Reading the "comments" sections at Too Conservative is always good for a laugh, and to see just how far out of touch the wing-nuts are.

At the GOP rally in Fredericksburg Senate candidate Jim Gilmore stated "You can take it to the bank: John McCain and Sarah Palin will carry Virginia."

With estimations like that it's no wonder under the GOP and Bushite policies we have a major fiscal crisis in the banking industry ...    

As others here have noted, Barack outperformed the polls in most primaries.  Those who won't vote for Barack wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway.  The media is just trying to make an issue out of this.  They are scouring the earth to make this an issue.  And the question is, why are they raising it when Barack does well with "white" folks too.  You have to wonder where the racism really is.

I am not saying there is no racism.  We all know of the race-baiting in the fraudulent claim of an attack  in PA.  And we all know of the virulent stuff shoted at Palin rallies, and to some extent at McCain's.  

I am saying most Americans have moved forward.  Most Americans will vote their own interests, which do not include four more (or eight more) years of McSame.

I highly recommend the Frank Rich column on the Quick Hits sidebar...

Studies conducted during and after the primaries suggest there may have been a reverse Wilder effect in most states. New Hampshire is the most glaring exception.

NPR's "On the Media" ran a great report on the so-called Bradley Effect this past weekend.  An mp3 of the show is available here (with a transcript due up today).  Basically, they looked into whether the Bradley Effect is real and found that it wasn't even real for Tom Bradley (Bradley lost because the polling underestimated absentee ballots (that tended to break Republican) and the impact of a gun control referendum in the central valley part of the district that brought out more Republican voters than called for in the polling model).  There is a great segment with Nate Silver (of fivethirtyeight.com) fame where he found that a Bradley/Wilder Effect was apparent in the '80s, but hasn't been seen since the early '90s.  His methodology looked for races where the outcome was significantly different from late polling.  

Are having a field day.

In Richmond - the Times-Disgrace battled with itself, simultaneously saying that Warner and Gilmore are at the same time both wonderful candidates and horribly flawed candidates.  And in the end...

They endorsed Jim Gilmore.  For the weak, literally 4-word reason that he apparently "has experience with terrorism."

YEP.  There goes the credibility of ALL RTD endorsements - it's now 100% clear that in any given election they take a good look at both candidates, determine which one is the Republican, and endorse him or her.

...than it was back in 1982. I heard someone on TV talking about this recently (I've been watching everything, so I can't remember who or where) and they said that the polling has become much more sophisticated over the course of the last 26 years. The data pretty much already take into account what constitues the "Bradley Effect" and consider it as part of their margin of error.