Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Whatever his reasons, Barack Obama sure didn't choose Joe Biden for money

Joe Biden is no Sarah Palin when it comes to fundraising appeal.

The latest campaign finance reports show Barack Obama received only a minor fundraising bump after he named Biden as his running mate, although he raked in huge sums as the Democratic CoDemocratic presidential candidate Illinois freshman senator Barack Obama picked Delaware veteran Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate but got very little financial bump from itnvention closed and John McCain named Palin as his running mate.

Obama outspent his Republican rival in August, shelling out $53.5 million on television and mass mailings, as well as polling, food and lodging. McCain spent $40 million but also benefited from $20 million spent by the Republican National Committee, Federal Election Commission reports showed today.

Obama's $66-million haul in August was almost $20 million more than McCain's. One of the most striking differences was the sums they raised after they announced their running mates.

McCain received $8.8 million in the two days after he announced that Alaska Gov. Palin would be his running mate. Obama received what for him is a modest sum -- $1.7 million -- on the day he announced his choice of Biden and $694,000 the following day.

Obama’s campaign aides said he received additional....

...donations in increments of $200 or less, though dates for such contributions do not show up on publicly filed disclosures.

Of course, Obama and McCain made their selections for very different reasons. McCain needed to energize the GOP base. Obama needed someone with experience, experts say.

"The base rallied to show its support by giving to the ticket,” said political scientist Bruce Cain, director of the University of California’s center in Washington, DC.

"The enthusiasm level was already higher on the Democratic side when Biden was chosen,” Cain said. Obama’s selection of Biden was intended more “to address Obama’s experience problem rather than divisions within the Democratic ranks.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said donations had nothing to do with Biden's selection, adding: "His choice was an investment in a governing partner who can help get our economy working again, end the war in Iraq, and bring the change we need.”
Obama’s fundraising took off once the Democratic convention got underway the last week of August. He raised nearly $17 million between the Aug. 25 start of the convention and the end of the month. Obama’s campaign attributes some of the month-end activity to Democratic reaction against Palin, who was named on Aug. 29.

Obama’s fundraising has set records for a presidential campaign. He has pulled in $454.8 million since entering the race early in 2007, compared to McCain’s $224.3 million.

The way the two campaigns spend their money illustrates other differences. McCain is outspending Obama on mail-related costs -- $8 million to Obama’s $4 million. The Republican National Committee, which is aiding McCain, spent another $6.5 million on postage and mail production last month, its report shows.

Republicans tend to be older than Democrats and prefer mail over Internet communications.

Obama is spending far more on the Internet, $651,000 on Internet advertising and $884,000 on websites last month. McCain and the RNC disclosed no spending specifically on online ads, and $422,000 on Web-related costs.

The biggest cost, of course, remains broadcast. Obama significantly outspent McCain on television advertising last month, $32.3 million to McCain's $18.1 million. The Republican National Committee spent another $4.7 million on broadcast ads.

--Dan Morain

Photo credit: Associated Press

 
Comments () | Archives (52)

The comments to this entry are closed.

OBAMA IS SPENDING DOUBLE THE MONEY AND GETTING PRECIOUS LITTLE TRACTION. OBAMA SHOULD BE UP 15 POINTS IN ORDER TO WIN....
OBAMA IS IN REAL TROUBLE.
http://americanpoliticalblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/obama-on-religion-the-wright-stuff/

Obama has a very large issue to overcome.

Per the AP

AP Poll: Racial Misgivings Of Whites Loom Over Election

2008 Elections Racial Tensions, Barack Obama, Obama Ap Poll Racial Issues, Racial Tensions, Politics News

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," 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.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents -- voters Obama can't win the White House without -- agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home -- among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
Story continues below
advertisement

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president -- white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes -- including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries -- particularly whites with high school education or less -- were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

I think having the lead he does is amazing when you take a look at the number of people of color (sarcasm) at the GOP convention.

The writer must think his readers are stupid. Obama's fund raising in August broke every record. And while Biden is not as fresh and new as Palin, his experience and wisdom will become pretty clear during the vice-presidential debate. Palin is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. She was hand picked to bring vibrancy to the cadaver candidate's otherwise lack luster appearance. Palin's newness is already starting to wear off; people are seeing through the pretty smile for the calculating person she really is.

Biden is a walking gaffe machine.
Last week he said that Hillary was - indeed- more qualified to be VEEP.
The word on the street is that the Dem "October Surprise" wilol be to somehow dump Biden and raise Hillary from the ashes.
I'm thinking thereb is as much chance of taht as there is of flying pigs- with lipstick!
Then- Biden recognized a Senator in the crowd and said STAND UP, Chuck!
-
Than "Oh my God- what was I thinking?" (THe guy is in a wheelchair.
So thinking ever so quickly- he implored the crowd to "Stand Up For Chuck!"
What a maroon- and THIS guy is going to be one heartbeat from the Presidency?

Can't wait to see the debate.
Can't wait till Nov. 4th and all this stupidity is over.

God Bless America
(Pray for the Nation, we need it!)

McCain-Palin 2008

All I can think of this week is John McCain running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

okay so, lets see you claim, "Palin is nothing more than lipstick on a pig."

Then you go on to say, "people are seeing through the pretty smile for the calculating person she really is."

So...are you trying to say pigs are calculating?

I won't state my opinion, but please do clarify.

John McCain is an idiot on the economy. Palin raised more money for Obama than she did for McCain, and now she has become a total liability. McCain is wishing he had picked Romney but it's too late.

McCain/ Palin will be going down.....the dirt is sneaking out from under the rug. The October surprise my friend will be a major scandal re: McCain /Palin. There are many Republicans who will secretly cast their ballots for Obama. They won't risk speaking out now....but behind that curtain they will flip!

I grew up selling the L A Times, and read the TIMES everyday, these paper is so far left that I stop, now I get my News from the internet, if Carl Marx and Osama Bin Laden were running you would support them to. What ever the reason, Biden is a bad choice, just like Mondale and Al Gore.

(Well, welcome to the Internet. This isn't on newsprint, you may have noticed. It's an online blog.)

So he's not a big money draw. Who cares? Obama can handle that part by himself. I (heart) Biden. I don't really see the point of this article.

OBAMA / BIDEN '08 in a LANDSLIDE!!!

I take Obama on his word that he chose Biden on his ability to govern, meaning assisting in working with the other pillars of government, the house and the senate.

McCain, on the other hand, chose a gimmick in Palin. Today, respected Singaporean ex-prime minister called Palin a disaster on CNNs Global Public Square (Zakarias show), and I happen to agree, as an independent who likes the Obama ticket much better.

I knew this would happen; Obama looses the election and it is the fault of a racist America. Obama has been the one playing the race card.It is the fault of a too liberial canidate, with an unfocesed campaign and the inability to see past his hurt feelings and choose the right running mate, not his skin color. Will the Dem's never learn? I also see an army of lawyers ready to swoop down on several states to claim the election was swiped fom the Dem's. so predictable

Barack Obama is LUCKY that "Joe Biden is no Sarah Palin". She is sinking fast. Her shine has quickly rubbed off and intelligent people see her for what she is...an uneducated, unqualified, dishonest hockey mom with lipstick. Joe Biden has intelligence, experience, class AND foreign policy experience (and not just because he can see Canada from his front yard!).

What is the purpose of this report anyway? To make Biden sound like a bad choice?

I think this part says it all: "Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said donations had nothing to do with Biden's selection, adding: "His choice was an investment in a governing partner who can help get our economy working again, end the war in Iraq, and bring the change we need.”"

Obama put his country first. McCain put himself first. Simple sound bite. Simple fact.

"Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they 'try harder.'"

Interesting.

I would think that 10 out of 10 people would agree than *anyone* (and any definable group of people) would be better off if they "try harder."

This is supposed to be racist? How silly.

Seriously? You don't know why Obama chose Joe Biden?

Obama thought he was playing smart by picking an Old White Guy to pit against McCain. Boy did McCain outdo Obama in the SURPRISE DEPARTMENT. ha ha ha...

BTW - re your Sub-Title. Biden is no Sarah Palin when it comes to voter appeal either.

"What a maroon"

He. He. He.

I can't wait for the debate either.

Obama-Biden 2008

What do you think of the television news coverage of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?

I am a student at American University and I am conducting this survey for educational reasons.

Please copy, paste and take!
I greatly appreciate your help!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=dTCdjwGZdgXfve12tziS2A_3d_3d

Obama's campaign has repeatedly laid out specific plans on the economy, the foreign policy, education, the military, the war--you name it. You can find these spelled out in detail on his official website. McCain's website gives plans on these areas as well, although to me they tend to be heavy on ideological platitudes and spare on details. But any thoughtful, concerned person may download these plans and compare them side by side. Moreover, commentators across the mainstream media spectrum of political orientation have analysed these plans from every conceivable angle. On election day, I trust that the voters will be well versed on the candidates' actual positions and proposals and will be voting FOR the best candidate rather than AGAINST the one they don't prefer.

I am personally convinced that Obama's campaign addresses the issues and views that I believe are most vital for our country. McCain could no doubt manage the country as President; Palin could do the job of a Vice-President. But Obama is aimed in the right direction for America. I'm not voting against McCain and Palin. I'm voting for Obama and Biden.

I reject your premise.

I agree with Carey Greyson (above)

Obama/Biden DESTROYED McCain AND Palin in fundraising.

You separated Palin/McCain becausee McCain was running a losing campaign until he picked Palin.

Does this mean that Palin is really at the top of the Republican ticket?

Your premise is pointless - unless it's a hit on McCain.

people are crazy... "Look how McCain suprised everyone with his pick".... yes yes genius reward that ticket and 4 years from now they will have a sweepstakes for VP on the Republican side. Sad that so many people fall victim to this gimmick of a choice by McCain. 95% or more never heard of this woman 1 day before he picked her... funny enough neither did McCain....

I can't wait for the debate either. People who say a lot of negative things about Joe Biden most likely don't know anything about him other than what they have read, written by some snarky journalist with an agenda. Joe will show Palin for what she really is, and do it with grace.

If she can't come out of seclusion and take the heat like other candidates then she has no business in politics anyway.

I hear the debates between Palin and Biden are on a time limit answer. Which is good! That way Biden has only a limited amount of time to stick his foot in his mouth. And finally Obarbie can be a man and face McCain, but not before he goes to debate camp for 2 days. McCain on the other hand is not going to debate camp. Do you think the Russians will wait while Obama goes to debate camp should he ever talk to Putin? It just goes to show how little experience Obama has. I am sure all the world crisis will wait while Obama goes to camp or reads up on it. Geez, Obama is a joke.

Geah: I think by editing the sentence you have altered the meaning. "More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." The key part is as well off as whites.

Now what exactly should they be trying harder at? Obama comes from poverty, being raised by a single mom. Through hard work, luck and scholarships, graduates from Harvard with a law degree, and instead of being viewed as a success, he is called uppity and elitist. His wife traveled pretty much the same road. They are a true American success story yet are viewed negatively by a large portion of the public.

Meanwhile, a rich white man, who left his first wife because she was disfigured from an auto accident, marries a rich barbie doll, lobbies on behalf of Keating to stop regulation of the savings and loans, which ended up costing us taxpayers over 100 billion dollars is seen as an everyman?

What more do you want this black family to do?

No, this is not a rhetorical question.

Obama chose Joe Biden for his character, experience, ethics and reliability. All of the qualities that are sorely lacking in Palin.

How can Obama lead our country if he can't even properly finance his campaign??? He is blowing money with no result, wait till he gets in the office and maxes out our national debt credit card.
Change you do not want to see.

it is close enough that it is going to be decieded by race there is nothing either one can do about that if enough of the white middle class voters vote their emotions the race is over no matter who is the better quailified candidate i am white middle class

Chuck Ewe,
Please spare me the racist card. Obama has some of the worst policies and his questionable vote on FISA and radical relationships with Ayers and Wright. Those are the reasons why people don't support him, and not because they are racists.
Please take your 'guilt trip' and shove it.

Obama igot into his position as the result of working politics in Chicago. In case you have never heard about Chicago politics, it is the worst case in modern political history of political corruption.
Sooo let's not pretend that Obama is an outsider wanting political change. Hid roots betray him.

Willa wrote: "McCain is wishing he had picked Romney but it's too late".

Come on you can do better than that. The Gov of Alaska drew 70,000 peole today in Florida. Many stood in line for 5 hours in the heat.

Sounds to me like it was a great choice.

Biden is among the poorest in Congress. He was chosen for experience, not money.

And it's a good thing, too, with McCain & Palin changing their message on the economy daily, trying to fire someone that can't be fired, and now attacking Obama for wanting to think things through instead of going with a quick-fix approach over the bailout plans.

McCain can't even run his own campaign at this point. I don't think that man should be in charge of a country.

Hey blogdom! News flash---all of this fussing and cussing isn't gonna change anybody's mind at this point unless you are
1. moronic
2. drugged
3. in a geographic area where no media is available
4. not paying any attention whatsoever
5. split personality (do you get TWO votes?)

We're ALL chosen our horse, and as riled up as we might be on the blogs, it ain't changing a thing!

Dems hate pubs and pubs hate dems....independents are just lonely people who like to get lots of campaign mail and poll phone calls. You either despise mccain or you despise obama. Biden is a fun guy, and palin....welll, no need to go there
anyway,
RAISE YOUR HAND RIGHT AWAY IF YOUR VOTE CAN BE SWAYED AT THIS LATE STAGE.

have a delightful election!

@Chuck Ewe - You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
In the end, this will probably come down to race, despite the geniuses (tony) that keep saying it's Obama playing the race card.
I thought this quote the most telling, "Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain."
So, 3 in 10 prefer no change, to the *possibility* of change.
The key word is *trust.* Those that continue to use that word, if you ask them why they don't trust Obama, their answer will invariably be *I'm no racist.*

Americans have shown themselves, as people who like rewarding those who treat them as dimwits. Hence, so many will be voting for McCain.

Article is specious and lacks depth. McCain contributions may have as much to do with the contribution deadline that roughly coincided with the Republican convention. Palin was a draw for sure, but there may have been other pragmatic reasons, too.

On the other hand, Biden......yawn.

Biden is a walking gaffe machine.
*****************************************************************
Got that right, Alec. (Although I think the Obama folks probably knew that was a risk when he was selected to run on the ticket.)

Heard the one that higher taxes = patriotism.

You forgot to mention that Palin raised $10 million for Obama after her speech at the RNC pissed off his supporters.

Obama-Biden, what a sad ticket. The Dems should be running away with this election after what W did. But McCain seems to be putting the nails in their coffins. Palin will shovel the dirt onto them in Nov. If the Dems lose they should disband and start over. No wonder their mascot is a mule, they are all of bunch of slow moving jackasses that produce s**t..............so sad.....

Who is Barack Hussein Obama? What I i want to know is why does the media pick on Sarah Palin like she is the devil while Barack Obama, attended a racist church for 20-years?
Bought a 1.6 million dollar home, with a $300,000 discount and then sold Rezko a strip of land back for $150,000?

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

Racial issues aside, there are more important things at stake in this election.

More tax cuts for the middle class means more money to buy stuff, which means companies will do better.

Trickle down economics hasn't worked, folks. Vote Obama/Biden because they will give higher tax cuts to the middle class while McCain will give the largest tax cuts to only those making over $2 MILLION a year. Giving the richest people more and more money hasn't helped the economy. Unemployment is highest in 6 years.

The fat cat CEO's have been jumping ship with millions from Enron to today’s Wall Street, and leaving us middle class ordinary tax payers paying for government buyouts of huge companies. Folks, IT AIN'T FAIR. We don't have to stand for this. Make your voices heard and your votes COUNT!!!!

McCain has a huge problem to overcome. Over 90% of African Americans voted for Obama in the primaries. This blatant racism on the part of African Americans is as deplorable as the racism exhibited by White Democrats.

It appears that Democrats are guilty of sexism, too.

Nice try. That AP poll stuff is tainted and Fournier (who secretly works for McCain) is going to jail if someone can catch him. Don't buy the lies. Vote for the White & Black -guy- Obama!

The AP’s Ron Fournier: Racial Arsonist and Unethical Journalist
Posted by Al Giordano - September 20, 2008 at 1:44 pm By Al Giordano

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.

If "concern" about such claims need an outlet they will be in this assignment and the one to come later on today (to get the AP Managing Editors Association to fire Ron Fournier for his conflicts of interest and violation of the APME's Statement of Ethical Principles, or "ethics code").

Fournier's article claims:

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...

40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents...

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents - voters Obama can't win the White House without - agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks...

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

Let's think about that last sentence carefully. One third of white Democrats agreed with a negative adjective about African-Americans. But 58 percent of those supposed "racists" - a majority of them - are still voting for a particular African-American in specific. And that's supposed to be "bad news" for Obama's candidacy?

In fact, if we review the actual poll - rather than Fournier's spin - it provides very good news for those that want Obama to win.

In the real data from the AP poll, Obama's favorable-to-negative rating (54 percent favorable to 41 negative, or 13+) is better than McCain's (50 to 42, or 8+). And Obama towers over McCain among those that have a "very favorable" opinion of each candidate, with 30 percent to just 13 for McCain.

Obama leads this poll (which casts a net much wider than "likely voters" or even "registered voters"): Obama 40 percent to 35 for McCain. Bob Barr receives one percent support and Ralph Nader, 2 percent.

If you take away the undecideds, that's Obama 51.2 percent to McCain 44.8 percent with third party candidates getting the remaining four percent.

The poll also "pushes" the 18 percent of undecided voters and gets only teenaged numbers of them to declare. Factoring in those numbers, here are the poll's results, adjusted to included those pushed:

Obama: 42.9 percent

McCain: 38.2 percent

Barr: 1 percent

Nader: 2 percent.

Don't Know: 16.9 percent

Isn't that interesting? That even in the poll that Ron Fournier of AP spins to try and demonstrate that Americans are too racist to vote for Obama, the African-American is ahead by greater than the poll's claimed 2.1 percent margin of error!

See, kind readers: The poll itself - in its most important finding (the voter preferences for president) - doesn't back up Fournier's spin, and in fact refutes it.

Here's another question: How much time will each candidate spend "working on the issues you would want him to work on the most"?

The percent of those who said "moderate," "a lot" or "a great deal" is:

Obama: 66 percent

McCain: 59 percent

Strip it down to "a lot" or "a great deal" and it's:

Obama: 40

McCain: 27

In other words, far from the term Fournier bandies about - "lazy" - voters see Obama as the more hard-working problem-solver for the issues they most care about.

Here's another interesting question from the poll:

After the presidential election in November, which of the following would you prefer?

Barack Obama as president and Democrats controlling the Congress 45

Barack Obama as president and Republicans controlling the Congress 5

John McCain as president and Democrats controlling the Congress 13

John McCain as president and Republicans controlling the Congress 33

Refused / Not Answered 4

Got it? 50 percent would prefer Obama (nine out of ten of them also want a Democratic Congress), whereas just 40 percent want McCain, and more than a third of them still want a Democratic Congress.)

Let's extrapolate: 53 percent want a Democratic Congress to just 38 percent wanting a Republican Congress. That means that Obama is running about 3 points behind the Democratic Congress, and McCain is running about 2 points ahead of a Republican Congress. That's pretty close on both ends.

And by a significant margin, 45 percent of Americans want Democrats to control the White House and Congress, to just 33 percent that would like a GOP clean sweep.

Some more data from the poll:

More respondents want a politically "moderate" president (47 percent) than those that want him "conservative" (30) or "liberal" (21). Percentage of respondents that consider each candidate to be "moderate"? Obama 24 to McCain 22.

Based on every major preferential piece of data in this poll, Obama wins the November election.

AP's Fournier chose, instead, to airlift the poll's responses on racial questions (often in response to extremely inflammatory statements about African-Americans being "lazy," "violent," "boastful," "complaining" or "irresponsible" and with other "push poll" type questions) and made that the story, even though the overall results of the poll disprove his claim and show a general populace ready to elect Obama president.

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:

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):

In recent years, however, that pattern has not held. As reported by Scott Keeter and Nilanthi Samaranayakeof the Pew Research Center last year, polls in five biracial contests in 2006 were largely accurate. The margins between the candidates predicted the vote, with no evidence of hidden support for the white candidates. "The accuracy of the polling in these five biracial elections," they wrote, "suggests that the problems that bedeviled polling in the 1980s and early 1990s may no longer be so serious."

Also, this year's primary results did not systematically understate support for Hillary Rodham Clinton. If anything, polls tended to underestimate support for the winner in each state, a trend that worked in Obama's favor as often as Clinton's.

Nate Silver, wrote about it on August 11:

polling numbers from the primaries suggested no presence of a Bradley Effect. On the contrary, it was Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- who somewhat outperformed his polls on Election Day...

The table below reflects 31 states in which at least three separate polls were released within 14 days of that state's primary or caucus. We compare the final trendline estimate from Pollster.com against the actual results from that state:

Yesterday, Silver added this counsel:

Sean Oxendine at The Next Right purports to find evidence of a Bradley Effect in the Democratic primaries, something which I also looked for and did not find. The difference between my study and his is that I include all the states, whereas he excludes those which do not fit his argument.
An academic paper published on August 4 by Daniel Hopkins at Harvard University documents the same point.

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic explains what that Harvard paper says:

Hopkins looked at all senatorial and gubernatorial races that featured a woman or an African-American candidate from 1989 to 2006 -- a total of 133 races. For each, he found at least one poll released within a month of Election Day, enabling him to measure the gap between a candidate's polling and performance.

Hopkins finds some evidence that African-American candidates suffered from something resembling a Wilder effect before 1996, but since then, the effect seems to have disappeared.

This becomes the key finding of Hopkins's study: The Wilder effect is not a durable phenomenon. Rather, it is dependent on particular political conditions.

His theory is that when racially charged issues like welfare and crime dominated the political rhetoric, racial factors affected voting behavior and the Wilder effect asserted itself. But once welfare disappeared as a salient issue in 1996, political discourse was deracialized and race was less of a factor in voters' mind.

Here's the deal, Field Hands: Before worrying aloud about the "Bradley Effect," or other Fournier-type arguments that claim that America is too racist to elect Barack Obama president, study and rehearse talking about these points: Those I have just raised about what the AP poll really says (as opposed to Fournier's race-baiting spin), and read the five links debunking the Bradley Effect:

Mark Blumenthal (June 19)

Nate Silver (August 11)

Nate Silver (September 19)

Marc Ambinder (September 19)

Daniel Hopkins (August 4)

Copy and save that list of links. If commenters come here or on other blogs or websites you frequent that express "concern" or questions about the AP poll or the so-called "Bradley Effect," I am assigning each of you the job of testing your talking points on them - citing any of those five links above - rather than waiting for me to explain it over and over again. I may weigh in from time to time, comment or coach on which arguments I find most effective, but from here on out it will be your job to correct the record.

(And frankly, anonymous comments expressing "concern" about such matters - if they do not demonstrate that they've read at least one of those documents - are not likely to make the cut for being posted here. That said, I'll be more than happy to discuss in detail with those that demonstrate that you've read those documents and have informed questions or comments based on them.)

Ron Fournier is gambling that racism will win the day. It's the last card available to him and his ilk. By informing and arming yourself with the true facts, that's how you will prove him wrong.

In a subsequent post, coming up, I will outline the strategy, tactics and action plan through which we will persuade the Associated Press Managing Editors Association to remove Fournier from the presidential campaign beat. The path of action we will propose will be stylistically different than efforts made on other blogs that got buried under the news cycles of the two political conventions. Simply put, we will force AP - through its board of directors in the AP Managing Editors Association - to play by its own claimed rules and ethics code.

Meanwhile, study up and pump the water under which we will snuff out the malevolent torches of racial arsonists like Ron Fournier of the Associated Press.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ap%E2%80%99s-ron-fournier-racial-arsonist-and-unethical-journalist


The liberal Democrats are brain damaged Look at Pelosi,Biden,Reid,Kennedy,Rangel,All those a^^holes. They are the party of tax and join the European Union. They are Globalists. Keep them out of power Vote for any one else but them.

I can't wait for the Debates. Obama is going to be
great while McCain is going to be impatient, mad,
hot tempered just watch his face through the debates.
McCain can't handle being under pressure.
That is why I do not want him as President he will
have us going to war with every country there is.
Well Palin, I can see Russia from my house.
Oh Brother!!!!!

Hmmmm so Sarah's shine is off and she's losing popularity? Tell that to the 60,000 PLUS old people that stood in the heat to hear her in Florida on Sunday.
Face it, Obama screwed up, this race was his to lose...and he's losing it. Arrogance will do that to you.

60,000 showed up to see Palin. Hmmmm, doesn't that make her a celebrity? Aren't celebrities bad? Funny isn't, haven't heard a peep out of McShame about large turnouts to see a candidate whose has accomplished little if anything now that it is his candidate. However, at the end of the day, people are going to vote for the bottom of the ticket, they'll be voting for the top, and without Falin' Palin, McShame rallies draw fewer people than Biden's.

BTW once people figure out McShame was on the Banking committee and allowed the deregulation that has put grandchildren on the hook for a TRILLION DOLLARS, and that debt has now weakened our ability to conduct foreign policy for what is best for our country since we'll owe China, and the Muslim countries, I expect that people with good sense will RUN from this sham artist. Lets see, Savings and Loan bailout McCain with deregulation and the Keating five, Wall St bailout McCain and Phil Gramm, now there is change you can't believe in.

Vote your pocket, your countries best interest, and for the welfare of future generations.

Obama-Biden

You Liberals are so predictable and pathetic. You monopolize comment sites like this one by posting whole novels. You talk incessantly in order to prevent any alternate view of being aired. You whine to the point of boring. Your snide, sarcastic and defeatist. You hate your own country although you constantly claim to love it as you stab it in the back with your forked tongues. You mix lies with the truth as a way of communication in all things and you love to steal other peoples money so that you can give generously to others but when it comes to your money you are skinflints. Oh strike that. You do give generously for Abortion expansion, socialist indoctrination, Christian bashing and the ACLU's pedophile protection and assistance division. In fact the only way you Liberals even win elections in America is to iie about what you really believe or commit election fraud (Washington 2004). But hey, rather than go on all day like you Liberals on these sites I'll just summarize by saying that It gives me great pleasure to watch you all unhinge yourselves to the point of losing yet another WON (in your own minds) election. See you on the 5th and we'll bring tissues for you.

The only folks bringing race into this election is the Democrats and thats because they are losing and they are getting desperate. Its so transparent and so pathetic. The kicker to all this is that the first woman to be president will be a conservative and I suspect the first black man to be president will probably also be a conservative. Don't that just get all? This is why the Libs are so rabid about this. After all they are the party of the common folk aren't they??? Or are they???

To chuck ewe and Lisa. You morons couldn't get your point across in less than 2800 words? Get a life.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: