This example of Sanders speaking frankly about phasing out coal, may
be an excellent example of why practiced politicians learn to talk out
of both sides of their mouth, at the same time.
But despite some serious reservations with Sanders, especially is
positions on War and Killing, I do appreciate his more open and frank
discussions. He could challenge people's minds, if they were so
disposed, or if they still have minds to challenge. But I've heard
the instant defensive anger and the wild verbal abuse spewed at
Sanders as he states the obvious reasons for the mess we've gotten
into. Too many Americans have replaced listening and thinking with
emotional reaction. The Empire's Media has done its work well.
People have become disoriented, confused and led down the road by the
Empire's Pied Pipers, to the point of total disconnect with reality.
Out of confusion comes a sense of helplessness, and out of
helplessness comes anger and the need to strike out. It is
Understanding that is the beginning of Peace. Communication, the
process of open minded people listening to, and respecting one another
that leads to hope for a better world.
How far down this Broad Road to Hell will we go before we realize that
it is the road to destruction?
Carl Jarvis
On 5/9/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. It
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 supervised release and is on the ballot again.
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 campaigning.
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 Mythangry workers blowing gaskets.
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 people, minorities and the well-educated.
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 high-blown.
But this is what you probably won't hear: those Reagan Democrats, 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 RepublicanRonald Reagan.
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 have more to gain from the system.
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, 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 Politicalpercent.
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 representation, counted for less than whites.
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 over $100,000.
And here is something else Bartels discovered [6]. Nearly all the
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, whiteangry workers blowing gaskets.
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 Kennedy.
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-reagan-
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-identification
-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 people, minorities and the well-educated.
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 high-blown.
But this is what you probably won't hear: those Reagan Democrats, 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 RepublicanRonald Reagan.
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 have more to gain from the system.
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, 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 Politicalpercent.
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 representation, counted for less than whites.
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 over $100,000.
And here is something else Bartels discovered [6]. Nearly all the
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 Kennedy.
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-reagan-
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-identification
-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
