>>AP's chief political correspondent, Ron Fournier, is purported to be
>>some sort of Republican. So, by doing this poll, AP gets to inject
>>race into the campaign - i.e, remind white people, in case they hadn't
>>noticed, that Obama's black. Not to be cynical or anything.
>>
>>Doug
>
>grrr. i wondered about that.
just saw this write up as well: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ap%E2%80%99s-ron-fournier-racial-arsonist-and-unethical-journalist
" Why did Fournier commit that act of journalistic atrocity?
Because - as we will examine in a subsequent post - the combination of his well-documented pro-McCain bias and the fact that his own data shows Obama heading toward victory in November, has him proving Nate Silver's theorem above: "The amount of time conservatives spend talking about the Bradley Effect is inversely proportional to the fortunes of their candidate."
While Fournier isn't talking about "the Bradley effect" per se, certainly claims that a black man can't win pushes the same set of buttons and carries the same basic claim.
So, the rest of this post's homework assignment is this: Educate yourself on the real data that shows that the "Bradley Effect" is unsubstantiated by fifteen years of exhaustive polling data compared to election results:
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20080618_7672.php?related=true&story1=null&story2=null&story3=null>Mark Blumenthal debunked the "Bradley Effect" on June 19 (his essay is what I've sent those that have been asking me about it all summer long) <http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20080618_7672.php?related=true&story1=null&story2=null&story3=null>"