Ron Gunzburger at Politics1 has a take on the "Bradley Effect" (people lie to pollsters about voting for black candidates) from someone who worked on the campaign of the guy who beat Tom Bradley, California Gov. George Deukmejian. Turns out it wasn't about lying to pollsters at all; it was about absentee ballots:
Tom Bradley actually beat us on election day, and by a significant margin, so there was no 'lying' to the exit pollsters. Deukmejian only won because of the absentee ballots. That was the first year California allowed the use of absentee ballots and that was our secret strategy. We piled up absentee ballots from Armenian Democrats, because Deukmejian was Armenian. They were not likely voters, so they were under-polled. But there were roughly 100,000 Armenian voters living just in the area around Los Angeles County -- plus lots elsewhere in the state. It was that absentee effort that gave us the victory.
Then there was the Bradley Effect of 2000, where people don't vote for a white basketball player because the entire party power structure is rigged for the incumbent vice president. Johnson County, Iowa: Number One in the nation for Bill Bradley, and I'm still proud of that.
But forget the Bradley Effect. That's sooo 1982. What really matters is the Cell Phone Effect. Do you know anyone under 30 who still has a land line, unless maybe they're using it for DSL?
Then there's the Reverse Bradley Effect of spiking African American turnout.
Finally there's the Blazing Saddles Effect of Just Not Getting It, but voting for Obama anyway:
So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the ni[DONG!]!"
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the ni[DONG!]."
And sorry about the Up Yours.