For the most part West Virginians are not hearing this. I watched the
news reports on his visits and there was the sound bite about his
wanting to phase out coal and then he was cut off and the reporter went
on to talk about how he was upsetting a lot of West Virginians. They did
not report on any of his other issues or on anything about what he wants
to replace coal with.
Apparently I did not see the piece you caught, but you must remember
that the people who show up for one of his events are entirely different
from the vast majority of the voters. The polls do not distinguish low
information voters from the ones who are actually showing up for these
events and the polling places on election day do not either. Like Marx
taught us, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.
On 5/9/2016 10:55 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Sanders is also saying that we need to rebuild our infrastructure and new,
green energy systems, and that if we do, there'll be new jobs. And he saying
that the government should provide these jobs. Are the West Virginians
hearing this?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Media Myth of the Working-Class Reagan
Democrats
I think a major factor is like this. The number one industry in West
Virginia for more than a hundred years has been coal mining. Lately there
have been layoff after layoff in the mining industry because of declining
markets for coal and this has a ripple effect. Not only are the coal miners
out of jobs, but the income of stores that sell to coal miners is in decline
too and that leads to further layoffs. The employment level in West Virginia
is really declining and most of the jobs left are minimum wage. What they
are seeing on the television is a constant barrage of blaming the Democrats
for it and especially Obama and Clinton. This year, for the first time since
1926, the Republicans have had a majority in the state legislature. I
suspect that is why Sanders was so far ahead of Clinton last month. But then
Sanders visits West Virginia three times and flat out says himself that he
wants to phase out coal. Suddenly he is neck and neck with Clinton. Again,
it will be interesting to see how those Candidates on the Democrat ballot
who have taken no position on anything do.
On 5/9/2016 9:47 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
And now I will expose my limitless ignorance on West Virginians. Itsupervised release and is on the ballot again.
is my belief that West Virginia is one of Americas lowest income, most
poverty ridden states. But like most low income folks, West
Virginians do have Television Sets. On a daily basis they are
allowing commercial TV into their living rooms. As they view the many
bobbles and gadgets being pushed before their eyes, they look about
their humble abodes and compare what they have, with what they are
taught to believe they can't live without.
"Here it is folks, the newest, improved, shiny, deluxe Thingamabob."
Since they don't even have the old, unimproved gadget, and they have
no hope of ever affording the new improved one, they become
frustrated. The people of West Virginia know full well that they are
just as bright as other Americans. And they know they work at least
as hard as other Americans. But something is preventing them from
enjoying the wages of their labor. They look around for someone or
something to blame. The same sneaky mass media comes sliding into
their living rooms with suggestions of whom to blame. Government!
Corrupt, bumbling, wasteful, greedy government. Always looking for
more and more taxes which they will squander. Some of these people
listen to Bernie Sanders and decide that he has the better plan. Take
back the money stolen from them by the huge, filthy rich corporations.
But whether they believe their troubles are due to big government or
big corporations, none of them are going to believe that Hillary
Clinton can lead them out of their poverty. Some will vote for
Sanders, as long as he is running. Some will vote for Trump, both in
the primary and in the general election. Some of those voting for
Bernie will vote for Trump because they do not want Clinton as
president, no how no way. I see Hillary Clinton coming out on the
short end of this deal. She definitely will lose Bernie's Left Wing
voters to the several other candidates, the Green Party and the
various Socialist and Communist Parties.
But none of it matters, since the real problem is the System, itself.
As long as we are sending brave little soldiers into the Capitalist
Fire Storm, they will be eaten alive and their bones tossed to the
side of the road.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/9/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Last month the polls had it that Sanders was running ahead of Clinton
in West Virginia by double digits. Now it is the day before the
primary election and the polls have them just about even with Sanders
just slightly ahead. Last month I just about knew why Sanders was
running ahead. It was similar to the 2012 primary when Keith Judd was
running in the West Virginia primary against Barack Obama. Judd got
forty-eight percent of the vote. Since Judd had not taken a position
on any issues whatsoever it was very unlikely that he got that many
votes because of him or what he stood for. I expect that it was
unlikely that most of his voters knew that he was running from a
prison cell in Texas either. It was a vote against Obama. Similarly,
I expect that the apparent support for Sanders in the polls does not
reflect a pro-Sanders sentiment. It is anti-Clinton. Now that the
polls indicate an about even potential vote for the both of them I
suspect that Sanders has lost ground because the voters have heard a
bit more about him. By the way, Keith Judd is now out of prison and on
campaigning.There is another name on the ballot too who is an unknown. I forget
his name right now, but he is a West Virginia lawyer who apparently
had a couple of thousand dollars lying around that he decided to blow
on the filing fee. He also has taken no positions an has done no
people, minorities and the well-educated.It will be interesting to see how these two do with the voters who
will be rejecting both Sanders and Clinton. I would expect, though,
that most of the Sanders voters who only vote for Sanders because
they are against Clinton will be very likely Trump voters.
On 5/9/2016 11:58 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
You're right about those people not crossing over to Trump, but
there are huge numbers of Bernie supporters who are discontented
with the Democratic Party and have been conditioned to behave like
Libertarians. Those are the ones I believe Trump could coax to his
side, better than Hillary.
At any rate, it shapes up to be a lively summer and fall.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have difficulty believing that the people who are drawn to Bernie
would turn to Trump as an alternative. I was up later than I should
have been on Saturday night, watching a video of a community
meeting that Bernie ran in West Virginia. It involved community
leaders talking about the issues that poor people face there, and
Bernie explaining to the large gathering of residents, how
socialist theory applied to the issues. The kind of people who are
drawn to this kind of presentation are not, I don't think, going to
turn to Trump.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:54 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Media Myth of the Working-Class
Reagan Democrats
They say that figures don't lie. But Liars can twist the polls
around to say whatever they want. What is more disturbing are the
reasons Trump supporters are giving for placing their trust in "The
Donald".
I listened to Democracy Now this morning and several Trump
Worshipers attending his rally in Lynden, Washington, gave garbled
reasons for believing that he will take care of Working Class
America. Some of the reasons were very scary.
If Hillary is counting on Bernie's supporters being forced to
support her, she may be in for a big shock. Trump is reaching out
to the angry, and disillusioned Working Class of both Parties. He
could well capture more Bernie supporters than will Clinton.
Remember, the confusion and misplaced trust among the 99% is the
making of the Corporate Media, bending to the orders of the Empire.
Sewing hatred, mistrust and self-serving among the Masses has come
home to roost. The Empire, in its desire to control and rape the
Working Class, by turning them inward upon one another, has the
consequence of creating a revolution. And the worst sort of a
revolution. It will be a Headless Explosion. Each faction,
carefully cultivated by the Empire, will blame the others for their
troubles.
And then they will turn on the government. And then, most
assuredly they will turn on the Ruling Class. Remember the French
Revolution?
Even the Russian Revolution crumbled into a dictatorship, despite
the People believing they had established a People's Government.
Out of the confusion that is swirling about our heads today, there
can be little hope for a positive outcome.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > The Media
Myth of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats
________________________________________
The Media Myth of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats By Neal
Gabler [1] / Moyers & Company [2] May 8, 2016 Now that Donald
Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, we are
likely to get all sorts of mainstream media analysis about how his
narrow pathway to Election Day victory runs through white
working-class America, the way Ronald Reagan's did, while the
presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, must corral young
high-blown.In case you haven't noticed, there is an unmistakable media bias
in this - one that was framed perfectly in a Newsweekcover story
by Evan Thomas [3] eight years ago. It was about Barack Obama's
alleged "Bubba Gap," and illustrated with a picture of arugula -
and beer. Democrats, naturally, were the arugula eaters.
This idea that Republicans are "real" Americans and Democrats
aren't is now a generation-long meme in the media, and it has had
tremendous repercussions for our politics. It used to be that
Republicans were the effete ones and Democrats the
salt-of-the-earth. Then Ronald Reagan came along and pried
working-class voters away from the Democrats - the so-called
"Reagan Democrats" - and suddenly the media reversed party roles,
deciding that America tilted right, and that Democrats were elitists.
This idea that Republicans are 'real' Americans and Democrats
aren't is now a generation-long meme in the media, and it has had
tremendous repercussions for our politics.
I have no idea who will win the election this November, but I can
pretty much assure you of this: we will be hearing an awful lot
about Trump Democrats who, like those Reagan Democrats, may
abandon the Democratic Party because they allegedly find it too
have more to gain from the system.But this is what you probably won't hear: those Reagan Democrats,angry workers blowing gaskets.
at least not as we usually think of them - urban, Rust Belt
laborers - didn't last much beyond Reagan. They were a temporary
blip who didn't realign American politics the way the media tell
us they did. Trump Democrats might be something of a myth, too - a
collaboration of the MSM and the candidate to portray him and his
party as the agents of blue-collar, middle America because it fits
the media's stereotype of
Let's get a few things out of the way when we talk about
Republican hegemony and the party's appeal to disaffected
Democrats. Yes, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and,
yes, they are dominant at the governor and state legislature
levels. This, however, is largely the product of certain
peculiarities in the American political system rather than any
great Democratic defection or love of
Republicanism: things like low turnout in local and midterm
elections among minorities and the poor, who are likely to vote
Democratic; subsequent gerrymandering of districts to benefit
Republicans; absurd disproportions in which Wyoming, with its
population of 584,000, gets the same number of senators as
California with its 39 million; and the role of money in
elections, as money generally flows more freely to Republicans
than to Democrats for the obvious reason that the GOP's benefactors
representation, counted for less than whites.If you just read newspapers and watch TV news, you would probablyRonald Reagan.
never guess that actually there are fewer self-identified
conservatives in America than there are self-identified liberals,
or that Democrats outnumber Republicans 29 percent to 26 percent
in the latest Gallup Poll [4].
These are, says Gallup, historically low figures for both parties,
but they may heavily discount Democratic identification. According
to a survey by Republic 3.0 [5], if you add in self-declared
Independents who nevertheless lean toward one party or the other,
Democrats actually constitute 45 percent of Americans, while
Republicans constitute just 33 percent. So if you have been
thinking that this is a conservative GOP country, think again.
If you just read newspapers and watch TV news, you would probably
never guess that actually there are fewer self-identified
conservatives in America than there are self-identified liberals.
Which brings us to those Reagan Democrats. As Thomas Frank wrote
in his
2004
best-seller, What's the Matter With Kansas?,the "dominant
political coalition" in America is the union of business voters
and blue-collar voters, many of the latter one-time Democrats
diverted from their economic interests by the bloody shirt of
social wedge issues from abortion to gun rights to immigration.
That was the great Republican prestidigitation. Now you see
economic distress, now you don't. And the great political
realignment that followed was laid at the foot of
But was it true? In 2006, in theQuarterly Journal of Political
Science, [6] the brilliant political scientist Larry Bartels, then
of Princeton and now at Vanderbilt University, took on this story
in a searching analysis of Frank's thesis. Looking at voting
trendlines over a 50-year period, from the
1952 presidential election of Eisenhower to the 2004 reelection of
George W.
Bush, Bartels found that there was, as Frank and pundits said, a
decline in Democratic support - roughly six percentage points; not
huge over five decades, but still significant.
But wait! That decline was among white voters without college
degrees, which was the demographic Frank chose to use. If you
include non-white voters without college degrees, Democrats
actually enjoyed a two-point increase.
You may notice that when the MSM talks about the whole
Reagan/Trump Democratic conversion, they are focusing on whites,
too, even though the share of white voters in the electorate is
falling while that of minorities is rising. Basically, it's the
media equivalent of the three-fifths compromise of the
Constitution in which slaves, for the purpose of calculating
over $100,000.Further, Bartels found that if you look at income rather than
education, the results are even more pronounced in favor of Democrats.
The percentage of low income voters going Democratic has actually
risen since the 1980s. In 2012, Barack Obama received [7] 60
percent of the votes of those with household incomes under
$50,000, roughly the American median, and only 44 percent of those
Kennedy.And here is something else Bartels discovered [6]. Nearly all thepercent.
Democratic decline among low-income white voters without college
degrees came in the
South: 10.3 percent. Outside the South, the Democratic percentages
actually increased (11.2 percent) for an overall national increase
of
4.5
Again, that is just among whites. The inescapable conclusion: Allonly be fact-providing.
those blue collar workers who are supposed to have left the
Democratic Party for Reagan and then stayed in the GOP, or who
might soon be leaving for Trump, didn't in the first case, and
aren't likely to do so in the second.
I suppose there is a reason why the MSM doesn't feel comfortable
broadcasting those numbers. Doing so would force them to label
Republicans for what they are: the party of white, rich,
disproportionately Southern folks, as opposed to the Democrats,
who are a diverse party racially and economically. When put that
way, it inevitably sounds like the media are taking sides, even
though it would
This isn't to say that in 1980, when it came to union households,troglodytes.
Reagan didn't cut seriously into the lead Carter had over Ford in
1976. And he made some inroads into the working class as defined
by income as well. But the real story of the so-called post-Reagan
Republican tilt is that white Southerners, who had long been
departing the Democratic Party, until one of their own, Carter,
stanched the flow in 1976, were the primary defectors.
And presumably they were leaving not over economics but over race.
That's another story neither the MSM nor the Republicans are eager
to tell because it makes the GOP out to be overly dependent on
racist
For the MSM to tell the truth this way would, again, seem to beOK.
picking on Republican salt-of-the-earth rank and file, and the MSM
won't risk doing that. Picking on allegedly Democratic elitists?
That's
None of this is to say that Trump won't attract lots of angry,
white working-class voters. It isto say that it's highly unlikely
he will draw many working-class voters away from the Democrats, in
large part because there probably aren't a whole lot of white
Democratic votes left in the South to take away, and because most
blue-collar workers still identify with the Democratic Party. So
get ready to hear about all those angry, blue-collar white guys
who love Trump and might hand him the election. But when you do,
remember this: Democrats drink beer too, even though the MSM has
you thinking they're all sipping chablis as they munch their arugula.
Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA
TImes Book Prizes, Time magazine's non-fiction book of the year,
USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a
senior fellow at the Lear Center for the Study of Entertainment
and Society and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward
people, minorities and the well-educated.Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8]
[9]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/media-myth-working-class-rea
gan-
democr
ats
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/neal-gabler
[2] http://billmoyers.com/
[3] http://www.newsweek.com/cover-story-obamas-bubba-gap-86197
[4]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identifica
tion
-near-
historical-lows.aspx
[5] http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent-voter-stefan-hankin/
[6] https://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebartels/kansasqjps06.pdf
[7]
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted
/how
-group
s-voted-2012/
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The Media Myth
of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats [9] http://www.alternet.org/
[10] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > The Media
Myth of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats
The Media Myth of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats By Neal
Gabler [1] / Moyers & Company [2] May 8, 2016 Now that Donald
Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, we are
likely to get all sorts of mainstream media analysis about how his
narrow pathway to Election Day victory runs through white
working-class America, the way Ronald Reagan's did, while the
presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, must corral young
high-blown.In case you haven't noticed, there is an unmistakable media bias
in this - one that was framed perfectly in a Newsweekcover story
by Evan Thomas [3] eight years ago. It was about Barack Obama's
alleged "Bubba Gap," and illustrated with a picture of arugula -
and beer. Democrats, naturally, were the arugula eaters.
This idea that Republicans are "real" Americans and Democrats
aren't is now a generation-long meme in the media, and it has had
tremendous repercussions for our politics. It used to be that
Republicans were the effete ones and Democrats the
salt-of-the-earth. Then Ronald Reagan came along and pried
working-class voters away from the Democrats - the so-called
"Reagan Democrats" - and suddenly the media reversed party roles,
deciding that America tilted right, and that Democrats were elitists.
This idea that Republicans are 'real' Americans and Democrats
aren't is now a generation-long meme in the media, and it has had
tremendous repercussions for our politics.
I have no idea who will win the election this November, but I can
pretty much assure you of this: we will be hearing an awful lot
about Trump Democrats who, like those Reagan Democrats, may
abandon the Democratic Party because they allegedly find it too
have more to gain from the system.But this is what you probably won't hear: those Reagan Democrats,angry workers blowing gaskets.
at least not as we usually think of them - urban, Rust Belt
laborers - didn't last much beyond Reagan. They were a temporary
blip who didn't realign American politics the way the media tell
us they did. Trump Democrats might be something of a myth, too - a
collaboration of the MSM and the candidate to portray him and his
party as the agents of blue-collar, middle America because it fits
the media's stereotype of
Let's get a few things out of the way when we talk about
Republican hegemony and the party's appeal to disaffected
Democrats. Yes, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and,
yes, they are dominant at the governor and state legislature
levels. This, however, is largely the product of certain
peculiarities in the American political system rather than any
great Democratic defection or love of
Republicanism: things like low turnout in local and midterm
elections among minorities and the poor, who are likely to vote
Democratic; subsequent gerrymandering of districts to benefit
Republicans; absurd disproportions in which Wyoming, with its
population of 584,000, gets the same number of senators as
California with its 39 million; and the role of money in
elections, as money generally flows more freely to Republicans
than to Democrats for the obvious reason that the GOP's benefactors
representation, counted for less than whites.If you just read newspapers and watch TV news, you would probablyRonald Reagan.
never guess that actually there are fewer self-identified
conservatives in America than there are self-identified liberals,
or that Democrats outnumber Republicans 29 percent to 26 percent
in the latest Gallup Poll [4].
These are, says Gallup, historically low figures for both parties,
but they may heavily discount Democratic identification. According
to a survey by Republic 3.0 [5], if you add in self-declared
Independents who nevertheless lean toward one party or the other,
Democrats actually constitute 45 percent of Americans, while
Republicans constitute just 33 percent. So if you have been
thinking that this is a conservative GOP country, think again.
If you just read newspapers and watch TV news, you would probably
never guess that actually there are fewer self-identified
conservatives in America than there are self-identified liberals.
Which brings us to those Reagan Democrats. As Thomas Frank wrote
in his
2004
best-seller, What's the Matter With Kansas?,the "dominant
political coalition" in America is the union of business voters
and blue-collar voters, many of the latter one-time Democrats
diverted from their economic interests by the bloody shirt of
social wedge issues from abortion to gun rights to immigration.
That was the great Republican prestidigitation. Now you see
economic distress, now you don't. And the great political
realignment that followed was laid at the foot of
But was it true? In 2006, in theQuarterly Journal of Political
Science, [6] the brilliant political scientist Larry Bartels, then
of Princeton and now at Vanderbilt University, took on this story
in a searching analysis of Frank's thesis. Looking at voting
trendlines over a 50-year period, from the
1952 presidential election of Eisenhower to the 2004 reelection of
George W.
Bush, Bartels found that there was, as Frank and pundits said, a
decline in Democratic support - roughly six percentage points; not
huge over five decades, but still significant.
But wait! That decline was among white voters without college
degrees, which was the demographic Frank chose to use. If you
include non-white voters without college degrees, Democrats
actually enjoyed a two-point increase.
You may notice that when the MSM talks about the whole
Reagan/Trump Democratic conversion, they are focusing on whites,
too, even though the share of white voters in the electorate is
falling while that of minorities is rising. Basically, it's the
media equivalent of the three-fifths compromise of the
Constitution in which slaves, for the purpose of calculating
over $100,000.Further, Bartels found that if you look at income rather than
education, the results are even more pronounced in favor of Democrats.
The percentage of low income voters going Democratic has actually
risen since the 1980s. In 2012, Barack Obama received [7] 60
percent of the votes of those with household incomes under
$50,000, roughly the American median, and only 44 percent of those
Kennedy.And here is something else Bartels discovered [6]. Nearly all thepercent.
Democratic decline among low-income white voters without college
degrees came in the
South: 10.3 percent. Outside the South, the Democratic percentages
actually increased (11.2 percent) for an overall national increase
of
4.5
Again, that is just among whites. The inescapable conclusion: Allonly be fact-providing.
those blue collar workers who are supposed to have left the
Democratic Party for Reagan and then stayed in the GOP, or who
might soon be leaving for Trump, didn't in the first case, and
aren't likely to do so in the second.
I suppose there is a reason why the MSM doesn't feel comfortable
broadcasting those numbers. Doing so would force them to label
Republicans for what they are: the party of white, rich,
disproportionately Southern folks, as opposed to the Democrats,
who are a diverse party racially and economically. When put that
way, it inevitably sounds like the media are taking sides, even
though it would
This isn't to say that in 1980, when it came to union households,troglodytes.
Reagan didn't cut seriously into the lead Carter had over Ford in
1976. And he made some inroads into the working class as defined
by income as well. But the real story of the so-called post-Reagan
Republican tilt is that white Southerners, who had long been
departing the Democratic Party, until one of their own, Carter,
stanched the flow in 1976, were the primary defectors.
And presumably they were leaving not over economics but over race.
That's another story neither the MSM nor the Republicans are eager
to tell because it makes the GOP out to be overly dependent on
racist
For the MSM to tell the truth this way would, again, seem to beOK.
picking on Republican salt-of-the-earth rank and file, and the MSM
won't risk doing that. Picking on allegedly Democratic elitists?
That's
None of this is to say that Trump won't attract lots of angry,
white working-class voters. It isto say that it's highly unlikely
he will draw many working-class voters away from the Democrats, in
large part because there probably aren't a whole lot of white
Democratic votes left in the South to take away, and because most
blue-collar workers still identify with the Democratic Party. So
get ready to hear about all those angry, blue-collar white guys
who love Trump and might hand him the election. But when you do,
remember this: Democrats drink beer too, even though the MSM has
you thinking they're all sipping chablis as they munch their arugula.
Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA
TImes Book Prizes, Time magazine's non-fiction book of the year,
USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a
senior fellow at the Lear Center for the Study of Entertainment
and Society and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8] Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.[9]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/media-myth-working-class-rea
gan-
democr
ats
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/neal-gabler
[2] http://billmoyers.com/
[3] http://www.newsweek.com/cover-story-obamas-bubba-gap-86197
[4]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identifica
tion
-near-
historical-lows.aspx
[5] http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent-voter-stefan-hankin/
[6] https://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebartels/kansasqjps06.pdf
[7]
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted
/how
-group
s-voted-2012/
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The Media Myth
of the Working-Class Reagan Democrats [9] http://www.alternet.org/
[10] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
