Your implicit association testing have no effects on me

I don't have to explain implicit association testing to y'all, right? It's when those clever-clog psychologists use a web-based test to see how quickly you associate various pictures with either pleasant or unpleasant words to see how you really feel about the subject of the pictures.

As it's election season, said clever-clog psychologists from Harvard rigged up a election'08 edition of the implicit association test. Go take it, won't take more than 10 minutes.

Both Amanda and Jeff took the test and found their revealed preferences to square with their actual stated preferences. Good for them. Mine was rather hilariously off. Hillary came first, ahead of Barack Obama, my actual preferred candidate. But what's really funny is Mike Huckabee, the guy I would least likely to see in the White House, did just as well as Obama. McCain came in dead last.

Possible interpretations:

(1) I am secretly an manchurian-candidate type plant sent by the Evangelicals to infiltrate the liberal blogisphere.

(2) Huckabee, more than any of the other candidates, concentrates on propagating a homey, folksy image. Sure, he is a utter religious nutter and I would consider a Huckabee administration a disaster of epic magnitude, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's a nice person.

Sure would be interesting to see some aggregate results of different demographics from this test. A pollster tool for the future?

Or perhaps, with some modifications, the most awesome push-polling tool evar.