There should be little doubt that the "Bradley Effect" – otherwise known as the "Wilder Effect" and, should one care for another unfortunate instance to provide its eponymous assistance, the "Dinkins Effect" – will play a significant role in this election: it already has – in notably perverse and unusual ways, however – and, should its history be taken into any sort of account, there is no reason to presume that it will not continue to do so.  The "Effect" refers to the tendency of polls' projections to overestimate the support that one candidate – more often than not a black one; the Effect itself is invoked almost strictly in races in which at least one of the candidates is black – receives.  There are a great many possible reasons for this: aside from the one most stated – that voters are in some sense ashamed to tell pollsters that they would vote against a black candidate, particularly if this candidate seems qualified for the position – there is also the likely possibility that many of the poll participants lean more liberal, and therefore when the election is called – with the unpolled conservatives taken into account – a sudden rush of opposition, previously un-noted, rears its powerful and unpredictable head.  Another oft-stated reason is that voters mysteriously and unequivocally change their minds at the last moment, between the final polls were taken and just before entering the polling booth, to vote for the other candidate, for ostensibly reasons unrelated to race; and another theory posits that mail-in ballots make up the discrepancy, and, as those who voted this way would most likely have been unavailable to have participated in the relevant polls, their influence had gone unaccounted for.  Andrew Hacker, in his essay "Obama: The Price of Being Black" in the September 25th edition of the New York Review of Books, discusses this phenomenon; it is a largely informative and well-analyzed piece – save a bizarre conclusion – and a link will be provided to the article at the end of this post.  Janet Elder, in a New York Times article published May 16, 2007 – quite presciently, only three months after Obama announced his candidacy, when that of Clinton seemed all but unstoppable – and titled "Will There Be an 'Obama Effect?'", similarly analyzes the possible causes of this confounding and infuriating fact.  A link to her article will similarly be provided at the end of this post.The question then arises of what, if anything, to do about this.  Can one reasonably and reliably leave a "Bradley Effect margin" in national polls so as to prepare for what to many seems inevitable: that there will in fact be, to some extent, an "Obama Effect?"  Reason and reliability seem to state – to cry, rather; to possibly even howl – that no, one should not.  But the Effect is so pronounced, so persistent, and so pernicious in its connotations that it demands greater attention on the national stage, particularly when race – however superficially treated it may be – is more on the conscience of the United States electorate than at any other time in, at the very least, the past fifteen years.It would be naïve to presume that any news organization would take this tack, adding any such Bradley Effect margin into its poll results; furthermore, it would be unprofessional of the news organizations themselves, unpredictable as the results, or even presence, of the Effect are.  In his article, Hacker suggests, with serious sarcasm, that the "Obama campaign would do well to print signs to post prominently in all its offices: ALWAYS SUBTRACT SEVEN PERCENT!"  This might serve as a powerful rallying tool – with Obama and McCain tied in the polls, it bodes quite poorly for their candidate –, unpredictable as it is; but, perhaps more saliently, it could serve as a powerful shaming tool.  Hacker articulates quite well why he largely avoids the term "racism" in his article, and his logic is persuasive and sound.  Yet the fact that racism plays a role in the Bradley Effect is unavoidable; much as it might only inflame those subject to succumbing to it, overlooking this element is ultimately tantamount to ignoring racism.  Should the Bradley Effect be made more public, more known, perhaps – in a perversely ideal response – it will become that much more maligned, that much more shamed.  The fact that it can and does happen may make those subject to it consider their actions and their thought-processes; certainly it is unlikely that any would arrive at the hitherto-unacknowledged fact that they bear racist tendencies deep within them, but they very well may be inclined to consider their true allegiances before responding to pollsters' questions.  What contributes most to the elusive and insidious life span of the Bradley Effect is its very intangibility and obscurity; should more people be aware of its presence – and its perversion of expectations – perhaps some may be less wont to tell pollsters what they may want to believe – that they would vote for a well-qualified black candidate – and more given to the necessary consideration of whether or not they would actually vote for this candidate.  The implications are by no means comforting: it would result in an implicit acknowledgment of the persistence of racism in this country, and, furthermore, it would significantly alter the polls in what may be a quite dispiriting way.  Perhaps the Bradley Effect – in giving those generally averse to voting for black candidates the even momentary belief that they just might do so – does ultimately convince some people, by the very proximity of its possibility to their otherwise averse mindsets, to go with what they believe is "wanting to be believed"; perhaps it works both ways, encouraging some who would otherwise never have done so to ultimately vote for whom they believe is most qualified, race notwithstanding.Nonetheless, this is a tendency that deserves, and demands, to be more greatly discussed.  It may force race onto the national political stage more than either Obama or McCain wants it to be, but it could very well encourage more truthful considerations of our electorate's beliefs and tendencies.  The last thing to be desired is to have Obama follow Bradley, Wilder, and Dinkins in giving the country his own eponymous effect; perhaps a greater exposition of these antecedents is the answer.