The New York Times reports unsurprising news given this past week:
In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday, the polling firm SurveyMonkey published a pair of maps from its 2016 presidential election exit polls. It showed the electoral maps for voters who said they had a gun in their home, and for those who said they did not.
In every state but Vermont – perhaps the most liberal state in the country, but one where Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, often support gun rights – voters who reported living in a gun-owning household overwhelmingly backed Donald J. Trump.
The opposite is true for voters who said they did not live in a home with a gun. In all but one state that could be measured, voters overwhelmingly preferred Hillary Clinton. (The exception was West Virginia; not enough data existed for Wyoming.)
Over all, gun-owning households (roughly a third in America) backed Mr. Trump by 63 percent to 31 percent, while households without guns backed Mrs. Clinton, 65 percent to 30 percent, according to SurveyMonkey data.
No other demographic characteristic created such a consistent geographic split.
Indeed, it doesn’t get much more stark than Hillary Clinton-voting households without guns …
… against Donald Trump-voting households with guns:
This is not to say that gun ownership is a bigger divide in American politics than race or the combination of race and education, or a bigger driver of America’s political divide. After all, part of the reason gun ownership splits voters so starkly is because gun owners are more likely than Americans generally to be white, less educated and living in a rural area. Over all, 83 percent of gun household voters were white in 2016, according to the SurveyMonkey data.
But it might not be merely demographics. Mr. Trump appeared to fare better in the SurveyMonkey data among gun-owning households than non-gun-owning households even after considering the voters’ race and education. He won white voters without a degree who lived in gun-owning households by 74 percent to 21 percent. He even won college-educated white voters in gun-owning households, 60-34, and fared better among nonwhite voters in gun households, losing, 61-34. Mrs. Clinton won nonwhite voters over all, 75-21.
Even so, education, race and religion tend to do a better job of predicting an individual’s presidential vote choice. It is probably fair to say that gun ownership embodies America’s partisan divide more than it drives it. …
Religiosity – how often someone goes to church – has been a strong predictor of party affiliation, with frequent churchgoers much more likely to be be Republicans. The political preferences of more religious Americans yield a deeply red map, with religious voters from just three (relatively large) states – California, New York and Maryland – preferring Mrs. Clinton. Nonwhite voters most likely represent a disproportionate share of Democratic-leaning religious voters in many of these states.
That’s sort of funny to me given that I fit into three of these maps (non-evangelical who attends church at least once a week, and by the way the Episcopal Church is neither Catholic nor Protestant, but never mind that right now), and as you know I didn’t vote for Trump, but under no circumstances would I ever vote for Hillary.
This suggests a huge values divide in this nation.
I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.
You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.
There. It sure feels good to engage in a constructive dialogue.
Now, we should have this conversation because in recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.
This goes for all our rights that the left hates, like the rights to speak and write freely, to practice our religion as we see fit, and to not be railroaded by liberal authority without due process. Leftists hate our rights because they hate us, and when we assert our rights it gets in the way of their malicious schemes to dominate and control us. It makes them stamp their little sandaled feet in rage when we normals just won’t cooperate and surrender our rights. But we love our rights – rights are wonderful things with which we were endowed by our Creator, and which our beloved Constitution merely reiterates. But the left, including its pet media, thinks that our rights were merely iterated, and that the left can take an eraser to the parchment and – voila! – no more pesky rights for you flyover people.
Nah. I think we’ll keep ‘em. All of them, unchanged. And there’s only one way we can lose them, unless a lot of leftists buy a lot of guns, conduct a lot of tactical training, and stop being little weenies. I’m not worried about any of those things happening, particularly the last one. So, as a practical matter, we only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur.
I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.
Yeah, hate us. Sorry, but the left hates you, and because you’re nice and you try to always act in good faith, you probably have a hard time accepting that the people on the other side don’t. You want to believe that we just have some minor disagreements but that we can still all come together and blah blah blah blah blah. Well, that’s not happening unless the left has a major rethink, and thinking isn’t its strong suit. You want to see the hate? Wade into the social media cesspool, a world where no impulse is controlled and if you only wait long enough, they’ll tell you how they really feel. Did you see the people celebrating the attack on normal people at a country music festival? Did you see them then pivot to calling us “terrorists” and “murderers” for refusing to give up our rights? Just check out what gets launched at me on my Twitter timeline. Dana Loesch gets it even worse, because she’s a conservative woman and that’s a double heresy.
I, for one, am not super inclined to give up my ability to defend myself in response to demands by people who eagerly tell me they want me enslaved or dead. Literally dead.
And this isn’t just about the ravings of a few unhinged loonies on social media (also, it ain’t “a few”). This verbal hyperbole is the leftist establishment’s MO. This is how they intend to strip us of our rights – via a constant campaign of hate that they hope somehow leads to us just giving them up. And it’s not just guns. Free speech? Oh, that’s racist, and it causes violence – by which they mean that leftists will attack you if you attempt to speak freely. Freely exercising your religion? Not if you violate leftist scripture – then you’re a bigot and your livelihood must be destroyed even though Sue and Shelly can wander two doors down and get someone else to decorate their nasty organic carrot wedding cake.
And due process? Well, you must love rape if you think that a young man accused of it should be informed of the charges against him, allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and have an impartial judge. Do you phallocentric male-identifying men and others have any idea how much harder it is to railroad some guy in the name of smashing the patriarchy when you actually have to prove your case with evidence? Like any woman would ever make up a rape allegation out of whole cloth! A fair trial? That’s something right out of The Handmaid’s Tale!
And don’t get me started on the hate crime of hatred that is misgendering. Why, calling a man a “man” when xe got up this morning and decided xe was a non-binary, femme-leaning, twin-spirit otherkin is pretty much just what Hitler did.
So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?
Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.
See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it? Let’s not even mention abortion. Jimmy Kimmel’s head might explode because he’s all about the kids not getting killed, except only after they’re born. He and you liberals seem cool with killing them before then.
So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.
No to your fake “solutions” that have nothing to do with this guy’s rampage.
No to your bogus “care” and “concern” that arises only when it involves stripping normal Americans of our sacred natural rights.
No to your has-been Democrat pols, your 23-year old Vox scribblers, and your hack Hollywood goofs thinking they get a say about our rights.
They don’t.
I guess that’s the end of our little conversation, because we’ve already heard every poisonous thing you leftists have to say, and I don’t have anything else to say except this. If you really want to disarm us, come on and try.
Proving that there is no accounting for taste, I present the number one song today in 1960:
The number two single today in 1970 was originally written for a bank commercial:
Britain’s number one album today in 1970 was Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid”:
I went into this weekend thinking that, as was the case throughout too much of the ’70s and ’80s, the Badgers and Packers could go 0 for the weekend.
To quote Howard Cosell while narrating NFL highlights during ABC’s Monday Night Football, “But no!”
The weekend began with Saturday night’s 38–17 steamrolling of Nebraska. (Well before Nebraska joined the Big Ten, UW Band members would sing, for reasons unknown, “When It’s Hog-Calling Time in Nebraska.”)
The Lincoln Journal Star’s Steven M. Sipple harkens back to the days of the Big Eight Conference’s Nebraska–Oklahoma rivalry:
You surely remember that thing folks used to call “Sooner Magic.”
It used to ruin Nebraska football seasons.
Well, how about that “Wiscy magic?”
Wisconsin pulled off quite a trick Saturday night before 89,860 spectators at Memorial Stadium.
With a 38-17 triumph, the UW program continues to pull away from Nebraska’s. The Badgers are 6-1 against the Huskers since 2011, the year NU started playing in the Big Ten.
Paul Chryst’s crew eked out wins against Nebraska each of the previous two seasons. But it brought the hammer in this game, showing in a forceful manner why folks regard Wisconsin (5-0, 2-0 Big Ten) as the clear-cut favorite in the West Division.
Nebraska (3-3, 2-1) looks destined to go a fifth straight season without a division championship, and 18th without a conference title.
Yes, Wisconsin’s program continues to pull away from Nebraska’s.
So, what’s the trick here?
The Badgers pull away while simultaneously pounding away like a battering ram. At least that was the case on this night. Yeah, wonderful timing. Just wonderful. Nebraska honored its 1997 national championship team in a rousing pregame ceremony. That would be the Husker team that averaged 392.7 rushing yards to lead the nation. That would be the team that would dare you to stop the run because it knew you couldn’t do it.
That was Wisconsin on this gorgeous Saturday night.
The ninth-ranked Badgers rushed for 353 yards, their most in a road game since 2012.
Wisconsin simply did what Wisconsin does. It patiently imposed its will with its ground attack and hit an occasional big play through the air. Nebraska hung tough through most of three quarters, but soon the effects of UW’s body blows began to show.
In the fourth quarter, the Badgers rushed 22 times for 125 yards — and never attempted a pass.
The whole stadium knew a run play was coming, and it didn’t much matter.
The Nebraska run defense that held down Northern Illinois, Rutgers and Illinois was overmatched.
Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, a former Husker linebacker, had to be sitting back with a wide grin. This is his blueprint. It’s recruit big and ornery linemen from Wisconsin or regions nearby and go to work. You can imagine the rugged nature of the Badgers’ practices. Facing a downhill running game every day will make a defense leather-tough.
Wisconsin’s ground attack is persistent and powerful, said Nebraska coach Mike Riley, whose record at NU dropped to 18-14.
He had his team ready for the game. Give him that. At times, Nebraska looked ready to win, particularly when junior safety Aaron Williams’ pick-six tied it at 17 with 10:43 remaining in the third quarter. The stadium was up for grabs. What a scene.
“(The Badgers’) response to that was pretty interesting,” Riley said. “And it was very physical.”
Wisconsin responded like a championship program — except for one thing. The Badgers were sloppy most of the night. On the kickoff following Williams’ touchdown, UW was flagged for two penalties, and thus began the possession at its 7-yard line.
No problem. Wisconsin bulldozed a 10-play, 93-yard touchdown drive, using eight runs, including six by true freshman Jonathan Taylor. On the night, the 5-foot-11, 215-pounder carried 25 times for a season-high 249 yards and two touchdowns.
Forgive Nebraska fans if they were a tad envious.
And forgive them if they’re frustrated with the direction of Riley’s program.
He realizes what he’s going to hear in the days ahead. It will go something like this: Look at Wisconsin, winning big the way Nebraska used to win big.
Come to think of it, there’s nothing magic about a big offensive line pulverizing you. …
Nebraska always talks about recruiting. Nebraska wins the offseason with a formidable hype machine, with media playing a leading role.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin just keeps winning the West.
Consider this: Bret Bielema left Wisconsin for Arkansas, replaced by Gary Andersen, who left after two seasons for Oregon State to replace Mike Riley, who left for Nebraska. The results:
Meanwhile, the Badgers are undefeated and ranked seventh.
The following afternoon, the Packers inexplicably missed two extra points and thus trailed Dallas 21–12 at the half.
The Dallas Morning News’ Jon Machota skips ahead to the finish:
You’ve already seen it, but Aaron Rodgers did it again. He ripped the Cowboys’ hearts out in the final seconds Sunday afternoon at AT&T Stadium.
Here are my thoughts on the Cowboys blowing another halftime lead, this time falling to the Packers 35-31:
1. Well, that was exactly what the Cowboys didn’t need heading into the bye week, another blown impressive start. These are the types of games the Cowboys were winning at this time last year. The defense had some success getting pressure on Rodgers early, but then he just toyed with them in the second half. …
2. The third quarter was another disaster for the Cowboys. After going into halftime with a 21-12 lead, Dallas was held scoreless in the third quarter for the fourth time in five games. Not sure what’s going on at halftime, but the Cowboys continue to need at least 15 minutes to get things going again. Maybe just keep the guys on the sideline at halftime. Mix it up. The Cowboys only had the ball one time in the third quarter. Dak Prescott completed a short third-down pass to Dez Bryant, but that drive quickly stalled. Green Bay dominated the time of possession [11:20 to 3:32] and scored early in the fourth quarter to take its first lead, 22-21.
Machota’s colleague Kate Hairopoulos adds:
Dak Prescott faked the handoff to running back Ezekiel Elliott, found himself with a clear path to the end zone, and took it. The Cowboys quarterback charged 11 yards for the touchdown and celebrated with a scream and a spike of the ball.
But the elation in AT&T Stadium belied the unease on the Dallas sideline.
1:13 remained.
For Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, that’s an eternity.
And it was ultimately too much time, as Green Bay marched down the field, down three, and scored the winning touchdown. The Packers even had 11 seconds to spare when they went up 35-31.
“The minute that we got it, I immediately went to ‘Oh hell, he’s got a minute, 10 seconds,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said of Prescott’s touchdown and the ball going back to Rodgers. “On the other hand, – Dak Prescott faked the handoff to running back Ezekiel Elliott, found himself with a clear path to the end zone, and took it. The Cowboys quarterback charged 11 yards for the touchdown and celebrated with a scream and a spike of the ball.
But the elation in AT&T Stadium belied the unease on the Dallas sideline.
1:13 remained.
For Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, that’s an eternity.
And it was ultimately too much time, as Green Bay marched down the field, down three, and scored the winning touchdown. The Packers even had 11 seconds to spare when they went up 35-31.
“The minute that we got it, I immediately went to ‘Oh hell, he’s got a minute, 10 seconds,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said of Prescott’s touchdown and the ball going back to Rodgers. “On the other hand, before [Prescott] got it, I thought, ‘Just go ahead and get this score. OK!
“…You can second guess every little aspect of it, and certainly we’d have liked to give him the ball back with 10 seconds on the clock, no timeouts. But the only way to have really gotten that done is to know for sure we were going to get that touchdown. That’s the height of revisiting.”
And it’s impossible not to do, considering Rodgers is making a habit of crushing Cowboys’ souls when given any opening.
The Cowboys and offensive coordinator Scott Linehan milked the clock on the scoring drive, well aware of what Rodgers is capable of. He needed only 35 seconds left to lead the Packers to the winning field goal in January’s playoff game on this field last season.The Cowboys ticked through 17 plays to go 79 yards, taking up 8:43, culminating in Prescott’s touchdown run.
But Linehan and head coach Jason Garrett will be fairly criticized for not consuming more clock.
Elliott and the offensive line had, finally, started to roll on the ground, yet:
On 1st and 10 from the Green Bay 29, Prescott threw a pass intended for running back Alfred Morris, but it was incomplete, stopping the clock.
Later, after a dramatic fourth-and-1 conversion by Elliott, Elliott ran for eight yards on first down to set up a second and 2 from the Packers 11. Prescott passed incomplete, unable to connect with receiver Dez Bryant in the back of the end zone, stopping the clock again.
Prescott scored on the next play. Should he have considered sliding at the 1 to take up more time?
“In theory, he could do that yes,” Garrett said. “I just think you have to be careful about trying to be perfect. It’s hard to score points in this league. It’s hard to score touchdowns. It’s a four-point game at that time. There’s no guarantee you’re going to score a touchdown there, so I think, in that particular case, he did the right thing.”
Said Prescott: “You’re playing with fire doing that. Those guys get paid on defense too. If you’re running down and you’re trying to get to third down, you’re wasting the time. It’s a slippery slope. For us, it’s important to get in the end zone and put the pressure on them. I’m going to trust my defense.”
But Jones did allow that the discussion it’s impossible not to have is whether the Cowboys should’ve bet on their strength — their offense — instead of ultimately put the game back in the hands of the defense that couldn’t stop Rodgers and Co. most of the day.
Jones said he believed Rodgers could lead the Packers to a field goal to tie the score, but thought the defense would keep them from a winning touchdown.
“We are all going to second guess on what happened at the end of the game and keeping the ball away from them a little bit more,” Jones said. “Everything speaks for itself here. You give Rodgers a minute, and you’re more than likely going to get a score in a critical moment.
“…All we wanted to do was keep the ball away from [Rodgers] but we needed to score a touchdown. We’ll be second guessing those last two calls for a long time.”
The News’ Samantha Pell describes the last play:
Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was going to call another play.
Instead of the game-winning back-shoulder touchdown throw to receiver Davante Adams with 16 seconds left in the game, he was going to look another way.
If he did, the outcome of the game — a 35-31 Packers win over the Cowboys — could have been a lot different. But Adams, who had had the ball knocked away on the exact same call on the previous play, wasn’t going to let that happen.
“I came back and let him know,” said Adams, who scored two touchdowns Sunday afternoon after getting knocked out of the Packers’ game last week against Chicago. “I said, ‘Do it again. Let’s go back to it.’ He gave me a look. I said, ‘Let’s do it again.’”
And as Rodgers tossed a “perfect ball” into the outstretched arms of Adams in the end zone, the Cowboys faithful saw flashbacks to the team’s 34-31 playoff loss to Green Bay in January — when Packers kicker Mason Crosby nailed a 51-yard field goal as time expired.
“We’ve been through that before,” Adams said. “We’ve been through that before in this building. When you’ve got ’12’ (Rodgers) back there, it allowed you to be a little more calm.”
Trailing 31-28 with 1:13 to play, Rodgers needed a field goal to tie, not win the game as he did last season. But regardless, Rodgers said afterward he was thinking of a touchdown the entire time.
“We had time,” a nonchalant Rodgers said of driving his offense 75 yards down the field in just over a minute.
Cowboys rookie cornerback Jourdan Lewis, who was defending Adams on the game-winning touchdown catch, praised Rodgers’ play.
“He’s a great quarterback, has great weapons around,” Lewis said. “We have to stop him. I didn’t.”
In Rodgers’ execution of the offense downfield in the waning minute, he also had a crucial third-down scramble — in classic Rodgers fashion.
Facing third and 8 on the Dallas 30-yard line with 29 seconds to go, Rodgers said he had a good play called for the situation, but bad leverage on the backside forced him to scramble.
He found daylight on the left side of the field, running for 18 yards before stepping out of bounds at the 12-yard line. The next play was the incomplete pass to Adams in the end zone. The one after? The game-winner.
“Once I was able to get loose, it was about getting the first down and getting out of bounds,” Rodgers said. “My eyes got kind of big there for a second, as I tried to get back inside, but going out of bounds was a smart play, and it gave us a chance to get a shot in the end zone.”
Of course, postgame social media was almost as entertaining as the game:





Shannon Sharpe tweeted:
Can someone check on @RealSkipBayless for me? Want to make sure he’s ok
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D–Georgia) made an inane statement about the Second Amendment last week.
(I’ll pause while you recover from the shock.)
Lewis apparently needs to review his own history. Damon Root does that:
“I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” declared John R. Salter Jr., the civil rights leader who helped to organize the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. “Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine,” Salter recalled. “The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay.”
Salter knew perfectly well many state and local officials were either indifferent to his well-being or were themselves affiliated with the domestic terror groups that wanted to harm him. By exercising his Second Amendment rights, Salter was able to safeguard his life and liberty in face of government malfeasance and criminality.
The same thing can be said of Mississippi civil rights activist T.RM. Howard. In 1955, Howard correctly recognized that state officials had zero interest in conducting a thorough investigation into the lynching and murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till. So Howard, a successful doctor and entrepreneur, launched his own private investigation. He located, interviewed, and kept safe a number of important witnesses, stashing them in his own house.
One of those witnesses was Till’s mother, Mamie Bradley. Her testimony was crucial because it contradicted that of Tallahatchie County Sheriff Henry Clarence Strider, who insisted that the body pulled from the river was not that of Till, but was instead that of someone else “as white as I am.” The sheriff, a well-known racist, was lying in the hopes of bolstering the defense’s claim that outside “agitators” had faked the crime in order to stir up trouble.
Before Bradley and the other witnesses could participate in the trial, they had to get there unscathed. That’s where the Second Amendment came in. To use a modern expression, Howard was a “gun nut.” He slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed and walked around with a pistol at his waist. To keep Bradley and the others safe from hostile racist attacks—including attacks by those who wore government uniforms and wielded government power—Howard led an armed caravan to and from the courthouse.
The examples of John Salter and T.R.M. Howard are not unusual. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a conceal-carry permit (denied by the government) and declared, “the principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” According to civil rights hero Fannie Lou Hammer, “I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom.” Rosa Parks once described her dinner table “covered with guns” while activists met in her home to plot strategy.
And, of course, the idea of the Second Amendment guarding personal liberty against racist government encroachment goes back even further than the era of Jim Crow. As the abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass liked to say, “the true remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill” is a “good revolver.”
James Freeman provides this humor to start your week:
Leftist Jonathan Chait reports in New York magazine that he’s under rhetorical attack from other leftists. It seems that Mr. Chait has made some of his ideological comrades angry by admitting that the evidence does not exist to call President Trump a white supremacist.
Mr. Chait is being lampooned as some kind of squishy moderate. This has sparked a larger debate about how radical the Democratic Party should be and whether it has already moved well to the left of Barack Obama. Unlike Mr. Chait, many readers of this column probably don’t consider the nation’s 44th President to be a man of the “center-left.” But as Democratic Party leaders continue to lurch toward Bernie Sanders’ brand of Marxism, they are clearly making Mr. Obama appear more moderate.
The question is whether Democratic voters as well as independents who tend to vote Democratic are all coming along for the ride leftward. According to Mr. Chait:
Political activists and writers can get the impression that the Democratic Party is riven by conflict between leftists and liberals. But social media is deeply unrepresentative. On Twitter, which is swarming with communists and Nazis, every day feels like the 1932 German federal elections. The massively elevated concentration of political extremists of all varieties creates a deeply misleading portrait of the public. (This is why libertarians have managed to portray themselves as a significant proportion of the electorate, when practically speaking, they don’t exist.)
The actual Democratic Party is not divided between liberals and leftists. It’s divided between liberals and … moderates and conservatives.
Mr. Chait then marshals a variety of polling data to show that most of the party’s voters don’t consider themselves leftist or even liberal. For example, he notes Pew Research data showing that in 2016, a full 36% of Democratic voters described themselves as moderate, and another 15% called themselves conservative.
Of course such survey results can be misleading because political or philosophical labels mean different things to different people. For example, observing so many potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination endorsing Mr. Sanders’ single-payer health plan, Mr. Obama might also be calling himself a moderate.
But it is striking, given that Mr. Sanders won 22 states and nearly 1900 delegates in the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, that even among Democratic voters almost nobody will cop to being “far left” and just 16% call themselves “very liberal.”
So why did so many voters in 2016 want to “feel the Bern”? Here’s Mr. Chait’s theory:
The best explanation for Sanders’s ability to garner a large minority of the vote is that he benefited from a news environment that portrayed Hillary Clinton as scandal-plagued. Sanders capitalized on a long-standing progressive good-government sentiment, which has attached itself over many decades to otherwise disparate figures, like Adlai Stevenson, Gene McCarthy, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, Howard Dean, and of course, Barack Obama.
It’s sweet of Mr. Chait to say that Mrs. Clinton was merely portrayed as scandal-plagued. But this column thinks he has helped to answer the big question. What happened to the Democratic Party in 2016 was that many primary voters were so unwilling to trust Mrs. Clinton and so eager for a vehicle to express their feelings that they may not have ever gotten around to the question of whether they actually wanted to live under a Sandernista regime. Yet Democrats are acting as if Mr. Sanders received a policy mandate in 2016 even while losing in the semifinals.
According to Mr. Chait:
The hard left views Obama as a neoliberal sellout. (Sanders himself has had more restrained criticisms of Obama, whom he has depicted as largely a disappointment, and now mostly avoids discussing him.) But Obama’s popularity makes him an inconvenient figure for left-wing triumphalism to reckon with. It is common to read Sandernistas describing the Democratic electorate as if Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were the only two choices available. They may discover, in 2020 and beyond, that the 44th president and his public philosophy remain very much alive.
This column thinks that the Obama era absolutely counts as a left-wing triumph, but also that Mr. Chait is on to something here. When Democrats try to understand what happened after the 2020 elections, they may conclude that they overestimated the political appeal of socialism.
My favorite Ray Charles song was number one today in 1961:
Today in 1969, the BBC’s “Top of the Pops” refused for the first time to play that week’s number one song because of what singers Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin were supposedly doing while recording “Je T’Aime … Moi Non Plus”:
According to a classmate of mine, Madison radio stations play Britain’s number one single today in 1971 too often:
<!–more–>
The number one single today in 1976, which makes wonder if, to paraphrase Chuck Berry, Beethoven would have been rolling over at this:
Birthdays begin with John Lennon:
John Entwistle of the Who:
Jackson Browne:
Terry Balsamo played guitar for Limp Bizkit and Evanescence:
The number one song today in 1955:
The number one British song (which is not from Britain) today in 1964:
Today in 1971, John Lennon released his “Imagine” album:
Today in 1975, one of the stranger episodes in rock music history ended when John Lennon got permanent resident status, his “green card.” The federal government, at the direction of Richard Nixon, tried to deport Lennon because of his 1968 British arrest for possession of marijuana.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that trying to deport Lennon on the basis of an arrest was “contrary to U.S. ideas of due process and was invalid as a means of banishing the former Beatle from America.”
The number one British single today in 1978 came from that day’s number one album:
The number one album today in 1989 was Tears for Fears’ “Seeds of Love”: