A Couple Post-Election Political Comments

I know the election is now old news, but being out of the country while it all unfolded meant that I'm only now catching up on a lot of the commentary and analysis that came in its wake. I wanted to comment on two things, one which I haven't seen addressed anywhere else, and the other as a follow-up to something I posted before the election:

1. The last couple of national tracking polls conducted the day before the election (one was Gallup, and the other was Rasmussen), had Obama leading with a projected 53% of the vote. That ended up being exactly what he got. The polls had McCain at around 44%, and he ended up a couple of points higher (with all other candidates splitting about 1%). Here's what I find a little interesting--McCain seems to have picked up all of the last-minute undecided vote. The reason I think this is interesting is that it suggests a corollary to the so-called Bradley effect that so many pundits were writing and talking about during the campaign. This effect said that African-American candidates could expect a dip from their poll numbers once people actually voted, since some of those polled would lie to pollsters in an effort to appear non-racist but register their true feelings in the voting booth. Some said the potential swing could be up to 7% (as happened to Tom Bradley when he ran for governor of California some years back, hence the name). Obviously, that effect did not come into play in the manner some anticipated, as Obama met his projection. But I wonder if maybe some aspect of the effect was hidden in those who told pollsters they were undecided. Since it appears that virtually all of them swung to McCain, is it possible they hid their bias by telling pollsters they were undecided rather than saying they supported Obama? I suspect that analysis won't hold up to closer scrutiny, but it was an idea that crossed my mind.

2. I wrote earlier about the unfortunate "guilt by association" being propagated against Obama by McCain and Palin in relation to the former Weatherman Bill Ayers. To his credit (I think), Ayers resisted joining the debate, and thereby lending credence to what he now accurately (I think) refers to as the Republicans' "dishonest narrative" about him. But now that the election is over, he has been willing to talk openly about his past, his association with Obama, and his general views on America and its history of the past 50 years. One of the most in-depth interviews occurred with Walter Shapiro at Salon.com, which you can find here. I'm sure that many will read Ayers account and question whether he's being fully honest, but to anyone with even a passing knowledge of sixties activism, it rings quite true-- and, by the way, the views/attitudes he expresses about his radical past are totally consistent with the professional life he's carved out for himself in the years since. Plus, he almost makes me wish I'd been in Grant Park instead of Venice on election night.