Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Kids these days....
Washington (AP) - Whither the youth vote? A year after backing Barack Obama by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are quickly cooling toward Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to-29-year-olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 -- including high numbers of first-timers, minorities and youths -- are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed -- from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
During the presidential election, turnout among 18-to-29 year olds was the highest in years, making up roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.
That percentage, however, dropped by half for the gubernatorial races in those states last November where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults were also the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.
"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president -- and, perhaps, with politics itself."
Democrats saw evidence of this last November, when Republicans toppled Democrats from power in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Young, minority and new voters who Obama pulled into the fold in 2008 didn't turn out at the same levels for the two Democratic candidates. The same thing happened in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.
The lesson: Neither party has a hold on 18-to-29 year olds. They tend to vote far less than other age groups, yet they have proven to be a powerful constituency if they are persuaded to vote. And that means the race is on by both Republicans and Democrats to make inroads into the next generation of voters.
Analysts say the findings reflect the fast pace at which young voters live their lives, and both parties should take note of their fickleness.
"If you don't respond to their needs, hopes or dreams quickly, they're gone," said Matthew Dowd, an independent political analyst who was a strategist in former President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. "They'll leave the playing field or switch their allegiance."
"They haven't become Republicans and they aren't solid Democrats. They're just looking for leaders who are where they are and will deliver," Dowd said. "Both parties have to be cognizant of the volatility of that group."
According to the Pew survey, large numbers of young adults said they personally liked the president but were dissatisfied with his rate of progress in changing Washington, such as improving the economy and fixing health care. Just 46 percent of 18-to-29 year olds said they believed Obama had changed Washington, compared to 48 percent who said he had not. Only baby boomers were more cynical, with 52 percent saying Obama had not changed the way things work in Washington.
The young adults also were the only age group in which more disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. Only 34 percent supported his decision in December to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the region, while 50 percent disapproved.
Still, when asked why Obama hadn't done more to bring change, young adults were somewhat forgiving, with about 56 percent blaming the president's opponents and special interests; only 30 percent said Obama was the one at fault for not trying hard enough.
The findings are part of Pew's broad portrait of the so-called millennial generation, the children of baby boomers who came of age in the new millennium. Demographers believe this generation can reshape U.S. culture and politics because of their demographic size and political outlook.
Making up nearly one-fourth of U.S. voters, 18-to-29 year olds are less religious, more racially diverse and liberal on social issues such as gay rights. They are steeped in digital technology and social media, and are strong believers in the view that the government should do more to solve problems.
For example:
--Nearly two-thirds admit to texting while driving, and more than 8 in 10 sleep with their cell phones by their bed.
--Nearly 4 in 10 have at least one tattoo; about half of those people have two to five tattoos. Roughly 1 in 4 have a body piercing in a place other than an earlobe -- six times the share of older adults.
--About 37 percent of young adults are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. A record share -- 39.6 percent -- was enrolled in college, and one in 8 millennials ages 22 and older say they had "boomeranged" back into their parents' home because of the recession.
The Pew survey is based on interviews with 2,020 adults by cell phone or landline from Jan. 14 to 27. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents, higher for subgroups.
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to-29-year-olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 -- including high numbers of first-timers, minorities and youths -- are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed -- from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
During the presidential election, turnout among 18-to-29 year olds was the highest in years, making up roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.
That percentage, however, dropped by half for the gubernatorial races in those states last November where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults were also the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.
"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president -- and, perhaps, with politics itself."
Democrats saw evidence of this last November, when Republicans toppled Democrats from power in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Young, minority and new voters who Obama pulled into the fold in 2008 didn't turn out at the same levels for the two Democratic candidates. The same thing happened in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.
The lesson: Neither party has a hold on 18-to-29 year olds. They tend to vote far less than other age groups, yet they have proven to be a powerful constituency if they are persuaded to vote. And that means the race is on by both Republicans and Democrats to make inroads into the next generation of voters.
Analysts say the findings reflect the fast pace at which young voters live their lives, and both parties should take note of their fickleness.
"If you don't respond to their needs, hopes or dreams quickly, they're gone," said Matthew Dowd, an independent political analyst who was a strategist in former President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. "They'll leave the playing field or switch their allegiance."
"They haven't become Republicans and they aren't solid Democrats. They're just looking for leaders who are where they are and will deliver," Dowd said. "Both parties have to be cognizant of the volatility of that group."
According to the Pew survey, large numbers of young adults said they personally liked the president but were dissatisfied with his rate of progress in changing Washington, such as improving the economy and fixing health care. Just 46 percent of 18-to-29 year olds said they believed Obama had changed Washington, compared to 48 percent who said he had not. Only baby boomers were more cynical, with 52 percent saying Obama had not changed the way things work in Washington.
The young adults also were the only age group in which more disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. Only 34 percent supported his decision in December to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the region, while 50 percent disapproved.
Still, when asked why Obama hadn't done more to bring change, young adults were somewhat forgiving, with about 56 percent blaming the president's opponents and special interests; only 30 percent said Obama was the one at fault for not trying hard enough.
The findings are part of Pew's broad portrait of the so-called millennial generation, the children of baby boomers who came of age in the new millennium. Demographers believe this generation can reshape U.S. culture and politics because of their demographic size and political outlook.
Making up nearly one-fourth of U.S. voters, 18-to-29 year olds are less religious, more racially diverse and liberal on social issues such as gay rights. They are steeped in digital technology and social media, and are strong believers in the view that the government should do more to solve problems.
For example:
--Nearly two-thirds admit to texting while driving, and more than 8 in 10 sleep with their cell phones by their bed.
--Nearly 4 in 10 have at least one tattoo; about half of those people have two to five tattoos. Roughly 1 in 4 have a body piercing in a place other than an earlobe -- six times the share of older adults.
--About 37 percent of young adults are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. A record share -- 39.6 percent -- was enrolled in college, and one in 8 millennials ages 22 and older say they had "boomeranged" back into their parents' home because of the recession.
The Pew survey is based on interviews with 2,020 adults by cell phone or landline from Jan. 14 to 27. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents, higher for subgroups.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Bum Bot
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/167062/april-24-2008/difference-makers---bumbot
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Brown is not a traitor..
A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly, his sly whispers rustling through all the alley’s, heard in the very halls of government itself, for the traitor appears not a traitor, he speaks in accents familiar to his victims and he wears their face and their arguments. He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C.
I cant wait to hear the squalid right complain about this guy. Scott Brown voted on a bill representing Assachusets. He voted the way the majority of his State would want him to. Yeah, the jobs bill is BS, but you're supposed to vote the way the people TELL YOU TO. He had no other choice. If this makes Glenn Beck angry, then he should not have a problem with Obama forcing his agenda on a national level, because Scott Brown had only one choice, and that was to vote for this Bill to keep his ass alive to run in 2012.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
No Bias?
Surveys over the past 30 years have consistently found top journalists are much more liberal than the rest of America. At the same time, public opinion polls show Americans see the media as politically biased, inaccurate and an obstacle to solving society’s problems. The numbers document a credibility crisis for journalism that only a swift move towards professionalism and fairness can fix.
http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/JournalistsAdmittingLiberalBiasPartOne.aspx
WHAT JOURNALISTS THINK
■ The American Society of Newspaper Editors found self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms by a four-to-one margin, 61% vs. 15%.
■ Most newspaper editors (71%) admit journalists’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence coverage, vs. just one percent who say that “never” happens.
■ A 1995 Pew Research Center survey of journalists found 48% thought there had been “too little” coverage of Bill Clinton’s achievements, vs. two percent who saw “too much” coverage. The same survey in 2004 found most national journalists (55%) thought the media were “not critical enough” of George W. Bush, vs. just 8% who thought the media were “too critical” of Bush.
■ Nearly all of the media elite (97%) agree “it is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,” with five out of six (84%) strongly agreeing with this statement.
HOW JOURNALISTS VOTE
■ More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
■ More than three-fourths of “elite journalists” (76%) said they voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988.
■ 89% of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
■ An informal survey of Washington-based journalists in the summer of 2004 found them backing John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.
■ In 2008, 96% of staffers at the online Slate magazine said they were supporting Barack Obama for president.
WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT BIAS
■ In every presidential election since 1992, most Americans saw the media as backing the Democrats. In 2008, 70% of Americans said journalists wanted Barack Obama to win, vs. nine percent who felt the media favored John McCain.
■ Every year from 2001 through 2009, Gallup found roughly three times more Americans said the media are too liberal vs. those who claimed a pro-conservative bias.
■ Nearly nine out of ten Americans (87%) “strongly or somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion.”
■ A 2007 Harvard survey found 84% believe the news media have too much influence on voters’ decisions.
■ 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions.
■ Just 29% of Americans think news organizations get their facts straight, and only 18% say the media are fair.
■ Nearly nine out of ten Americans (89%) think reporters “often” or “sometimes” let their own political preferences influence the way they report the news.
http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/JournalistsAdmittingLiberalBiasPartOne.aspx
WHAT JOURNALISTS THINK
■ The American Society of Newspaper Editors found self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms by a four-to-one margin, 61% vs. 15%.
■ Most newspaper editors (71%) admit journalists’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence coverage, vs. just one percent who say that “never” happens.
■ A 1995 Pew Research Center survey of journalists found 48% thought there had been “too little” coverage of Bill Clinton’s achievements, vs. two percent who saw “too much” coverage. The same survey in 2004 found most national journalists (55%) thought the media were “not critical enough” of George W. Bush, vs. just 8% who thought the media were “too critical” of Bush.
■ Nearly all of the media elite (97%) agree “it is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,” with five out of six (84%) strongly agreeing with this statement.
HOW JOURNALISTS VOTE
■ More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
■ More than three-fourths of “elite journalists” (76%) said they voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988.
■ 89% of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
■ An informal survey of Washington-based journalists in the summer of 2004 found them backing John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.
■ In 2008, 96% of staffers at the online Slate magazine said they were supporting Barack Obama for president.
WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT BIAS
■ In every presidential election since 1992, most Americans saw the media as backing the Democrats. In 2008, 70% of Americans said journalists wanted Barack Obama to win, vs. nine percent who felt the media favored John McCain.
■ Every year from 2001 through 2009, Gallup found roughly three times more Americans said the media are too liberal vs. those who claimed a pro-conservative bias.
■ Nearly nine out of ten Americans (87%) “strongly or somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion.”
■ A 2007 Harvard survey found 84% believe the news media have too much influence on voters’ decisions.
■ 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions.
■ Just 29% of Americans think news organizations get their facts straight, and only 18% say the media are fair.
■ Nearly nine out of ten Americans (89%) think reporters “often” or “sometimes” let their own political preferences influence the way they report the news.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Death by a thousand cuts...
Check out this article from one of the destroyers of Err Amerkia:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145460/air_america_radio%2C_rip_--_it_didn%27t_have_to_be_this_way/?page=entire
The former CEO of Air America, Danny Goldberg, has been kind enough to provide us with some comedy entertainment in an article, Air America Radio, RIP -- It Didn't Have to Be This Way. Actually, Danny, it did have to be that way due to those market forces at work that you castigate. However, we all owe you a vote of thanks for coming up with several incredibly lame but laughable excuses to explain away the failure of Air America in particular and "progressive talk radio" in general.
First the donor quality excuse:
Democracy Radio folded in 2006 as a result of a lack of financial support from progressive donors.
Some blame bad management for the failure of both Air America and Democracy Radio, and since I spent one unhappy year midway through Air America's life as its CEO I suppose I am one of a dozen or so who are in that category. But if progressives really wanted to address talk radio they could have started competing companies with different management. Instead, most of the monied progressive community did the opposite of their conservative counterparts and bought into the notion that media should stand or fall based on media market forces.
Um...actually there were no conservative donors. Conservative talk radio shows in the beggining were based entirely on "media market forces." And now for some more blame placed on liberal donors:
Perhaps the major liberal donors are confused because they became accustomed to focus groups and polling, which are useful tools in predicting short-term public reaction to political messages. They can tell you if a particular TV spot will turn off swing voters two weeks before an election. But long-term political ideas have a more complex and uncertain creative path. Conservatives understand the need to focus on both long- and short-term political communication. Or maybe media advisers and consultants who advise labor unions and an assortment of progressive groups on media strategy are culturally uncomfortable with the crude language of AM talk radio and other mass culture, or are nervous about losing control of their "message."
Oh, yes. Liberal donors are somehow too refined to understand the "crude language of AM talk radio." Not too condescending of an attitude there, eh Danny?
Here is Goldberg getting a bit closer to the ugly truth of the success of conservative talk radio in stark contrast to the utter failure of their "progressive" counterparts:
Rush Limbaugh was able to use his considerable broadcasting skills to attract millions of them as an audience and revive the economic fortunes of AM radio stations around the country.
...Many of the radio executives who programmed the right-wing radio stations and produced the shows did not agree with their politics, but like most business people, they gravitated to the easiest path to make the most money the quickest. These radio people understandably were not going to be motivated by an ideological agenda, even one they agreed with. But activists and public interest groups are supposed to be motivated by ideology.
GASP! You mean radio execs were motivated by profit? How dare they not volunteer to lose money by continuing to broadcast radio shows like Mario Cuomo and Jim Hightower!
And now Goldberg cries us a river over the pressure created by profits:
The pressure from wealthy liberals was not to create a long-term strategy as conservatives had done, but to show a business model that would turn a profit in a year or two.
Hmm... And wasn't Rush Limbaugh turning a profit in much less than "a year or two?" Perhaps we should give Cuomo and Hightower yet more time to hone their "incredible" radio skills?
Thus, several ill-fated iterations of Air America were driven by delusional projections of traditional business viability. Consequently they misled themselves and staff regarding what resources would be available and then inflicted onerous cuts on a business that was already underfunded.
Underfunded? If the Air America hosts had attracted a large radio audience, the advertising revenues generated would have prevented that situation. Unfortunately for Air America they were almost entirely dependent upon liberal donors whose ATMs had a limited lifespan.
One final Goldberg blast at those "cruel" market forces that doomed Air America:
"Thom Hartmann, Bill Press, Randy Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Ron Reagan and many other liberal radio survivors deserve all the credit in the world for their resourcefulness and their commitment. But the broader progressive community should not be leaving them to a Darwinian world..."
Puh-leeze.
In other news, tabloids outsell scholarly journals, beer outsells wine, and "Real Housewives" outsells "Masterpiece Theater."
Commercially successful AM talk radio has always been about putting on a cheap, pro-wrestling-style spectacle. The medium is tailor-made for Red State sensibilities. Nuanced rational discourse? Not so much. NPR exists in every major Red State city, and that's where 'progressives' go, or FM,IPOD, etc....
http://www.alternet.org/story/145460/air_america_radio%2C_rip_--_it_didn%27t_have_to_be_this_way/?page=entire
The former CEO of Air America, Danny Goldberg, has been kind enough to provide us with some comedy entertainment in an article, Air America Radio, RIP -- It Didn't Have to Be This Way. Actually, Danny, it did have to be that way due to those market forces at work that you castigate. However, we all owe you a vote of thanks for coming up with several incredibly lame but laughable excuses to explain away the failure of Air America in particular and "progressive talk radio" in general.
First the donor quality excuse:
Democracy Radio folded in 2006 as a result of a lack of financial support from progressive donors.
Some blame bad management for the failure of both Air America and Democracy Radio, and since I spent one unhappy year midway through Air America's life as its CEO I suppose I am one of a dozen or so who are in that category. But if progressives really wanted to address talk radio they could have started competing companies with different management. Instead, most of the monied progressive community did the opposite of their conservative counterparts and bought into the notion that media should stand or fall based on media market forces.
Um...actually there were no conservative donors. Conservative talk radio shows in the beggining were based entirely on "media market forces." And now for some more blame placed on liberal donors:
Perhaps the major liberal donors are confused because they became accustomed to focus groups and polling, which are useful tools in predicting short-term public reaction to political messages. They can tell you if a particular TV spot will turn off swing voters two weeks before an election. But long-term political ideas have a more complex and uncertain creative path. Conservatives understand the need to focus on both long- and short-term political communication. Or maybe media advisers and consultants who advise labor unions and an assortment of progressive groups on media strategy are culturally uncomfortable with the crude language of AM talk radio and other mass culture, or are nervous about losing control of their "message."
Oh, yes. Liberal donors are somehow too refined to understand the "crude language of AM talk radio." Not too condescending of an attitude there, eh Danny?
Here is Goldberg getting a bit closer to the ugly truth of the success of conservative talk radio in stark contrast to the utter failure of their "progressive" counterparts:
Rush Limbaugh was able to use his considerable broadcasting skills to attract millions of them as an audience and revive the economic fortunes of AM radio stations around the country.
...Many of the radio executives who programmed the right-wing radio stations and produced the shows did not agree with their politics, but like most business people, they gravitated to the easiest path to make the most money the quickest. These radio people understandably were not going to be motivated by an ideological agenda, even one they agreed with. But activists and public interest groups are supposed to be motivated by ideology.
GASP! You mean radio execs were motivated by profit? How dare they not volunteer to lose money by continuing to broadcast radio shows like Mario Cuomo and Jim Hightower!
And now Goldberg cries us a river over the pressure created by profits:
The pressure from wealthy liberals was not to create a long-term strategy as conservatives had done, but to show a business model that would turn a profit in a year or two.
Hmm... And wasn't Rush Limbaugh turning a profit in much less than "a year or two?" Perhaps we should give Cuomo and Hightower yet more time to hone their "incredible" radio skills?
Thus, several ill-fated iterations of Air America were driven by delusional projections of traditional business viability. Consequently they misled themselves and staff regarding what resources would be available and then inflicted onerous cuts on a business that was already underfunded.
Underfunded? If the Air America hosts had attracted a large radio audience, the advertising revenues generated would have prevented that situation. Unfortunately for Air America they were almost entirely dependent upon liberal donors whose ATMs had a limited lifespan.
One final Goldberg blast at those "cruel" market forces that doomed Air America:
"Thom Hartmann, Bill Press, Randy Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Ron Reagan and many other liberal radio survivors deserve all the credit in the world for their resourcefulness and their commitment. But the broader progressive community should not be leaving them to a Darwinian world..."
Puh-leeze.
In other news, tabloids outsell scholarly journals, beer outsells wine, and "Real Housewives" outsells "Masterpiece Theater."
Commercially successful AM talk radio has always been about putting on a cheap, pro-wrestling-style spectacle. The medium is tailor-made for Red State sensibilities. Nuanced rational discourse? Not so much. NPR exists in every major Red State city, and that's where 'progressives' go, or FM,IPOD, etc....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)