independentsforkerry.org

In many respects, the demographic profile of Democrats nationwide is similar to what it was in 2008, according to a new Gallup poll, although Democrats have become somewhat less white and more liberal than the party that nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate that year.

As a group, Democrats are more likely than average to be women, less likely to be religious or married, much less likely to be conservative, and much more likely to be liberal than the U.S. population as a whole. Democrats remain decidedly more female on average than the national population, with little significant change in this pattern over the last three years. This contrasts with the male skew in the Republican Party rank-and-file.

Perhaps the most significant change in the composition of Democrats between 2008 and today is the two-point increase, from 35% to 37%, in the percentage describing their political views as “liberal.”

Gallup: These results are based on a special Gallup analysis of the demographic and ideological composition of the U.S. population today (based on Gallup Daily tracking from June-August 2011) versus the start of 2008 presidential election campaign (from January-March). This is a follow-up to Gallup’s earlier piece on the composition of the Republican rank-and-file.

For this analysis, the Democratic population is defined as those who either identify as Democrats or who identify as independents but say they lean toward the Democratic Party. Between the start of 2008 and today, the percentage of Americans identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic has fallen from 50% to 43%. The percentage identifying as Republicans has risen from 37% to 40%, while the percentage of “pure” independents who do not lean toward either party has gone from 12% to 15%. The years 2006-2009 were recent high points in net Democratic affiliation, whereas the current figures showing a close split between Democrats (43%) and Republicans (40%) are more in line with the pattern that was in place between 2001 and 2004.

Key differences between Democrats and U.S. adults nationally, and changes since 2008, include:

1. Perhaps the most significant change in the composition of Democrats between 2008 and today is the two-point increase, from 35% to 37%, in the percentage describing their political views as “liberal.” This occurred at a time when the country as a whole became slightly more conservative, thus expanding the political gap between Democrats and the rest of the U.S.

The change coincides with the decline in Democratic affiliation in recent years, and it may be that moderate or conservative Americans were less well-attached to the Democratic Party and were the first to shift their allegiance — thus leaving a higher concentration of political liberals among those who continue to align with the party.

2. The racial and ethnic composition of the Democratic Party has also changed slightly. The proportion of Democrats who identify their race as black grew by three percentage points, from 16% to 19%, over the last three years, while the proportion that is white (non-Hispanic) fell by three points, from 66% to 63%. This contrasts with a smaller one-point increase in blacks and two-point decrease in whites nationally.

The percentage of Democrats who are Hispanic rose by two percentage points, from 12% to 14%, identical to the increase among all Americans.

3. Democrats remain less likely to attend church weekly and more likely to seldom or never attend church than the national average. The slight two-point decrease in Democrats who attend church weekly is similar to the one-point decrease in the national adult sample.

4. The proportion of Democrats who are Catholic or who identify with a non-Christian religion declined slightly between 2008 and 2011, while the percentage not identifying with any faith increased by four percentage points. The same trends are seen nationally, although they are less pronounced. In general, Democrats are slightly more likely than the national average to have no specific religious identity.

5. There has been little change in the composition of Democrats along age and gender lines. The percentage of the total national adult sample and the sample of Democrats in the 18 to 29 age group has increased slightly over the last three years. The percentage in the 30 to 49 age range has decreased in both groups. Young adults continue to make up a slightly greater proportion of the Democratic base than of the overall population.

Democrats remain decidedly more female on average than the national population, with little significant change in this pattern over the last three years. This contrasts with the male skew in the Republican Party rank-and-file.

6. Democrats are significantly less likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be married, as was true in 2008. The percentage of adults in the U.S. population who are married has dropped since 2008, as has the percentage of Democrats who are married — each by a similar amount.

7. Democrats are now slightly more likely than the national population to be college educated, although the differences are not large. The percentage of Democrats who are college educated has risen from 30% in 2008 to 32% today. The college-educated percentage in the national population rose by one point over the same period.

Bottom Line

Gallup finds relatively little change in the demographic composition of either major party’s supporters since 2008, even though the nation has become less Democratic, and more Republican and independent overall. All in all, Democrats remain decidedly less white, more female, more liberal, less religious, and less likely to be married than the general population.

Liberals and nonwhites have come to make up a slightly greater percentage of the Democratic base since 2008, perhaps indicating that the decline in Democratic affiliation since 2009 was proportionately greater among conservatives and whites.

The 2012 elections will thus likely show the same demographic voting patterns that prevailed in 2008, and that in many cases have been evident in presidential elections going back further in time.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Jan. 2-March 31, 2008, and June 1-Aug. 31, 2011, with random samples of more than 88,000 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults.

Democratic Blog News

But governor asserts a good record of transparency

Erik Schelzig, Associated Press

Sunday, July 3, 2011

NASHVILLE – Bill Haslam’s second executive order as governor was a pledge to promote greater transparency in Tennessee government. Almost six months into the Republican’s administration, there’s little that shows an enhanced dedication to openness.

Though aides in January touted the transparency order as a major development, that claim had already been undermined by directive No. 1 from Haslam, which scuttled requirements for the governor and his top aides to disclose the amount of their outside income.

“He got off to a rough start with that significant step back,” said Dick Williams of the advocacy group Common Cause. “It kind of stuck out like sore thumb.”

And Haslam hasn’t done much since then – either through legislation or action – to deliver improvements in openness in state government over what existed under his Democratic predecessor, Phil Bredesen.

For example, when Haslam decided to raise the salaries of 15 department heads by at least 11 percent, he didn’t see fit to inform the public or lawmakers, who only found out about the change weeks later from an Associated Press analysis of salary records.

Robert O’Connell, executive director of the Tennessee State Employees Association, said the hefty raises for Cabinet members came as a shock because other government workers were slated to receive only a 1.6 percent bump.

“It’s conceivable that they may be necessary,” O’Connell said. “But the way we had to find out that it was happening? That left state employees sort of raw.”

Haslam was asked in a recent AP interview about what he’s done to promote transparency in government. He said openness has been an overall theme he’s stressed with his top aides.

“I think we’ve done a good job of putting a lot more government open and available on the Internet,” he said. “And we’ve let all our commissioners know that if there’s information that people want, whether it’s a legislator or media person, it’s our responsibility to get it to them.

“And I think by and large we’ve done that.”

But the governor’s legal department has taken several weeks to produce public records, far longer than under his predecessor.

For example, it took four weeks to turn around a routine AP request for correspondence and records regarding Haslam’s decision to overturn Bredesen’s decision to close a privately run prison in Whiteville.

The 39 pages of material ultimately released to the AP did not contain any details from the meeting or other materials about why the million decision was reached.

They consisted mostly of constituent correspondence and planning email messages for a meeting between the governor and executives with Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America.

The TSEA, which represents workers at state-run prisons, has never received a full explanation for why Whiteville’s funding was extended, O’Connell said. The organization is troubled that there were no official records available either, he said.

“You would think that somebody somewhere would be responsible for reducing to writing what was discussed or agreed,” he said. “But an obvious method to avoid having to turn things over is to not write them down.”

Alexia Poe, Haslam’s communications director, said the governor’s office was surprised by the volume of records requests and that the legal staff was preoccupied during the session with shepherding an administration bill to cap damages from civil lawsuits through the Legislature.

Haslam acknowledged that “30 days is a long time,” and said he would look into speeding up the process.

“Maybe we need to look at how long it’s taking to get through our legal folks,” he said. “But that feels like something we can do faster.”

In Kentucky, the state is supposed to respond to a request for public records within three business days. Tennessee’s law is laxer, setting a seven-day limit to produce the documents, deny them or explain when they will be available.

Haslam’s team routinely says it must have more time to produce records, and when they are released, there isn’t much in them.

Haslam, who said during the campaign that he supported “the principle of having an open-door policy,” was made available to the Capitol Hill Press Corps less often – and for far less time – during the legislative session than was the case with Bredesen. Aides often cited the new governor’s packed schedule for the brevity of media access.

The Haslam administration also didn’t take a public position on several legislative measures seeking to restrict access to public records. Those include efforts to block 911 emergency recordings, impose fees for inspecting government documents, ease public notice rules for foreclosures and allow local governments to make parts of economic development deals confidential.

Each of those measures failed, but not because of pressure from the governor.

“He pretty much stayed out of a bunch of stuff,” said Williams, of Common Cause. “He had some major agenda issues, and he focused on those.”

via Haslam governs less than openly : Knoxville News Sentinel.

TN Democratic Party News

She won’t cast her ballot for the reality star simply because he’s her boss and they’re in the spotlight together. “I’m just not a Republican,” she says. “I’m a Democrat. I think most people have seen me that way. I’ve … Continue reading →
republican-elephant.com

Fox News gets okay to misinform public in court ruling.   

This is a 7 year old story but it explains how Fox works.

Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it…in court…positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.     We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists  (Ethics: spj.org).


A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans.      The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.


Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization.     The court reversed the 5,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.     The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.     Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.


The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.


In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.      Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.

Fox defended its right to distort and lie in court and it won.     If you know someone who gets all their news from Fox please urge them to read this.     We have great problems in our country and solving them will be hard under any set of conditions.     If groups of our citizens are being spoon fed lies then reaching solutions becomes even harder if not impossible.     If they would only mix the Fox propoganda with a little real news then their minds would start to function again.     They might even find that they prefer the truth to Fox fiction.

Why is Fox News successful?

Despite the frequent lies and distortions pushed forth by Fox News, and specifically by the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, Fox News continues to drive a plurality of viewers to its TV shows.     Why would anyone watch Fox News’ reports if they are so deceptive and misleading?

1.    A strong market for protestant-Christian views in the United States.


Where else can you go to watch criticism on evolution, and non-Christian values?      For non-stop criticism on evolution, you’d have to go to the creationist history museum.      For a more liberal twist on religion you could watch CNN bash and ridicule atheists and agnostics; but for profit, and at the expense of reason, the major news networks acknowledge that religious controversies are better fueled than ignored.      The invention of new controversies like “wars on Christmas” or whether Barack Obama is actually a practicing Muslim in disguise (and by implicit extension whether he is a terrorist or not),  generates viewership,  regardless of the merit of the fabricated story.

2.     A jingoist and elitist “journalistic” culture.

What other news network displays red, white and blue, or the U.S. flag, non-stop?     Whether the controversy is illegal immigration or the war in Iraq, no one will enrage you more than Bill O’Reilly’s tabloid journalism, regardless of whether you agree with his talking points or not.     Tabloid journalism is not new, however, the sleek computer-generated graphics and the disappointingly-intelligent, self-important commentators can capture the attention of even some well-educated viewers, who if not fooled by the misleading, fabricated, or poorly-sourced material, are accused of being or implied to be un-American through a psychological (but clearly fallacious) tactic reminiscent of 1950s McCarthyism.

The underlying message typically is, if you don’t agree with our “news” or our interpretation, then you are a traitor.    Bush said so.     We can’t afford to think otherwise.

The same group mentality is fostered by the deceptively-playful morning shows, where the participants (news anchors is not a good title,) go from one pointless or mundane story to the next, talking casually as buddies or friends, but intermittently highlighting a real or manufactured political event to inject a Christian-conservative slant on the controversy of the day.


Whether or not you agree with the content or lack thereof, it is difficult to turn off the channel.     Controversy is interesting, and tabloids sell.     But when the controversy appeals to your dogmatic and/or erroneous beliefs, your only source of semi-intelligent debate comes from the mouth of Bill O’Reilly.


In other words, if you can’t normally defend your jingoist, “Christian”, or elitist political views (because they are just wrong), Fox News provides you with the ammunition to do so.

3.    The symbiotic relationship with the Bush Administration.

Because the agendas of Fox News and the Bush administration coincide in large part, Fox News can deceive the public to enable the Bush administration, and the Bush administration can send exclusive leads to Fox News before they are made available to other networks.     Now that Bush is no more the lies and made up stories are more frequent.

4.    We are in danger all the time.

If you follow the Homeland Security terror alert (eternally present on Fox News’ news ticker), or listen to Fox News, we are constantly under attack by terrorists from Osama Bin Laden to Barack Obama and his “sugar mama”.    Fear captivates.     If Bill O’Reilly can get away with scaring old people (the plurality of his viewers are old people) into believing that Christmas is going to end this year, he will.     If he can shock Christians with indecent pictures of young actresses, or perhaps entice them to watch his show safely with the pretext of outrage, he will do that too.


For a commentator who pretends to oppose nudity and embrace Christian values, his show and others on Fox News certainly appear to do the opposite most of the time.

5.     No significant alternatives in U.S. media.

It’s not necessary to place all the blame on FOX News.    Lou Dobbs (fired from CNN and now with Fox) on CNN does plenty of fear-mongering about immigrants and the potential demise of the English language.     Or watch any presidential debate and watch the subtle manipulation via the choice and number of questions for the candidates.


Why would the choice of questions make a difference?     Well, if you consider that a network-favored candidate will receive more opportunities to clarify a statement, will receive more airtime, and will therefore be more familiar to the average voter.     Voters vote based on familiarity when not informed.     These voters influence the next set of poll results, which are not necessarily a reflection of true political preference, but rather simple name recognition.   

People who are serious about understanding politics won’t rely only any single source.    A good portion of the news we get from CNN and CBS and Fox News is much closer to entertainment than news-worthy information, and even when the information is intended as news, it is filtered, distorted and framed to be controversial, or entertaining, or to fit a point of view.    Other countries and cultures also have an influence on their national news, but it is widely acknowledged that serious international sources tend to be more neutral and objective when reporting news.


Sadly, there is less demand for accurate news than there is for thrilling-ambulance-chasing-tabloid material or news that appeals to religious and jingoist nuts.     And even if there were more demand for accurate news, most of us in this part of the world couldn’t tell the difference.

This is why Fox News is successful.

Amherst County Virginia Democratic News