Timely research: Hopkins on the Wilder Effect 

 I first saw IQSS's own Dan Hopkins'  paper on the Wilder effect  this summer at the PolMeth conference. Jens and I agreed that, of all the research that was presented at the conference, this was probably the thing that would have been most interesting to journalists. It directly addresses the speculation that, because survey respondents are afraid to appear racist, polls overstate Barack Obama's level of support.  Here's the abstract: 

 The 2008 election has renewed interest in the Wilder effect, the gap between the share of survey respondents expressing support for a candidate and the candidate's vote share. Using new data from 133 gubernatorial and Senate elections from 1989 to 2006, this paper presents the first large-sample test of the Wilder effect. It demonstrates a significant Wilder effect only through the early 1990s, when Wilder himself was Governor of Virginia. Although the same mechanisms could affect female candidates, this paper finds no such effect at any point in time. It also shows how polls' over-estimation of front-runners' support can exaggerate estimates of the Wilder effect. Together, these results accord with theories emphasizing how short-term changes in the political context influence the role of race in statewide elections. The Wilder effect is the product of racial attitudes in specific political contexts, not a more general response to under-represented groups. 

 In the last couple of weeks, I have twice been in a situation where someone brings up the idea that Obama will do worse than the polls suggest because of the "Wilder effect." It's nice to have some research at hand to speak to this.  

 Googling around I notice that Dan's paper has been covered by a ton of blogs, as well as the Washington Post and some other papers. Nice work, Dan.