I was about to write a post about why I don’t think the Bradley Effect is worth worrying about, but then I found this Newsweek article by Nate Silver that makes the exact same points :

There is little doubt Obama is losing some votes due to his race; a recent Associated Press survey suggested that as many as 6 percent of the electorate may be voting against Obama because he is black. But that’s not what the Bradley effect is about. As long as those prejudiced voters are telling pollsters that they’re going to vote for McCain, their sentiments will be reflected accurately in the polling. The Bradley effect emerges when voters tell pollsters one thing and then do another at the ballot booth.

So the question is why, if a voter does not intend to vote for Obama, would he or she feel compelled to lie about it? There are perfectly legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama; a voter who wanted to vote against him because of his race would have little trouble rationalizing his vote. If a voter felt compelled to lie to a pollster, he might tell them that he was voting against Obama because of his inexperience or his liberal politics—when, in fact, he was voting against him because of his race. But the pollster would still tally the vote correctly in the McCain column. By contrast, in cases where the Bradley effect existed, including Bradley’s race itself, the black candidate was as much or more experienced than the white opponent. So voters found it harder to excuse their racism and may have misstated their voting intention to pollsters as a result.

The racist voters have already been accounted for. They’re the dicks who swear they aren’t judging Barack Obama because of his skin color, but are very concerned about the fact that he “pals around with terrorists” or that he’s a “socialist” or just can’t vote for an “Arab” and a “Muslim” (because religious and ethnic bigotry is perfectly acceptable for conservative Christians). They’re disgusting, but I have a feeling they’re already being counted in the polls.