The first article is by AP Hack Ron Fournier:

Poll: Racial views steer some away from Obama
One-third of polled white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks

updated 10:04 a.m. CT, Sat., Sept. 20, 2008
WASHINGTON – Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent” or responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He’s an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation’s oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

Rest of this trash at the link above.

Riddle me this, ladies and gentlemen…how come this article is coming out just as Obama is taking the lead again in all the polls?

I’m just askin’.

But, Al Giordano, over at The Field, has a better response:

The AP’s Ron Fournier: Racial Arsonist and Unethical Journalist

Lord, I wish I had written that headline..LOL

The beginning of the article:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks – many calling them “lazy,” “violent” or responsible for their own troubles.- Ron Fournier, Associated Press, September 20, 2008
 
 

 

Theorem: The amount of time conservatives spend talking about the Bradley Effect is inversely proportional to the fortunes of their candidate.


- Nate Silver, September 19, 2008
 
 

 

Today’s AP story wasn’t exactly about the so-called “Bradley Effect” or “Wilder Effect,” a popular theory in the 1980s and 1990s that posited that some white Americans lie to pollsters claiming they will support African-American candidates but vote then against them in the secrecy of the ballot box.

The theory – if it was true back then – has been very thoroughly disproved in recent years, and today we’ll walk you through all the documentation you need to debunk it when asked about it by others.

But with the McCain-Palin ticket sinking in the polls, and the financial crisis sucking the oxygen out of the culture war “issues” on all sides, with the economy now front and center as the dominant campaign issue, we’re hearing increasing mention of the so-called “Bradley Effect,” the so-called “Wilder Effect,” the so-called “Bradley-Wilder Effect” (all names for the same 20th century theory).

And now, the Associated Press and its unethical reporter Ron Fournier are transparently attempting to turn the November election (and, if their attempted arson is successful, its aftermath for years to come) into a wedge to divide, polarize and set back race relations in the United States of America more than four decades.

Everybody take a deep breath and repeat after me: The race card is not working. It’s not going to work. And we’re not going to take the bait being dangled out in front of us by racially prejudiced provocateurs like Fournier: he wants us to spread his gasoline to make his arson fire bigger; we’re going to hose water on it – and on him – instead.

This weekend, we have two sets of homework assignments for Field Hands, the first outlined in this post.

Step One: To arm and educate yourselves with the true facts demonstrating that the AP poll disproves Fournier’s racially incendiary claims.

Step Two: To similarly arm yourself to be able to demonstrate that the so-called “Bradley Effect” (in all its names) has not been a serious factor for 15 years or more.

You will develop the talking points to explain the true facts to your neighbors, family and friends whenever it comes up. The “white Americans won’t vote for a black man” canard is bogus, and, frankly, even if it were to be a factor, there is an equal and opposite force at play that is the Obama grassroots organization.

Please go HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE, which is full of links and charts that I just can’t transfer. And show Al some love and appreciation for this takedown. DIGG the article, and share it.

I’ve said it before: when I realized that AP had not only distorted but completely LIED about Senator Obama’s speech in Hampton, VA, in October 2007, I knew that I would never take a word associated with AP seriously where Obama is concerned. I suggest that you arch the eyebrow too.

Why is Fournier SUSPECT?

Because for most of the Democratic Primary Season, he was trying to get a job with the McCain Campaign.

Re-read Senator Obama’s speeches, and then go see the corresponding stories from AP about them. It will be an interesting exercise for you.

My fellow blogger over at Mirror On America , The Angry Independent came upon this gem:

Thursday, September 18, 2008
McCain Staffer Betting On Racism To Help His Candidate Win

In an interview with NPR’s All Things Considered, a Senior McCain staffer, seems to reveal that they are betting on racism to help McCain in November. Even the NPR host had to do a double-take. It seems as if she wanted to say “You can’t be that evil, cynical, and calculating”, but of course she couldn’t say it.

Even though I know how calculating these folks are, it is still amazing when you see and hear this kind of sickness. It still makes me shake my head.
Posted by The Angry Independent at 12:09 PM

 

Fellow Poster, ptcruiser, has this to say about the ‘ Bradley Effect’:

The Continuing Myth of the Bradley Effect

I posted the following at Prometheus6.org in January, 2008.

There never was and there never has been a “Bradley Effect”. To cite white racism as opposed to work avoidance (i.e., the failure of the Bradley Campaign to turn out registered black voters and blacks who were eligible to vote in, for example, Alameda and Los Angeles Counties) as the principal reason for Deukmejian’s defeat of Bradley is simply wrong. If the Bradley Campaign and the California State Democratic Party had turned out just one-third more of the state’s registered and eligible black voters then Bradley would have won the election.

Yes, white folks in California changed their minds about voting for a black candidate but that is no excuse for the lethargy, arrogance and strategic missteps of the Bradley Campaign and the California State Democratic Party. Too many arm chair generals in the black community. Not enough folks to walk the streets and knock on doors.  

The problem is one of emphasis. If Bradley’s loss is attributed solely to white voters not casting their ballots for him because he was black, it allows us to construct a narrative that fits into our preconceptions and experience. This version of the story does not require much of us and it prevents us from looking for any other reasons that might explain Bradley’s defeat.

If, on the other hand, we look at the fact that tens of thousands of black voters and blacks who were eligible to vote in Los Angeles County alone did not vote for Bradley our understanding of what really happened on election day is deepened and made richer. Yes, many white voters folded when push came to shove, but it is also true that Bradley, who had been elected four times as the mayor of Los Angeles, did not generate much enthusiasm either among a large section of the  black residents of both the city and the county of Los Angeles.

If Bradley had won then the spectre of the Bradley Effect would never have been raised. The Bradley Effect is offered as the sufficient cause of Bradley’s electoral loss. The reality is that it was not. To assert that the Bradley Effect may exist independent of whether Bradley won or lost is like trying to grab onto the air around you.

 

See the forest, folks.

UPDATE: Last word from me.
I posted this because I wanted for folks to see what we’re up against. I don’t believe this is hopeless. Let’s get real. It’s 44 days before the Presidential Election and Barack Obama has as good a chance as anything to be elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Please tell me – who among you – thought this was a statement you would be making in 2008, back in 2004? Exactly. So phonebank, canvass, register people to vote.

Related Posts with Thumbnails