I read it, I just don't agree with your conclusions. You think that Texas is beyond reach for the Dems. It's not -- unless you're running against a Republican candidate seen as a native son. Look at the 1996 election returns in Texas. Dole-Kemp got 49%, Clinton-Gore got 44%, and Perot-Campbell got 7%. You think that the Democrats can win by concentrating on flipping the Southwest. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona put together have 34 electoral votes -- as many as Texas by itself. And that's even overlooking the fact that Bush won Utah by a 71-27 margin. And because of Texas' unique dual nature -- partially in the South, partially in the Southwest -- it can be very instructive in telling you how to win both regions. I know that the current Democrats would rather eat their own feces than devote any sort of time, effort, or attention to Texans, but I firmly believe that if the Democrats can figure out how to flip Texas, they can flip most red states. You've been prattling about how the Democrats could've won the Presidency by flipping one state. You've got the wrong state. Flip Ohio and we win the Presidency by a small margin. Figure out how to flip Texas and we win in a landslide.
In a year when Clinton won by 9 points, he lost Texas by 5 points. That tells me that if the goal of the Dems is to win in 2008, Texas is NOT a high priority target. I mean, hell, anyone who can count knows it would be great to win. I assume you mean that if the Dems win Texas, they'll also win a bunch of other states and rack up 480 electoral votes. Fair enough. But as an election-winning strategy, I don't think that makes sense. I mean, look at your own 1996 example. Clinton won 379 EVs, and still lost Texas by 5 points. For the Dems to win Texas, it would have to be beyond your garden variety landslide, it would have to be a 1984-1972-1964 style wipeout. The era of that size of a win is over for the foreseeable future. The effort it would take to flip Texas is a) massively more than the effort it would take to flip the states I mentioned in the other thread and b) probably counterproductive, if you believe the Democratic party is not just an entity for winning elections but also an entity dedicated to a set of ideals. You're there, so maybe's there's something relatively simple and painless available. But given how even in '96 the Dems weren't all that close to winning, it seems that a Democratic party that wins Texas isn't the Democratic party anymore. I go back to the same point I've made a bunch of times...after 1996, did the GOPs try to figure out a strategy for winning California? No.
Ever since you lost the "Reagan Democrats" - you have had a serious problem. Until the blue party tries to remake itself in order to go after southern states - you will have a very hard time winning. Given the state of affairs in traditional voter distribution - California, Massachusetts, and New York - the entire midwest and the entire south ought to be a goal for the Dems to obtain a "winning coalition". Only Texas is a write off for the Dems for now.
Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican." One of the most comprehensive surveys of the public's general opinion of the media was done in 1997 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, formerly known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. This research compared poll results from the mid-1980s with the late-1990s, (using identical questions) and determined a growing percentage of the public realize the media are biased. This information was also reported in the MRC's April 1997 MediaWatch. KEY FINDINGS OF THE 1997 PEW STUDY 67 percent said that "In dealing with political and social issues" news organizations "tend to favor one side." That was up 14 points from 53 percent who gave that answer in 1985. Those who believed the media "deal fairly with all sides" fell from 34 percent to 27 percent. Republicans "are more likely to say news organizations favor one side than are Democrats or independents (77 percent vs. 58 percent and 69 percent, respectively)." The percentage who felt "news organizations get the facts straight" fell from 55 percent to 37 percent. 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976. In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R). In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey. In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern. In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford. Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote. Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one." Only one percent strongly agreed that environmental problems were ovestated, while a majority of 54 percent strongly disagreed. 90 percent favored abortion. 80 percent supported "strong affirmative action for blacks." 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong. In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch. KEY FINDINGS In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him. In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors. In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a book by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, "Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media." Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush. KEY FINDINGS 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot. In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican. KEY FINDINGS In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot. In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush. In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan. In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan. In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford. http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/worst/welcome.asp Excerpts: In a fit of candor back in July, Evan Thomas, Newsweek’s Assistant Managing Editor, blurted out the truth: most reporters want President George W. Bush to lose and John Kerry to win. Appearing on the syndicated program Inside Washington July 10, Thomas zeroed in on the adoring coverage most in the media, including his own magazine, were awarding John Kerry and John Edwards. “The media, I think, wants Kerry to win,” Thomas explained. “And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox — but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.” Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources three months later, Thomas told the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz that he was wrong to peg the value of the media’s contribution at “maybe 15 points” for the Democrats, but said he “absolutely” believed the media preferred Kerry and Edwards. He speculated that media bias might be worth five points for the Democrats on Election Day. Thomas’s observation fits with a poll taken by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press back in May. The group surveyed 247 journalists at national-level outlets, and found only a piddling seven percent would describe themselves as “conservative,” compared to 33 percent of the overall population. While the majority of journalists (54 percent) labeled themselves as “moderate,” one out of three national journalists (34 percent) called themselves “liberal,” a far higher rate than the regular public (23 percent).
No, we've had a serious problem since white southern racists moved from the Democatic party to the Republican party. And we didn't "lose" the Reagan Democrats in any permanent sense, so far as I've seen. We lost them when Reagan ran. We won them back when Clinton ran. We did pretty good with them when Gore ran. That's bullsh**. But a point here...in 1980, "Reagan Democrats" was taken to mean the BCEC vote...blue collar ethnic Catholic. Not many of them in the South. You're saying Reagan Democrat means white southern racist. Can I cite your post the next time this topic comes up? The entire south is a goal for the Dems in much the same way as the entire Northeast is a goal for the GOPs.
If only most people got their news about our current Reagan vs. Carter elections from newspapers, studies done about that in 1980 would really be conclusive.
WTF??? OK, that's better. 1. I don't care how they vote, I care how they report. 2. You can have the reporters if I can have the editors and publishers. 3. This says nothing about ways in which they misinform the public in order to further lefty aims, which is my whole point. Who cares? That's the public regurgitating a GOP talking point. It's not as compelling as the appaling numbers of people who thought Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers. You can't "realize" something that isn't true. Why might that be? Geez, why not go back to John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson while you're at it. I agree that here, you've found a set of issues where the media skew left. But let's talk about unions or the minimum wage or tax policy or business subsidies or...you knew it was coming...the Stupid Pointless War. Good thing too, because, hey, let's face it, Clinton was a great president. So without this liberal bias, it would have gone Bush 66, Kerry 33. Ok. Besides, let me reiterate, you're not showing, in ANY of your voluminous googling, the public being misinformed by the media in a way that helps the Dems/left. THAT'S what media bias is. WHEW!! OK, let me reiterate...the point is to show biased BEHAVIOR, IN REPORTING. And let's not play battle of the isolated anecdotes, OK? Look, you can't do it. You can't. The issue has been studied. Something new pops up every few months. Every time, they show a bias in favor of conservatives. Let's take a controversial statement. "Crack cocaine was introduced into the inner cities by the CIA." The let's do a poll of inner city people, and a poll of everyone else. Which group would agree with that statement 50% of the time, and which would agree 10%? It's obvious. Now, do the people in the inner cities have a better clue as to the facts? Or is it just something they've heard alot more?
You're assuming that the personal politics of journalists has a disproportionate influence on how the news is presented. Please provide evidence for this assumption, other than the behavior of Fox News, Sinclair broadcasting and other proudly conservative media organizations. This is the only thing you quote that isn't about personal political opinions, and it too is completely devoid of evidence for the assertion that is made. The two most influential newspapers in the country, WaPo and NYT, routinely ran feature stories about the candidates. These stories routinely presented Bush as his campaign did, as firm, friendly and faith focused. The Kerry stories routinely painted him as the Bush campaign did, as a stiff, wealthy egghead who couldn't make up his mind. The mainstream media certainly applied different standards to the public statements of Bush and Kerry, but it wasn't to Kerry's benefit. His words were analyzed down to the last comma, while Bush's were allowed to pass without comment. You can only call the coverage of Kerry adoring if you compare it to the hatchet job the media did on Gore in 2000. At least this time they restricted themselves to errors of spinelessness instead of actively creating and repeating lies throughout the campaign.
I'm thinking more of the long term. Nothing short of the second coming of Watergate will cause the Reeps to lose Texas in 2008. But the Democrats have to come up with some strategy to win it, because it would be foolish to merely concede a state that has 34 electoral votes, is growing, and has been the proving ground for Republicans' strategy to win Hispanic voters. No, I mean that if you figure out how to win Texas, you've figured out how to win a bunch of other places in the process. Winning Presidential elections is nice, but I'm thinking in much larger terms. I want the Democrats to regain state legislatures, governorships, the House, and the Senate. I'm thinking of the sort of large, far-reaching, grassroots effort that the Republicans have used since the '60s. There is nothing simple and painless. But I disagree that the Democratic party that wins Texas isn't the Democratic party anymore. The Democrats held Texas for as long as they did because they were a very populist party in these parts. Just look at the laws that ended up on the books here from Reconstruction until the last twenty years, while the Democrats had a stranglehold on state government. Some were business-friendly, some were downright hostile to big business, some smacked of socialism. Now that populism included all of its inherent flaws, including a less-pronounced willingness to rock the boat on social issues. And I will admit that Texas Democrats weren't exactly part of the vanguard in the civil rights struggle. Still, people saw the Democrats as the party of the common folk and the Republicans as the party of the folks who lived in the big houses at the top of the hill. My wife's father's family is from rural west Texas, and that's why they voted Democratic for generations. In many respects, people here still believe that about the two parties. Just look at the exit polls. But they're voting Republican because the don't feel that the Democrats represent them anymore. They feel that the Democrats represent northeastern liberals, the Hollywood crowds, and snooty ivory-tower intellectuals. But not them. If the Democrats want to win Texas again, they'll have to reach back to their roots, go for a little old time populism, and make the Democratic Party the party of "common folks" again. Will that take time? Heck yeah. It's not something that we can do by 2008. If you don't think that they've been working on a long-term strategy to flip Kah-lee-foh-nyah, you haven't been paying very close attention.
Yes and this was the key to Clinton's sucess. He didn't try to win 50% of the vote and hoped for 55%. Instead he tried for 55% of the vote and hoped for 50%. He "went Republican" on Taxes (middle class tax cut), values (i.e. sistah soldier), Welfare Reform, NAFTA, etc., etc. I wrote this before but I think it bears repeating. If the electoral map were a game of risk then the Dems would have given up on N. America and S. America and be fighting over Europe, Asia and Africa. They'd then be pissed when they were losing, couldn’t roll triple sixes then claim the other guy was cheating.
Um, I think that's what I said, but OK. Fair enough. The Dems need a more national strategy. I think that would mean short term pain, but long term gain. And it had nothing to do with race, right? Alone among the Confederate states, the key factor in Texas going GOP was not white southern racists switching parties, right? I doubt it. But hey, you're there, if you say so.... Um, OK. But I'd be very surprised if an historian/political scientist studying the question would put things in the order of importance that you do. But like I said, maybe Texas is different. I agree with you, the Dems need to stop campaigning so much with Ben Affleck. But I'm skeptical it will have the impact you suggest. Remember...in a year where Clinton won by *9*, he lost Texas by *5*. That's aLOT of ground to make up. What's their long term strategy, then? Arnold's election, right now, stands as a) a fluke and b) election of a guy who is clearly completely at odds with the trends of the Republican party. When James Dobson makes a list and checks it twice, Arnold is naughty.
?!?!?!?!?!?!!? That's long been a Democratic value. We're the party of soak the rich and class warfare, remember???
I don't doubt that race was a factor, especially in east Texas, which is more like "the South" than the rest of the state. At the same time, however, even if you think that everyone was about "keeping the Negroes down," you still had to have something to separate one Democratic candidate from the other in the primaries in those days. The Democratic candidates that won in Texas were the populists. OK, you tell me -- How is race going to be the same factor in west Texas, the Panhandle, and south Texas as it was in the Old South, when there had never been all that many black people in those areas? About the closest you got was the relationship between whites and Mexicans, but even that has always been a bit different. Blacks have always been the 3rd largest ethnic group in large parts of Texas, and their percentages dropped off quite a bit once you got west of Dallas and Houston. So I guess what I'm saying is that yes, Texas has always a bit different than the rest of the Confederate states. Not necessarily racially tolerant, but definitely a different racial dynamic. So why did Texas go from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican over the last 30 years? Because the Republicans started doing a good job of tarring Texas Democrats with the same "liberal" brush that they could tar Democrats with elsewhere in the country, frankly. I think the pivotal moment was when Tip O'Neill cracked down on Phil Gramm for supporting Reagan's programs. When Gramm resigned his seat in Congress, switched to the Republican Party, and won the special election for his old seat, that was a big moment for the Republicans' takeover of Texas. That one incident did more damage to the Democratic Party in Texas than almost anything else that I can think of. When Phil Gramm told people during his campaign, "I had to decide between Tip O'Neill and y'all, and I chose y'all," those were words that resonated far beyond his own campaign. From that moment on, for Texas Democrats, you were either with Tip O'Neill or you were with your constituents. Some switched parties, some got the heave-ho at the ballot box, some, like Charles Stenholm, stuck around until redistricting got them. Then it's time to get started. We can start by completely rethinking how we look at people in red states. You know who the real morons in this election were? The people who thought that all 5.9 million people that voted for Bush were idiots. And the sooner those people shut their friggin' pieholes, the better it will be for us red-state Democrats. And we can start expanding the size of our tent. I shouldn't have to apologize to my fellow Democrats for being an NRA member. Let's just say that having an extremely popular governor with "R" next to his name is a very effective promotional tool, even if he's not completely on board with the national platform. Just think of all the free advertising the Republicans get every time that he's on TV. Think about the people in California who might be giving the Republicans a second look because they're happy with the Governator. He is a very large foot in the door for the Republicans. And the way that he is being embraced at a national level by Republicans is hardly going to harm their chances in California.
You have your facts wrong here. It wasn't just that Gramm supported Reagan. It's that he went to the Dem caucus, and then went to the GOPs and told them the Democratic strategies. For the rest of it, good post.
But it's so much easier to call your opponents names and try to believe that they are dumber than you and those who agree with you. Takes a lot less effort, especially since you don't have to actually try to govern at the end of it!!