Let's Do What Works and Call it Capitalism
By Dan Riker
Part II. Chapter 3. Parties and Politics in America: The Changes in America Favor Progressives
“(T)he size of the minority population is expected to increase to the point that they represent the numeric majority between 2040 and 2050.”
- US. Census Bureau Population Projections, 2009[1]
"All politics is local."
- Attributed to Tip O'Neill (D-MA), former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
"(E)very midterm for the last two decades has been inexorably nationalized. Including this one [2010]. … You would hope that by the next midterm O’Neill’s aphorism will be so obviously wrong that even highly paid political analysts won’t trot him out, even to disagree."
- Mickey Kaus, Newsweek, quoted by Andrew Gelman "All Politics is Local? The Debate and the Graphs," http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com. Jan. 3, 2011.
While change in Washington comes very slowly, the nation itself is going through a period of rapid change. We are not the nation of the World War II generation anymore. The country's population has more than doubled since 1945. At 313 million in mid 2012 – nearly 100 times larger than the population of the first census in 1790 - the United States is the third most populous country in the world after China and India.
With most immigration today coming from Asia and Latin America, ourpopulation is becoming more diverse every year. The U.S. initially was settled and populated by white Europeans, but the Census bureau projects that in about 30 years, the majority of the population will have roots elsewhere in the world. Non-Hispanic whites already are less than half the population in California, Hawaii,New Mexico and Texas. In 2011, for the first time, Hispanic and non-white births exceeded non-Hispanic white births nationwide. Today, only slightly more than 63 per cent of the population is non-Hispanic white, and since that figure includes people of Middle Eastern descent, the percentage of those of European backgrounds is slightly less.[2]
Hispanics, at nearly 17 per cent of the population today, are growing faster than any other ethnic group, and are projected to be nearly one-third of thepopulation by mid century. Blacks are about 13 per cent and that percentage is not expected to change by more than a fraction in the next 30 years. Asians,Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders and American Indians account for most of the rest, and the Asian portion, which includes immigrants from India, Pakistan andAfghanistan, is growing rapidly and expected to be close to 10 per cent by mid century.
The United States became strong because it successfully absorbed people from all cultures and made them Americans. Generation after generation of immigrants came to the United States, learned English, if they did not already speak it, found employment, and raised children, most of whom became members of the middle class. We still are going through this process. Millions of immigrants still are coming to the United States. Now many more than ever are not of European ancestry. Many of the nations they come from have political and social cultures vastly different from America's. Yet, much of the same assimilation into American culture continues to happen. It is getting more difficult, however, because our education system is struggling. Public school education in the U.S. has fallen in quality relative to many other nations. Opportunities for higher education are diminishing as the costs increase.
The United States is not the frontier society it once was. About 84 per cent of the population lives in urban and suburban areas. About 80 million – more than one fourth of the entire population - live in the fifteen largest metropolitan areas of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, Detroit, Phoenix, Seattle and Minneapolis-St. Paul. For the past 50 years the center of the nation's population has been shifting towards the southwest. Florida soon will pass New York as the third most populous state, behind California andTexas.
The median age of the population, 37, has been increasing for many years, but it probably will not get much older before it starts to decline. Twenty-seven per cent of the population – more than 80 million - are under 20 years of age, offsetting the “Baby Boom” generation – those born between 1945 and 1960 – which today may be about 50 million. The oldest Baby Boomers have begun to retire and soon will approach the average lifespan of Americans, which now are about 74 for men and 78 for women. While the Baby Boomers will have a substantial impact on social services for many years to come, for the first time, their percentage of the population is declining.
The demographics of Illinois today most closely resemble those of the nation as a whole, and Illinois has become a fairly strong “blue” state. Illinois has voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since 1988. The Governor and one of the two senators are Democrats. Twelve of the 18 members of the House of Representatives are Democrats.
Young people, minorities, recent immigrants, urban residents and women vote more for Democrats than Republicans. Because of their racist and nativist policies and attitudes, Republicans draw little support from blacks and Hispanics. The challenge for the Democrats is getting Hispanics to vote. Hispanics, which are the fastest growing ethnic group, have the lowest voter turnout of any major ethnic group.
A majority of women have voted Democratic in recent elections. The generally sexist, and specific anti-abortion and anti-birth control, policies ofRepublicans are not likely to improve their electoral performance among women, particularly younger women.
A survey of “Millenials,” the under 30 generation, in 2014, was titled “Millenials, the Politically Unclaimed Generation”[3] because more than a third described themselves as independents, and even more said they did not trust either political party. This age group is socially liberal, but has a strong economically-conservative element. Of those who identify with a political party, about two thirds are Democrats. A considerable majority of millenials vote Democratic Presidential elections, but many do not vote at all in off-year elections.
The poll showed that young people are far more socially liberal than their parents. For example, while a majority of the population now supports gay marriage, there is far greater support among younger people. There is not nearly as much racial, sexual, or religious bigotry among younger people as there is among many of middle age and older. When motivated, the youth vote can be powerful, as shown in 2008, and again in 2012. However, it must be kept motivated. Politicians supported by young people must deliver on their promises. There was a huge drop-off in the turnout of young voters between the 2008 and 2010 elections, which accounted in large part for the loss of the House of Representatives to the Republicans.[4]
White males are the only large block of voters where a majority consistently votes Republican, and that block's percentage of the population is diminishing.
Because there is not an even distribution of demographics across the country, the national government does not yet reflect the political preferences of the average American, which are more Democratic than Republican. The smallest states have as many senators as the largest. Republican Gerrymandering of the House has permitted them to elect more members to the House than they would have if there were a relatively even distribution of voters among all districts. In the 2012 Congressional elections, Republicans won more seats, but Democrats received more votes.
The most ominous development for the future of the Republican Party's ability to win national elections is the gradual shift in demographics occurring in Texas that will make what has been a safe Republican state a “battleground” state in the not-to-distant future. If Texas starts voting for Democratic Presidential candidates, it will become almost impossible for Republicans to win Presidential elections. A similar shift in that state's Congressional representation might also alter the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Such a shift probably cannot occur until Democrats control the state legislature and correct some of the Gerrymandering the Republicans have done that gave them more congressional seats than they should have.
If the current shift to the Democrats continues in states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Maine, and no apparent shift of Democratic states to the Republicans develops, the Democrats are positioned to become the nation's dominant political party in the foreseeable future. However, it is not likely to be so simple. American voters can be contrary.
Political parties select the candidates for most public offices in the United States much of the time today in primary elections when only a minority of the electorate usually vote. The number of people who identify with either the Democratic or Republican parties has been dropping. The number of people who describe themselves as independent is growing. And while the political machines that once controlled politics and government in major cities like Boston, New York, and Chicago have faded from the scene, political parties still possess enormous power even if they represent a declining percentage of the population. This is a fact that often is overlooked in modern commentary.
"(P)olitical parties perform vital functions in the American political system. They (1) manage the transfer of power, (2) offer a choice of rival candidates and programs to the voters, (3) serve as a bridge between government and people by helping to hold elected officials accountable to the voters, (4) help to recruit candidates for office, (5) may serve to reconcile conflicting interests in society, (6) staff the government and help to run it, and (7) link various branches and levels of government."[5]
The route to political power in the United States still is through political parties, and understanding their nature, and how they work today is essential to success in gaining influence and political power. And even though the parties went through major realignments in the 20th Century, the primary division remains the same one that has divided the political parties since the beginning the nation: the conflict over the nature and powers of government, particularly the federal government.
The Democratic Party, which was established by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren in 1820s, became the “big tent” party in the second half of the 19th Century and through most of the 20th Century. It had Southern whites, big city machines, some academic intellectuals, union members, recent immigrants, and, after Franklin Roosevelt's election, the black vote. Until Democrat Woodrow Wilson became President in 1913, the Party generally had opposed strengthening the national government. It had become a party of reform late in the 19thCentury when the Peoples' Party merged into it, but Wilson altered its approach to government by significantly expanding the powers of the national government.
The Democratic Party was united by history and political convenience, not by ideology. Deals were made inside the party to keep the coalition together. For example, during the New Deal, Southern Democrats supported progressive programs because segregation was not challenged. Union rights could be advanced, but so would a substantial defense budget that included military installations in the South named after Southern congressmen.
That coalition fell apart after the Voting Rights Act and the various desegregation laws were enacted in the 1960s.. The big tent still exists, but today it is almost entirely ideological, incorporating nearly all liberal and progressive movements and interest groups.
The Republican Party was created in the 1850s out of the remnants of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings. Initially, it was dominated by abolitionist sentiment, but after the Civil War it became the party of big business. In the early 20th Century, a strong progressive wing developed, with leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette. Many progressives shifted to the Democratic Party after Franklin Roosevelt was elected President in 1932, and since the 1960s nearly all “liberal” Republicans became Democrats.
In some ways, the Republican Party has become a big tent party as well, but even more ideological than the Democrats. Republicans have consolidated in their tent nearly all the most extreme right-wing political, religious and social adherents in the nation, as well as many of the libertarians. It began with Barry Goldwater's defeat of Nelson Rockefeller for control of the party in 1964. The change to the right accelerated when the “Religious Right” asserted itself in Republican politics in the 1970s in reaction to the Supreme Court school prayer and abortion decisions.
The election of conservative Ronald Reagan as President in 1980, and the considerable popularity he achieved, brought conservative blue collar Democrats into the party, gave prestige to conservative philosophy, and drove out the remaining liberal Republicans.
The Republican Party today is more ideologically pure than any party in the last 100 years. It is a virtual reincarnation of the Republican Party of the Gilded Age before it was infected by progressivism. Laissez-faire and social Darwinism dominated their policies in the late 19th Century, as they do today, and like then, today's Republicans favor big business and the wealthy. Today's reincarnation has something more than Republicans had in 1890, the Southern whites.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act he supposedly said to his aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."[6] How right he was.
In the 99 years following the end of the Civil War in 1865, nearly all the Southern states, the former states of the Confederacy, voted for Democratic Presidential candidates, with occasional individual exceptions. Of the total of 16 states won by liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson in his two landslide losses to Republican Dwight Eisenhower, in 1952 and 1956, 13 were states in the “Deep South.” The others were the border states of West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. Eighty-one of Sen. John Kennedy's 303 Electoral Votes in 1960 came from former states of the Confederacy. Southern whites topped voting Democratic once the Democratic Party became identified with desegregation and voting rights for blacks.
In 1964, Johnson, a Texan, campaigned in part on a platform supporting civil rights, but his warning that conservative Republican Barry Goldwater might start a nuclear war had the greater impact. He won the Presidential election over Goldwater by the greatest popular vote margin in American history, 61.1% to 38.5%. Other than his home state of Arizona, the only states Goldwater won were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, the states comprising what was once known as the “Black Belt” of the old South, the states that had the highest concentration of cotton plantations and slaves.
Since the Voting Rights Act was enacted all the former states of the Confederacy have voted for Republican, or third party Presidential candidates, except in the Presidential election of 1976 when former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter was elected President,
The party switch in the South has not applied just to Presidential elections. Every Southern state except Arkansas had Republican governors until a Democrat was elected in Virginia in 2013. In every Southern state, except Virginia, Republicans control both houses of the state legislatures. Republicans outnumber Democrats in both houses of Congress by more than two-to-one margins.
There seems little doubt that this dramatic change in political loyalty almost entirely is a result of the Democratic Party's support of civil rights, including desegregation and voting rights for blacks. In fact, a recent study[7] by three University of Rochester political science professors of political attitudes of 39,000 whites voters in the “Black Belt” regions of the Old South shows that Republican and conservative sympathies are strongest in those counties that had the highest concentration of slaves before the Civil War. The study's remarkable conclusion is that pre-Civil War fears by whites of black slaves, and general white racist attitudes, most intense in the areas where there were the most slaves, have been passed down through the generations, and still dominate white voting behavior in those areas. And white politicians from those areas have been especially dominant in Southern politics.
It is important to consider the ramifications of this study, and of the voting history of this region. The issue of race still dominates these states, and that makes them difficult targets for the Democrats. Even though all of these states have substantial black populations, there are large numbers of blacks who still are not registered to vote. Consequently, even though registered black voters vote in about the same percentages as registered white voters, whites vote overwhelmingly Republican and have kept these states under Republican control. That could change if more blacks were registered to vote, and there recently have been renewed voter registration efforts among blacks in the South.
The white fear of the black vote is so pervasive that it forces their political leaders into extreme actions. Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the key provision of the Civil Rights Act in 2013, several of these states immediately moved to limit black voting with various restrictions that the Justice Department, operating under the Act, previously had successfully blocked. Such actions virtually proved the case for the Act, and prompted immediate federal action to block them, under another provision of the Act that survived the Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 decision.[8]
There are some exceptions at the edges of this region. Virginia and Florida have established themselves as “purple” states, where there is an almost equal division of loyalty between the Republican and Democratic parties, and either party can win any given election. While both states had Republican governors and legislatures, they voted for Obama in the last two Presidential elections. Both have had Democratic state administrations previously, and because of low popularity of the incumbent Republicans, Virginia does again, and Florida is likely to follow.
North Carolina seemed to be moving in this direction as well when it voted for Obama in 2008 and elected a Democratic governor. However, Democratic fortunes were completely reversed in 2012 when Romney carried the Presidential race, a Republican was elected Governor, and, for the first time in the state's history, both houses of the legislature came under the control of the Republicans. Arkansas also is a state that can be in play at any particular time.
With the exceptions of Maryland and Delaware, most of the border states have become more Republican. West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri have voted Republican in the last four Presidential elections.
The Republican Party already had a solid base of conservative Midwestern and Mountain states: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah. Alaska. Arizona and Texas have voted Republican in national elections regularly for the past 30 years as well, but Texas and Arizona are undergoing rapid demographic change, and may become battleground states in the future.
Republicans have lost strength in recent years is New England. While Republicans still get elected to state offices, even occasionally winning control of state governments, Democrats generally carry the region in Presidential elections. New Hampshire went for George W. Bush in 2000, but that is the only time any New England state has gone Republican in a Presidential election since 1988.
The major bases today of the Democratic Party are in the East and the West, with a handful of the Midwestern states that have progressive histories. Like the Republicans, the Democratic base of states is fairly well defined by ideology. States with liberal leanings vote Democratic. Conservative states vote Republican. Thus, the states from Maryland to Maine have become reliably Democratic states in national elections, although not all are reliable in state elections, where the issues may be less ideological. California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii are solid for the Democrats in national elections, and Nevada and New Mexico seem to have moved into that category as well. The Midwestern states that are the most reliably Democratic in Presidential elections are Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Since 1988 the Democrats have not won fewer than 251 electoral votes in any Presidential election.
Even though the national popular vote has been fairly close overall in elections for the past 30 years, it usually is not close in very many states. Every state carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 gave him a margin greater than five percent except North Carolina. Of the states won by President Obama all but Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Virginia gave him margins of greater than five percent. At the current time, Presidential elections are being won or lost by close results in just a few important “battleground” states, representing 84 electoral votes: Ohio, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia.[9] The Presidential campaigns and supporting PACs spent huge amounts of money in these states in 2012, buying up most of the available television commercial time. Each candidate made repeated campaign trips to these states.
While the electoral vote differences in American Presidential elections more often than not are substantial, the national popular vote differences tend to be fairly close. And this is nothing new. Throughout our history, between 40 and 50 per cent of the people almost always have voted against the winning candidate. Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt were the only Presidents since Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 to receive a majority of the popular vote in more than one election. Obama's popular vote margins were relatively narrow, although his popular vote total in 2008 of 52.9 per cent was 2.1 percentage points higher than Reagan's in his first election in 1980. (But in that election that had a third party candidate, Reagan won a landslide of the Electoral votes). Reagan did better with the popular vote in his 1984 re-election, receiving 58.8 per cent of the vote, while Obama did somewhat worse in his re-election, winning 51.1 per cent in 2012.
Presidents John Kennedy (1960), Richard Nixon (1968), Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) and George W. Bush (2000) all received less than 50 per cent of the vote in those elections. Jimmy Carter received just 50.1 per cent in 1976. George W. Bush received only 50.7 per cent of the vote in his re-election in 2004, after receiving fewer popular votes than his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, in 2000, something that had not happened since President Grover Cleveland lost his re-election bid in 1888. With 49.2 per cent of the vote in 1996, Clinton tied Woodrow Wilson's percentage in 1916 as the lowest percentage of the popular vote received by any President successfully re-elected. And Clinton, Wilson and Cleveland were elected twice without receiving at least 50 per cent of the vote in either election.
While there often is criticism of the electoral vote system, its genius is in how it usually makes elections decisive, regardless of the popular vote. And this has contributed to the stability of the national government by making the transitions from one President to another peaceful and orderly. Even though there have been many close elections, the drawn-out result in 2000 was an aberration, the first time since 1876 when the results of an election were in doubt for any length of time. If there were not an electoral college, the results of very close elections might be delayed extensively. The potential for voter fraud and stolen votes would be much higher.
We often hear that elections are decided by the independents and “undecideds,” the voters who do not identify with either party, and often do not make a decision on a candidate until the last minute. For the most part, this is not true. Voters who really are independent vote in far lower percentages than those who identify with either political party, and undecideds actually have far less influence on elections than popularly believed. A number of recent studies have indicated that the undecided vote usually breaks along the lines of the vote in general.[10]
The major factor in modern American elections is the turnout of the party faithful. Whichever party gets a higher percentage of its voters to the polls usually wins. President Obama won both his elections because he had a historically large field organization that got out his vote. The turnout in his elections was higher than in any Presidential election since 1968. His field organizations, combined with enormous on-line efforts, meant the difference in crucial states like Ohio and Virginia where they exceeded those of McCain and Romney by enormous margins. But he didn't just focus on the battleground states. In Maryland, for example, a state everyone knew he was going to win overwhelmingly, there still were numerous field offices drawing in volunteers who were used in telephone banks to make calls to voters in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Many such volunteers went in weekend caravans to those two states to make door-to-door pitches. In 2000, the Bush campaign was victorious in the crucial states of Florida and in Ohio because it delivered a much higher percentage of Republican voters to the polls than did the Gore campaign with Democrats.
More “boots on the ground” than the opposition means victory in elections. The days of political machines delivering the winning votes are long gone. There are no machines in the suburbs, and virtually none of any substantial influence left in most cities. Political party organizations in many parts of the country often do not have many members, or much money. It is not difficult for an organized group to achieve significant influence in local political parties and gain significant influence over the selection, or the support, of candidates.
Campaign finance reform laws limited the amount of money political parties could provide to candidates, but the Citizens United, and other Supreme Court decisions, blocked limits on corporate and individual spending on elections. Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate and wealthy individuals have changed the complexion of elections, particularly the selection of candidates, so far, mostly in the Republican party. Tea Party groups, funded by the Koch Brothers and other wealthy individuals, have been successful in taking control of many local Republican organizations, and winning many primaries with their extreme right-wing candidates.
The Supreme Court threw out some of the restrictions on contributions to candidates by political parties, and that decision may make the political parties more influential in the future. Unfortunately, it also makes it possible for rich contributors to spend more money on more candidates.
State and local elections are vulnerable to organized campaign efforts by groups operating outside the normal political party organizations. It is almost a certainty that a substantial majority of Americans do not know the names of their state legislators, or county or city council members. Even fewer know anything about these offices. It is quite possible that a majority of voters don't know the name of their representative in Congress.
Voter turnout in state and local elections, particularly those that occur in non-Presidential election years, is significantly lower than it is in Presidential elections, and even in Presidential elections it is not that high. The nationwide turnout in 2010 of about 40 per cent of the eligible voters was about 20 percentage points lower than it was in the Presidential election of 2008.
It is not unusual for voter turnout in congressional and in state and local primary elections to be less than 10 per cent. Such low voter turnouts enable highly committed interests such as the Tea Party groups to win primaries and then many elections in heavily Republican districts. It is through the winning of local Democratic primaries in strong Democratic districts that progressives can put their leaders into positions to begin making the changes the nation needs.
It is crucially important that progressive Democrats win control of many more statehouses. Republicans control more than 60 per cent of state governments, and they have strengthened their control by attempting to roll back voting rights, privacy rights, and union rights. They have Gerrymandered congressional and state legislative districts to give themselves more seats than their voting support justifies. By winning control of more states, Democrats can redraw congressional and state legislative districts to insure they are distributed between the parties on a more equitable basis.
There is another important reason why control of state and local governments is so important. It is from these governments that many national leaders emerge. For a progressive movement to succeed for any length of time, it must not be dependent on one leader, or one President, or one set of programs. It must sustain itself by producing many good leaders, and a steady flow of new ideas relevant to the issues of the time.
Many Americans are disillusioned with their government. Barack Obama inspired the largest volunteer movement any Presidential candidate has ever had, but he has disappointed many of those volunteers. It may be more difficult for another candidate to attract such ground level support in the near future. Progressive candidates need to demonstrate they have the skills and toughness to lead the nation, that they can successfully challenge the Republicans and prevent them from blocking progress. This starts at the state and local levels.
Progressive Democrats need to be elected as governors, legislators, mayors, city council members and to Congress. They must learn how to win against the Republicans by proving to the American people that good and intelligent government still is possible, that the real problems of the nation that the people and private enterprise cannot solve, can and will be solved by practical progressive government programs.
The nation is closely divided. Elections are won through effective organization and voter turnout. State and local elections are of low interest to much of the electorate, and thus are far easier to win by those who are highly committed and well-organized. As the Tea Party has demonstrated, winning at the local level leads to power in the national party. This is a lesson progressives must learn and copy.
[1] Jennifer M. Ortman and Christine E. Guarneri. “United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. ://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/analytical-document09.pdf (accessed June 14, 2014)
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Reason-Rupe Spring 2014 Millenial Survey. http://reason.com/assets/db/2014-millennials-report.pdf (accessed Sept. 24, 2014)
[4] Michael P. McDonald. :”Voter Turnout in the 2010 Midterm Election.” The Forum. Vol. 8 Issue 4, 2010.http://elections.gmu.edu/Classes/GOVT311/Voter%20Turnout%20in%20the%202010%20Midterm%20Election.pdf (accessed June 2, 2014)
[5] Cummings, Jr., Milton C. & David Wise. Democracy Under Pressure, An Introduction to the American Political System. Ninth Ed. New York: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001. p. 260
[6] James Taranto, “Why Do Dems Lose in the South?” The Wall Street Journal,March 8, 2004. http://www.jamestaranto.com/south.htm (accessed June 2, 2014)
[7] Avidit Acharya, Matthew Blackwell and Mayan Sen. The Political Legacy of American Slavery, cited and linked at http://www.alternet.org/how-southern-slavery-turns-white-people-republicans-150-years-later (accessed June 2, 2014)
[8] see Dan Riker "Deception and Error: The Supreme Court's Wrong Decision on Voting Rights," July 12, 2013.
http://danriker.blogspot.com/2013/07/deception-and-error-supreme-courts.html (Also published on Truth-out.org, but without the italics of some phrases that were critical to understanding the error made by the Chief Justice).
[9] The margins of victory for Obama: Colorado, 4.7%; Virginia, 3%; Ohio, 1.9%; Florida, 0.9%. Romney's margin of victory in North Carolina, a state carried by Obama in 2008, was 2.2%.
[10] An interesting data analysis was done by Nate Silver in July of 2012:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 (accessed June 2, 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Civil commentary is welcome, including criticism, disagreement, or, hopefully, agreement and support!