog about what has been called the "left at the altar" syndrome — in which voters, confronted with the moment of truth at the polls, decide at the last second not to make the final commitment to the agent of change — and, like an apprehensive bride making a mad dash from the church, leave the groom (in politics, that would be the candidate) at the altar.

I've heard political scientists refer to this syndrome in the past — most frequently, I suppose, in the waning days of the 1992 presidential campaign when polls suggested the race between then-Gov. Bill Clinton and then-President George H. W. Bush was tightening (although I heard the phrase used at times to describe the decision voters were making between President Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980).

Eventually, of course, Clinton won the election. But the perception that the race was tightening was part of the "left at the altar" syndrome. Some voters were deciding that they couldn't, in good conscience, go through with it.

We're starting to witness some of that right now, which would be understandable, even without the racial element.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are widely acknowledged to be two of the more liberal members of the U.S. Senate. They seek offices that have been held by two conservative Republicans for the last eight years (and were held by three other conservative Republicans in 12 of the 20 years prior to that).

John McCain and Sarah Palin may well be "mavericks," but they are the philosophical heirs of those who have been in charge for most of the last three decades.

Deciding to put the executive branch of the government in the hands of Obama and Biden represents a radical national shift. With the election only two weeks away, we can expect to see fluctuations in the polls as the nervous bride tries to decide whether to become a runaway bride.

We'll have to wait until after the election/wedding date to see if the bride runs back to the groom's arms.