Ron Fournier misuses ‘Bradley effect’ to get on McCain tire swing

Ron Fournier misuses ‘Bradley effect’ to get on McCain tire swingWhile legitimate questions exist about how much the Bradley effect may or may not cost Barack Obama voters, in this story, it’s arguable that notorious AP Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier is on Josh Marshall’s infamous McCain tire swing.

First, the supposedly straight facts:
• One-third of white Dems harbor negative views toward blacks;
• More than a third of all white Democrats and independents agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks (not sure if this is a separate item or not, actually).

Here comes the tire swing, though. Fournier (and/or co-writers) claim (without saying it was from the same Stanford poll or not) that one-quarter of Dems wonder about Obama’s competency without citing how McCain polls in this area among Republicans.

The story then claims the size of the Bradley effect for Obama could be as much as 6 percentage points. That itself is an outlier, and enough of an outlier to raise my skeptical antennae about the story.

Finally, why does a story like this need five contributors as well as a bylined coauthorI? Is this part of AP’s attempts to insulate Fournier from criticism?

Fineman makes attempt to salvage Palin for McCain

Howard Fineman appears to have stepped into Ron Fournier mode with this cluelessness.

Basically, he argues that Palin being from an exurban area (Wasilla is about 35 miles from Anchorage), that this makes her ideal for McCain to make a pitch for exurban voters.

For you Texans in the largest cities, this is like claiming that being from Ennis (re the DFW Metroplex) or Waller (re Houston) is a good qualification to be vice president.

Here’s Fineman’s take on exurbia:

In Exurban America, you can buy a new home with a driveway and enough bedrooms for a big, traditional family. You can be near to nature, and big playgrounds and spaces. You can be far away from the fears and fractiousness of an old downtown, but close enough to go t0 the zoo or a concert or take in a ballgame.

And (assuming gas prices aren’t insane — a fateful assumption, of course) you can buy a big home on less than a six-figure family income. You can therefore get close as to “Leave it to Beaver" America as most middle-class folks can afford or even find.

First, especially re Peak Oil, Fineman’s already shot himself in the foot and refuses to admit it.

Second, especially in more conservative states, the definition of exurbia is:
Suburban whites fleeing middle-class black flight from central cities and the first ring of suburbs. (You can include Hispanics in that “flight from” in some areas.)

Given that Alaska has mighty few blacks or Hispanics, exurban Wasilla has little in common with exurban Ennis or Waller, Texas, Cedar Hill, Mo. (St. Louis), Shawnee, Okla. (Oklahoma City) or other such places in the lower 48.

Third, that sociological fact undercuts Fineman’s next two grafs of pablum:

ExAm is where the country that traditionalists think existed decades ago still exists – and where people fervently want it to exist.

That makes it, on balance, more socially conservative than other, closer-in suburbs, not to mention core cities. Eager for a settled, traditional life amid the hustle and chaos of modern, 21st century economic competition, ExAm families tend to favor rule-setting religion, old-fashioned family values — and ample but efficient government that has no ties to old arguments over Business and Labor.

That’s all true, to a fair degree, for Ennis, Waller or Cedar Hill. But not for Wasilla.

Howard, your “fact-finding trip” to Alaska must have left you with baked Alaska brain cells.

Walter Shapiro halfway agrees with Ron Fournier, you Democrats

For the Josh Marshalls and Steve Benens of the world, along with the many other Democratic (and not necessarily liberal) bloggers who think Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier is secretly on McCain’s payroll or something, think again.

They should read Salon Washington bureau chief Walter Shapiro. He makes some of the same observations:

Along with middle-class tax cuts (that siren song of Bill Clinton's presidency), Obama did unequivocally set a 10-year goal to “finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” But compared to Al Gore’s chilling warning about global warming in his Thursday night speech before network coverage began, Obama's proposals seem pallid in comparison. Even healthcare reform — the signature domestic issue of the Democratic primaries — merited just 100 words. The holy Democratic grail of universal coverage was boiled down to: “If you have healthcare, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.”

The Supreme Court was never mentioned by Obama, a former professor of constitutional law. Nor was Guantánamo, torture or civil liberties. These issues clearly do not poll well among swing voters in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, industrial states that Obama highlighted with anecdotes in his speech. What all this suggests is not some ideological mushiness or inherent character flaw in Obama, but rather the reality that he finds himself in a tight campaign in which he must constantly acknowledge the conservative impulses of persuadable voters. It was no surprise that Obama, sounding a bit like Bill Clinton in 1996 praising school uniforms, said “fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance for their children.”

That said, Obama’s 10-year goal oil goal isn’t likely unless a major increase in the gas tax is part of the plan.

Greenwald generally agrees with the Shapiro assessment, beyond just Obama:

(T)he Democrats, as a result of omissions, are largely guilty of doing what they typically do: appearing listless and amorphous by standing for nothing other than safe and uncontroversial platitudes.

Shorter Glenn: Obama’s drive for post-partisan politics includes ignoring why the Iraq War was a clusterfuck and how Bush became stubborn about it, and how it mutilated our civil liberties (Kerry’s one comment aside, Dems ignored Gitmo). But, Glenn says Obama’s speech, even more than Biden’s, was the best attack speech of the convention.

Now, I’ve had a few criticisms of Fournier myself on these pages. But, I don’t believe he’s a McCain suckup.

Anyway, Marshall, Benen, et al aren’t even comparing apples and oranges. Until McCain speaks a week from now, and we see what the AP writes, they’re comparing apples to the vacuum of outer space.

Let’s look at this next Friday, in proper perspective.

Josh Marshall takes a ride on the waaaahhhbumlance about AP

The Talking Points Memo jefe cries a river about the quality of Associated Press political coverage this year and points a sharp finger at Ron Fournier, who now heads AP’s Washington bureau.

But, the Politico story to which he links supports just the opposite, with specific examples such as his Katrina coverage, of Fournier’s past “liberal” bias. Now, the Politico story leans heavily on the WSJ’s James Taranto to try to “game” the “liberal bias” angle, tis true.

But, the story as written simply doesn’t support Josh’s angle.

To me, this is a clear case of, “if the shoe pinches…”

Did Josh complain about the political coverage in 2005, when Fournier wrote this lede?

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

No.

On the other hand, Josh may have legitimate reason to moan.

Any reporter playing suck-up with Rove just got himself a black mark in my book. Stay tuned.

Update No. 2: Fornier issues a semi-apology.

Beyond that, Fournier is just Washington bureau chief, he’s not the AP managing editor.

As for the merits of what Fournier is doing in general, while caution is needed, I think he’s got some good thinking points.

I’ve written more that way for years. Being at community weekly and semi-weekly papers, while I still try to follow the AP’s “inverted pyramid” on news content, I haven’t written “old style” AP ledes for years. So, to me, there’s really nothing new here, as far as journalism; it’s just new as far as AP journalism.