Seriously - there never was a "Bradley Effect" Never.

[Franks Wild Years]

If one were to argue the existance of a "Wilder Effect" in that his final margin of victory was considerably smaller than predicted, well, there may be a bit more there. Maybe one could also suggest that there was a "Clinton Effect" for failing to beat Dole by quite as many points as many polls predicted in 1996.

Tom Bradley, in 1982, finished with a slightly larger percentage of the vote than the final pre-debate polling showed him with. A GOP get out the vote campaign revolving around Proposition 15, a gun control initiative. The GOP got this on the ballot and made a concerted effort in the dying days of the campaign to get their rabid supporters to the polls. It worked.

This year's primaries showed no Bradley effect - Sure, Obama performed worse in some states than expected, but he actually performed better in more.

My feeling is that people aren't cowardly enough to say they're going to vote Obama to an anonymous person on the phone and then pull the lever for McCain. That's just nonsense, and I do not think there are a significant number of people too ashamed to admit to someone on the other end of the phone, someone they've never spoken to before and never will again that they intend to vote for John McCain. African Americans didn't underperform in 2006, and my gut instinct is that Obama will not here. It may well be quite a lot closer than current polls predict, but that will be because some of the "undecideds" are foolish enough to believe "American Hero" McCain still represents the safe choice.