OK so why is this more likely to happen in Iowa than other states? There has to be a reason. You basically seem to think the Bradley Effect is because of some Polling God throwing darts at a map and then cursing each state that he hits with it. It doesn't happen that way. Unless one can explain why Iowans would be more likely to lie for racial reasons, it seems more likely that something else was at work as Lunar has explained.
That I don't know, and as I've said it was a surprise. So was PA, where Obama underpolled. So was MN where Obama overpolled.So if you can't explain it, then you can't say with certainty that it was definately the Bradley Effect and clearly not any other explanation. And Obama did NOT overpoll here, as the polling database gives him an average of 53%, and he got 54%. It also gives him 54% in Iowa, within the MoE of what he got.
Yeah because polling has never been off in an election involving white candidates before. 
And of course there never was any poll off in Obama's favor (Nate Silver pointed out that the error in many southern states in Obama's favor was greater than the polling error in favor of Hillary in New Hampshire.)
Please forget primary races. Did we have these kind of errors in the last presidential election? Not that I recall.
And, we saw this in the national polls as well.
There is one other factor as well. There was a pattern to Obama's undercounting. He did better than he polled in three states with a high Mexican origin population, NM, NV, and CO.
No other election has had polls been off before? LMAO!
We have the database of 2004 polls here. Check out Wisconsin:
https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?fips=55More off than any of the states you're citing as evidence of the Bradley Effect.
As far as the national polls go:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89904.0Some were off, some were fairly accurate, nothing was insanely off to a point where MoE wouldn't explain it except one really bad poll where Obama actually
underpolled.
I don't have the time now to compile the reality to actuality of every state, but there were a few more off I've noticed with a casual glance. I think stranger also came up with the best point here that you completely ignored:
Okay guys, here's the thing: with respect to the 2008 election, in the set of states where one candidate or the other underpolled, Obama should underpoll roughly half the time. There are any number of reasons the polls could be off, the Bradley Effect is just one of them. Now, if say Obama had underpolled in 35 or 40 states, you might have a case, but he didn't. And the Bradley and Reverse Bradley Effects really don't explain why, for example, Obama would overpoll in Wisconsin but underpoll in Iowa.
So J.J....tell me, do you actually believe the bulls**t you keep repeating here...or is it just that you like trolling....or what?
Good question actually. Especially since he's basically the only person here who takes it seriously and still believe in the Bradley Effect.
