The press and the Bradley effect, cont'd
October 20, 2008 9:44 am ET by Eric Boehlert
We earlier noted that the press is spending an awful lot of time hyping the so-called Bradley effect and leaning heavily on the idea that Obama's big lead could still evaporate.
We noted the oddity of so many Bradley effect reports sprouting up despite the lack of evidence that it's been seen in America in decades. To us, the press attention seems more like an easy way to inject some drama into the increasingly drama-less campaign.
The latest to tackle to topic is Time and we're not sure whether to praise or mock its effort. We'd mock Time because it manages to join the media caravan detailing the somewhat soggy story:
Politicos are abuzz over the last hurdle Obama must clear in his path to the presidency: a phenomenon known as the "Bradley effect."
But we'd praise Time because it concludes:
The Bradley effect may be this fall's paper tiger: an old theory re-heated by the media because there's not much left to talk about.
For the record, Time thinks the Bradley effect is just a way for the press to juice up the campaign storyline. So Time then spends time addressing the Bradley effect.
Funny no one mentions Tom Bradley had a state Democratic party that was not actually supporting him in the races.
Well, it was in disarray.
Also, Bradley was up to replace the then extremely unpopular Jerry Brown, who had just pushed through an intensely progressive legislative agenda, and who the repubs were gunning against.
I think the Medfly had more to do with Bradley's defeat than race. He also had some sudden problems crop up, of his own, right before election day.
It was also an era when the Repubs were stealing away newly arrived minority voters-- Armenians, Middle Easterners, even some Latinos. How things have changed-- 25 years after their moronic xenophobia, those ethnic groups are now totally Democratic.