Read Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal from Bookshare. It's about how the
Democratic Party chose to abandon working people at the end of the 60's and
what it has been doing ever since. Sanders, a New Deal Democrat, is
challenging the basis on which the whole Party has been organized.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 10:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Media Myth of the Working-Class Reagan
Democrats
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 Westcorporations.
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
Judd is now out of prison and on supervised release and is on the ballotBut 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
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
high-blown.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 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
representation, counted for less than whites.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 aboutRonald Reagan.
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 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 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
Sen. Edward 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
high-blown.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-re
agan-
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-identific
ation
-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-vote
d/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
representation, counted for less than whites.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 aboutRonald Reagan.
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 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 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
Sen. Edward 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
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-re
agan-
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-identific
ation
-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-vote
d/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
