There's a good chance that many of the recent polls placing Barack Obama neck and neck with Hilary Clinton aren't as accurate as Obama supporters would hope. Historically, pre-election poll results for black candidates have been far more positive than actual election day returns, a phenomenon that's attributed to poll participants wanting to provide socially acceptable responses.

According to the NY Times, this phenomenon was not as prevalent during the senate race between Rep. Harold Ford and Bob Corker. Instead, voters may have downplayed the more accurate poll results because of the well-known polling problems with black candidates and voted accordingly. The newspaper suggests the (rather racist) Ford/Corker race shows the tide has changed, in terms of polling, at least. Yet, Ford lost. Was that the cost of the changing tide?

[NY Times]