Ap misrepresents Stanford results to imply Dems are the ones who are racist

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

and of course Drudge picks up the story and puts it on his front.

But if you look at the chart, Republicans had a worse score on every category.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=Anf.y.dA8NsstztU036FoKWs0NUE

They skip over the Republican response to the survey.

Instead, AP turns it into a "why racist Dems won't get in line to back Obama," when the story should be "why racist Republicans, despite a horrid track record of their own party, won't consider jumping ship"

[liberalmuse]

1. Racist Republicans aren't news.

I'm not surprised. No, not one bit.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Well, unfortunately PUMAs given credence to that poll.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. authored by RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON,

nuff said

[lib2DaBone]

4. Can't someone sue AP for Defamation of Character?

"Race May Keep Some Dems from Voting for Obama" According to AP/Yahoo News Poll http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/race-may-keep-some-dems-from-voting-for-obama/


This is an outright atttack on Obama. There must be something someone can do to keep this stuff off the public airwaves and out of the media? This country is totally helpless since they managed to repeal the Fairness Doctrine in Broadcasting.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Fournier YES... Don't recognize Trevor

[LiberalFighter]

5. Why are AP journalists racists?????

[Igel]

7. The article simply isn't the one you want written.

An article about racism in the two parties would highlight both, and emphasize the larger of the two racist groups. But that's not what the article's about.

The article's about Obama's election prospects, and why the race is closer than expected. Since repubs can be expected to vote repub, racism that keeps them from voting from Obama is pretty much meaningless in deciding the outcome. Now, since dems can be expected to vote dem, any racism on their part that keeps them from voting dem is relevant to this topic.

The difference is the default hypothesis that you pick. If you simply assume that everybody will vote for Obama, all things being equal, then repub racism is relevant. If you assume that most people vote in keeping with the party they've chosen by the time the conventions are over, then it's not. I find the latter to be a more reasonable default hypothesis.

Note that we use the same reasoning. Blacks (and some whites), when polled have said that they've voting for Obama, and race is important. In other words, race isn't just anti-black bias; it also shows up as pro-black bias, at least in Obama's case. I know many; there have been articles whose writers pretty much lead to the same conclusion--voting for Obama would say we're beyond racism, not because Obama's just a great candidate, but because we'd be electing a black man. Implication: Any non-objectional black man would fit the bill.

We look at the 95-96% of blacks who are solidly behind Obama, and we'd have to say "racism"--or "racial bias", if we prefer to think that blacks can't be racist as a matter of definition. However, we don't say that his is helping Obama, that it's giving him a boost, because historically blacks vote for dems in about those numbers anyway; it's only in the primaries that any racial preference mattered.

In other words, in the case of white repubs and black dems there's no reason to suppose that their final decision is crucially dependent on considerations of race. Any racial calculus is masked by party bias.

Edit: To fix obvious typo, which I expect to not be taken by some to be a typo.