The presidential race this year has brought out polling as never before, and the numbers are all over the board.

It brings back to mind the Governors race in California a few years back where Contender Bradley was leading in the polls, then lost the election anyway.  This resulted in the creation of “The Bradley Effect”.

It suggests, in essence, that in a racially divided contest, that when white voters are polled they will claim to vote for the minority candidate so as to not appear racist.

It is hardly out of the realm of possibility, as many people use the stigma of racism to influence anything they can.  The Obama campaign and supporters have dropped the race card every chance they can, including this recent attempt by Joe Biden (via Sister Toldjah)  and the popular perception has already been put forward that if Obama loses, race is the reason.

Ann Coulter has a few things to say about it:

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY’D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER

With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a lot of chatter about the “Bradley effect,” allowing the media to wail about institutional racism in America.

Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.

First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It’s scarier than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it’s even scarier than “food insecurity.”

Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they’re not voting for the African-American.

…

In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you’re not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you’re not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool.

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

Interesting.  Her column goes on to show the wildly inaccurate polling in the last 30 years or so.  So what is the point?

The point is that polls are not always to be trusted, and as Ann notes, that is not necessarily racism.

However, maybe the Bradley effect does not exist at all:

Tom Bradley Didn’t Lose Because of Race:  Voters rejected his liberal policies.

 John McCain manages to overtake Barack Obama, the media will have a ready answer for the result: racism. Over the past generation, every time a black liberal candidate runs for public office, pundits are quick to assert that the so-called Bradley Effect will rear its ugly head and deny justice in America for another African-American.

The Bradley Effect refers to the proposition that white voters lie to pollsters when they claim to support a black candidate, because of prejudice. Every time Barack Obama lost a primary to Hillary Clinton, someone offered race as an explanation.

It’s a comforting narrative for liberals. But it defies the reality of the campaign that gave birth to it. In 1982, California’s Republican Attorney General George Deukmejian was trailing badly in the campaign for governor against African-American Democrat Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles. But he won the election by 93,345 votes out of nearly eight million cast.

Public pollsters and others were stunned; they’d already proclaimed Bradley the victor and turned their attention to the U.S. Senate race between Republican San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. Pollsters also predicted a Jerry Brown victory. Mr. Wilson won handily.

The explanation for both Republican wins was simple. Voters rejected two liberal candidates.

…

With less than a month to go, Mr. Bradley did enjoy a double-digit lead. Then the Deukmejian campaign focused on the increasing crime rate in Los Angeles under Mayor Bradley’s watch. A major effort was made to turn out disaffected Democrats in the rural interior of the state. People there were incensed at a confiscatory handgun initiative on the ballot supported by Bradley liberals but vigorously opposed by Mr. Deukmejian.

…

Private, daily tracking polls showed that, with a retooled campaign, Mr. Deukmejian methodically closed the gap.

…

Tom Bradley enjoyed the same type of love affair from the media that Barack Obama does today. Both candidates have appeared larger than life and hardly fallible. Indeed, both have compelling stories and project as decent, well-intentioned public servants. That is part of their appeal. But when the lights of the campaign shined brightly on the candidates, their flaws became more apparent.

In short, Mr. Bradley was defeated because he was too liberal, not too black. Mr. Obama was struggling in the polls until the economic news distracted voters from becoming more aware of how liberal he really is. If John McCain wins, the Bradley Effect will be trotted out to explain it. Nevertheless, it will be Mr. Obama’s political views, not his skin color, that voters reject.

And I think that if we are being honest about it, there is serious truth here.

I could point out that there is a inconsistency in the hearts of Liberals, which wants to ignore the fact that many blacks will vote for him for his race only.  Sorry, it is just a fact.  There are many minorities that want to see an end to the old white boy network.

I am not even saying I blame them.  I don’t.  But I do want them to be honest and admit it.  Accept it.  Confront it if they feel the need to.  Like it or not, while it may not be fair to suggest that race is the only reason he will win, it is fair to suggest that if he wins, his race will have been a contributing factor.

And in that regard, it is actually possible that if he loses that race will be a contributing factor.  I would be a fool not to admit that some people will vote against him because he is black.  Of course they will.

But you also have to look at one last bit of relevant data.  Ignoring the issue of race, is he actually electable, which becomes a question of his qualifications, his experience and his policies.

He is relatively inexperienced, he is ultra liberal.  Considering that, which side needs the issue of race more, the side that wants him elected despite his inexperience and socialism, or the side that opposes him because of the obvious reasons he is unqualified.

I would submit that the people who are accepting him because he is black are having a far greater weight on his elections chances than the people who are rejecting him for the same reason.

Sure race matters, but it will have more impact in his favor.

But despite this, if he loses in the end, this will be seen as a conventional Bradley effect race issue, despite all the reasons to the contrary.

And if he wins, the reverse factor will have had its effect, despite the denial of those it benefits.

Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, , A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, NN&V, Conservative Cat, , third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Stageleft, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.