Which is a dumber political theory?

[Nym90]

Realignments do occur, but they are happening all the time, in both directions on all kinds of local levels, which makes the idea of clear "realigning elections" bunk.

The Bradley effect may occur in some very limited circumstances in some races, but there is so little actual evidence for its existence that there is no way to say with any degree of certainty that it isn't just random statistical noise.

[Nym90]

Greatest political theory - The BRTD Effect

It's not even really a theory anymore; it's fact.

Not to be all persnickety, but by the scientific definition of "theory," you do treat it as a de facto fact.    (More accurately, you assume that it is true until there becomes reasonable evidence that it may not be)

"Realignment theory" is sort of a broad term.  What, specifically, are we talking?

Yes, a common misconception of language. Many people confuse a "theory" (which is an idea backed up by scientific evidence, though not yet to the extent that it can be determined to be true for certain) with a "hypothesis" (one that, while possibly sounding logical, has not yet been tested scientifically). A "law" of course is an idea that has been proven to be true beyond all scientific doubt through rigorous testing.

So for example when people say evolution is "just a theory" they seem to think that means it's not supported by any evidence.