Track the polls and you’ll discover the following: The presidential campaign is close when John McCain and his fellow partisans steer their focus exclusively upon Barack Obama. The most recent polls taken amid the coverage on Sarah Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate have given Obama his largest leads of the summer. In fact, he cracked the 50-percent barrier for the first time in the most recent Gallup and Rasmussen Reports tracking polls.

However, this race may end up being much closer than what historical indicators and trends of conventional wisdom suggest. The nation is overdue for a major political realignment and political science evidence suggests Democrats have their best chance at taking the top electoral prize in November. Yet, this summer, McCain managed to gain ground and consolidate his poll numbers, especially with negative ads zeroing in on Obama’s celebrity status. I can report directly (from my stay in Ohio) that the ads did resonate with some Ohio voters – white, blue collar workers who have been significantly affected by a volatile economy. And, Obama’s message has yet to find its way in the economically troubled states of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

The question, therefore, is simple. If Obama loses, will it be a result of the race factor? In fact, some pundits such as Peter Beinart, a senior fellow of the Council of Foreign Relations, believe that Obama has a yet-unresolved race problem. His suggestion:

“Many of the voters who right now won’t vote for Mr. Obama because he’s black would probably vote for Colin Powell, even though he’s black. That’s because they don’t see Mr. Powell as a racial redistributionist, a guy who would favor his community at their expense. There’s no rational reason to believe Mr. Obama would, either. But because Mr. Obama is a liberal Democrat who enjoys overwhelming black support, that’s what many racially hostile white voters assume.

“So his best shot at de-racializing the campaign is to explicitly make race an issue. He can do that with a high-profile speech – and maybe a TV ad – calling for the replacement of race-based preferences with class-based ones. That would confront head-on white fears that an Obama administration would favor minorities at whites’ expense.”

So does BL Ochman, an Internet marketing expert, who wrote yesterday that the Democratic candidate should not waste time in addressing the issue:

“If I was on the marketing team, I’d advise Obama to come out and say ‘I know race is the whispered issue, but we need to talk about it. I’m what happens when – no matter where you come from – you work hard, you dream big and you never give up. And I’m here to tell you that if you worry about the color of my skin, you are worrying about the wrong issue.’

“I’d tell him to do it on YouTube, in blog advertising, in email, in text messages to his supporters, content sponsorship, and on his website. Bypass mainstream media and let them get the news online where millions turn instead of TV or newspapers.

“The race issue may be over in tennis and golf, but it’s not over around dining room tables across the country, in gated communities or in the projects. It needs to be discussed on a national stage, because until it is, we’re stuck in the past.”

Let’s swing back to the spring primary season. In West Virginia, the race factor tipped heavily toward Hillary Clinton’s favor. Exit polls showed that four of five race-based white voters went for Clinton in West Virginia. The trends were skewed similarly in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, although the magnitude was not as strong. Clinton trounced Obama by 41 percentage points. In Kentucky, Obama lost by a margin of 35 percentage points. In Indiana, his margin of defeat was much smaller (just 2 percentage points).

On the other hand, where the race factor barely registered on exit polls, especially among white voters, Obama’s margin of victory over Clinton was well into the double digits (Oregon, 16 percent; North Carolina, 14 percent).

Anthony Greenwald, a psychology professor at the University of Washington, and Bethany Albertson, a fellow faculty member in the political science department, believe the race factor matters. In particular, they want to see if the Bradley Effect still matters. The phenomenon refers to 1982 when survey scientists noticed that Tom Bradley, an African-American mayor of Los Angeles, lost a close gubernatorial election in California despite pre-election polls showing him with a solid lead over his opponent.

However, in analyzing this year’s Democratic primary results, the researchers find a more complex manifestation of the effect. True to the Bradley Effect, Obama did worse than expected in states with smaller Black populations, like California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. However, a reverse Bradley effect was observed in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina where Obama did better than expected. All four of these states have relatively large Black populations.

The one statistically significant exception was Wisconsin (in which the February election fell in between two huge waves of primaries), where the black population is relatively small but pre-primary polls significantly underpredicted Obama’s large win. Again, Greenwald said this provided a strong exception by presenting a “reverse Bradley” effect in a state with low Black population numbers.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, acknowledges the potential significance of the race factor but also notes that the center’s polling surveys hardly catch the accurate gauging of the impact.

In June, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas reflected on the magazine’s late-May presidential polling survey, echoing similar effects:

“Pollsters recently created a ‘Racial Resentment Index’ to measure the impact of race on the 2008 election. White voters were asked a series of 10 questions about a variety of race-related topics, including racial preferences in hiring, interracial marriage—and what they have ‘in common’ with African-Americans. About a third of these voters scored ‘high’ on this index; 29 percent of all white Democrats did. Overwhelmingly, these Democrats are the ones most likely to defect to John McCain in the fall. (Among ‘High RR’ white Democratic voters, according to the new Newsweek Poll, Clinton leads McCain by 77 percent to 18 percent, while you [Obama] win by only 51 percent to 33 percent.)”

Pollsters have their work cut out this election. Their reputations and professionalism are on the line. And, given the historic circumstances of this campaign, they should be very nervous about getting an accurate read on the voting populace and their transparent support for a particular candidate.

Greenwald’s analysis already suggests that pollsters are stumbling. Wisconsin was an outlier. So was Indiana. Despite the presence of the race factor and the pre-primary polls suggesting a much wider margin of victory, Clinton barely beat Obama – by just 2 percentage points.Pollsters haven’t broken the racial code in their work. However, Obama can make their job much easier by masterfully laying to rest every and all concerns about race and voting.

Evan Thomas had it right:

“You must confront this slur, with more force than you have shown so far. If you do not, you will be defined by your enemies and the Web, a dangerous combination.”

Thomas suggests the right positioning:

“You need an issue that plays against prejudice or typecasting. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular with white, working-class voters who see African-Americans bestowed with privileges long denied poor whites. You’ve suggested—obliquely, but nonetheless provocatively—that you might prefer seeing affirmative action for disadvantaged whites rather than black elites, noting that you wouldn’t expect your private-school-educated daughters to need an admissions break at college. Taking a stand for affirmative action based on socioeconomic class rather than race would send a powerful signal.”

Beinart’s suggestions on messaging provide an effective segue:

“Arguing that his own daughters shouldn’t benefit from affirmative action, he [Obama] told the Chronicle of Higher Education last year that ‘we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.’ Some of the parents of those white kids fear voting for Mr. Obama because they think they’ll lose out. If they actually knew his views, they might change their mind.

“The defining American problem of the 21st century may not be the ‘color line,’ as W.E.B. Du Bois suggested about the 20th. Instead, in an age of growing multiculturalism and growing economic inequality, it may be the class line. By calling for a different kind of affirmative action, Mr. Obama could acknowledge that profound change – and help propel himself to the White House at the same time.”

Amen.