Lately, some folks have shared with me how scared they are that Obama leads McCain in the polls. Frankly, with the poor reputation Republicans have earned for themselves (though not as low as the Democrat-controlled Congress’ abysmal ratings), it’s a wonder Boy Wonder isn’t 30 points ahead. Most reputable polls indicate a close race; I concur.

That said, we need also to recognize some of the inherent limitations of polls. By and large, polls are conducted by telephone. In greater and greater number, modern families are ditching Ma Bell for IP-based home telephones and/or going totally cellular. For the sake of polling, that effectively pushes some people – who tend to be productive, working-class, I dare say, convervative voters – off the grid. This, I believe, skews the results toward Democrat candidates.

Secondly, most productive, working-class, I dare say, conservative voters, have better things to do with their time off than sit through a phone poll. It’s kind of like the saying about people who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty…. This, as well, skews things toward Democrats.

And third, there’s obviously some built-in bias. Why would I say that? The historical record. Remember the last two election cycles? Gore was gonna whomp Bush. Kerry, who was awarded three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, was gonna whomp Bush, too. But, Bush served two terms. Inaccurate polls are not limited to the last two election cycles.

Ann Coulter did the legwork on this and looked at every election since 1976. She writes:

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points — down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, — the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan’s actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points — 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later — or one tank ride later, depending on who’s telling the story — on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it’s striking that even small “margin of error” mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush’s voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

As usual, the intelligent and sharp Coulter is spot-on. I wouldn’t get too upset about the polls; I wouldn’t skip voting, either.