Seriously, where is he finding this:
[Harold Ickes] routinely shaved off a point or two from Mr. Obama’s number to account for hidden racial prejudices. That is no small factor, considering that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are separated by very thin margins in many polls in battleground states.
Huh? Journey unto FiveThirtyEight and take a look at those. Check out the scene today at Pollster. The battleground states we were all expecting to be decisive -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, are all in the Obama column. The new battleground states are Indiana, North Carolina, West Virigina, North Dakota -- who thought they would be even in play? -- are where Obama has a thin margin. And thus, contra Nagourney, this is a small factor, since the Democratic nominee doesn't need all of these states to win.
I'm not convinced at all that a Bradley effect -- people lying to pollsters about their voting preferences because of race -- will have much impact on the election. The political science literature says no, as does the guy who ran the campaign against Bradley. If race is influencing your vote, you probably just make up another reason and tell that to the pollster without disguising your preference. What's the incentive to lie about which candidate you're supporting?
--Tim Fernholz
