Matthews, Russert ignored record Democratic turnout in suggesting lack of broad appeal
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Chris Matthews suggested to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean that he should be concerned about the party's lack of broad appeal, noting polls showing a large number of "college graduates" and voters of a "high economic and social echelon" voting in the primaries. Matthews added, "I just wonder where regular people are in this." But Matthews didn't mention that, according to CNN, "voters are turning out for the Democratic primaries in number[s] that absolutely shatter previous records." Matthews also failed to mention the record turnout in an earlier discussion on the subject with Tim Russert.
During MSNBC's February 5 coverage of that day's primary contests, on a day in which Democratic turnout reportedly exceeded Republican by 75 percent, co-anchor Chris Matthews suggested that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean should be concerned about the party's lack of broad appeal.
Matthews said; "You know, Governor, you and I grew up in a party -- watching a party that has basically had its base among labor union people, working people, regular people of average income. And what I'm stunned by, looking at these exit polls across the country -- look at these numbers. I'm sure you'll be surprised, too. The percentage of people who voted in the Connecticut Democratic primary -- 57 percent were college graduates, 58 percent in New Jersey, 60 percent in New York, 61 percent in Massachusetts." Dean later said: "[W]hoever the nominee is of our party -- and I would say this is true of the Republicans as well -- is going to have to broaden their own particular base. And that's part of my job is to help them do that." In response, Matthews asserted, "You might have it cut out for you, based upon these numbers. I just wonder where regular people are in this."
Earlier in the coverage, Matthews said to NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, "I am stunned at the educational level of the typical voter on the Democratic side. You and I grew up in a party -- looking at the Democratic Party as largely a working-class base, but almost in every one of the Eastern states now, three out of five voters who voted in the primaries today are full college graduates. Is that good news for [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL]? How do we read that development?" Russert responded: "[I]n a national election, in a general election, the Democrats have to do better than that. They have to get some of those Reagan Democrats back into the fold." During the exchange, neither Matthews nor Russert mentioned the record turnout for Democrats or the fact that Democratic turnout greatly exceeded Republican turnout.
A February 6 entry on CNN's Political Ticker blog reported, "Though the fate of the Democratic race to the nomination remains uncertain, one thing is for sure: voters are turning out for the Democratic primaries in number[s] that absolutely shatter previous records -- which may be a troubling sign for Republicans looking ahead to the general election." That report went on to note the turnout numbers in three of the states where Matthews suggested that Dean would struggle to help the Democratic candidates "broaden their own particular base." In New Jersey, Democratic primary turnout of 1,104,000 was 69 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. In Massachusetts, the turnout of 1,170,000 was 48 percent higher than the previous record turnout, with 98 percent of precincts reporting. In New York, the turnout of 1,744,000 was 11 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. States in other parts of the country also had record turnouts among Democrats. According to the Political Ticker, Missouri exceeded its prior record by 47 percent (and voters in the Democratic primary outnumbered voters in the Republican primary by 200,000. According to the Political Ticker, the prior record for Democratic votes in an Arizona primary was 239,000, a number it had already surpassed by 31 percent with 67 percent of precincts reporting.
A February 6 article in the Hartford Courant reported record-setting participation in Connecticut's Democratic primary as well:
Turnout among Democrats exceeded the previous record of 43.3 percent in 2006, when anti-war challenger Ned Lamont denied Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman the Democratic nomination in a primary. Turnout in the March 2, 2004, presidential primary, when John Kerry cruised through a depleted field, was 20 percent.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said she expected turnout to be around 50 percent.
"I think that the decision to move the primary from the beginning of March to the beginning of February was critical. Connecticut is in the thick of it," she said.
GOP turnout was estimated to be 20 percent to 24 percent, about half the turnout of 40 percent in 2000, when Republicans gave McCain a win over George W. Bush.
In fact, turnout in the Democratic primary in Connecticut surpassed Bysiewicz's prediction of "around 50 percent" -- the final number was 53.4 percent, according to Bysiewicz's office.
From MSNBC's February 5 presidential primary coverage:
MATTHEWS: Tim, I am stunned at the educational level of the typical voter on the Democratic side. You and I grew up in a party -- looking at the Democratic Party as largely a working-class base, but almost in every one of the eastern states now, three out of five voters who voted in the primaries today are full college graduates. Is that good news for Barack Obama? How do we read that development?
RUSSERT: Well, he's been drawing from that universe. But in a national election, in a general election, the Democrats have to do better than that. They have to get some of those Reagan Democrats back into the fold. And I think that's what Hillary Clinton has been trying to do with her campaign.
[...]
MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, you and I grew up in a party -- watching a party that has basically had its base among labor union people, working people, regular people of average income. And what I'm stunned by, looking at these exit polls across the country -- look at these numbers. I'm sure you'll be surprised, too. The percentage of people who voted in the Connecticut democratic primary -- 57 percent were college graduates, 58 percent in New Jersey, 60 percent in New York, 61 percent in Massachusetts.
It just seems like the Democratic Party voters seem to have gone upscale. The neighborhood has been gentrified. And the people who are voting are from a very high economic and social echelon. Is that good news for the Democratic Party that it's gotten so gentrified?
DEAN: Well, honestly I believe that one of the -- there's two reasons for those numbers, I think. One is that you're seeing a lot of Republicans and independents now vote in the Democratic primary where that's permitted because they really believe that you've got to have change, and they don't think you can possibly get it with the Republican primary. The other is, this is in the Northeast, which has got the highest education levels of any place in the country. So, you know, I don't know what to make of those polls.I never think it's a bad thing to have smart people supporting you, but I do think the numbers are probably skewed as, one, they're from the Northeast, and two, I think there are probably significant numbers of independents and Republicans who are voting in the Democratic primary as well.
MATTHEWS: So you're not worried that the college crowd, if you will, gown is overwhelming town, and the support for Barack here, such as it exists, isn't the reflection of a skewed electorate.
DEAN: I think every -- every candidate on both sides has particular niches in the electorate that they appeal to. And whoever the nominee is of our party -- and I would say this is true of the Republicans as well -- is going to have to broaden their own particular base. And that's part of my job is to help them do that.
MATTHEWS: You might have it cut out for you, based upon these numbers. I just wonder where regular people are in this. There aren't -- the average percentage of this country, unfortunately for the country, doesn't include that many college graduates.
DEAN: No, that's right, that's true.
I don't think you're confused; you're exactly right! If they have no data comparing the turnout among the non-college educated in Super Tues. vs. 4 years ago, and as the gov. of New Mexico emphasized, turnout was extremely high everywhere, then they have no basis for assuming that the "Reagan Democrats" are declining to participate. Assuming they are also participating in roughly the same numbers, the real story is the high turnout and the dramatically increasing ability of Democratic Party candidates to attract from what has traditionally been considered Republican territory - more privileged citizens.
In most areas, the current percentage of college educated adults in most areas is between 25% (e.g., Indianapolis and surrounding more rural areas) and 50% of the population (e.g., DC metro area).
Matthews is apparently unaware that over the last 50 years, more people have received college educations, which may account for the higher numbers of these voters. It doesn't indicate some kind of fruitcake elitism, or whatever else his brain conjures up. It really doesn't mean anything at all.
This guy obviously raised himself up on bad movies and TV shows. He's one big walking cliche. All he does is spout stereotypes and stale, corny imagery, and then is baffled when they are proven faulty.
Yes.
Chris Matthews says, " I just wonder where regular people are in this."
However, college graduates are as much regular people as those who didn't graduate from college.
There is nothing extraordinary these days about having a college degree.
If there was any intimidation of Clinton supporters it was all internalized. At the caucus I attended you received your ballot at the door and could carry it off anywhere to mark your choice. You then brought it to the party worker with the big manila envelope and put it in. No one ever had to know how you voted. The setup was less formal than the general election, but the secret ballot principle was maintained.
All I saw was enthusiasm for both candidates. I didn't see any of the polarized, acrimonious attitudes that we all see in online discussion groups. No one attacked anyone else's preference. I didn't encounter a single person who didn't think they could support whichever candidate received the nomination. It was very refreshing and encouraging.
BTW, I want to boast for my state. Minnesota's Democratic (DFL) caucus attendance more than tripled the previous record for attendance. Many locations had huge lines of people trying to get in to their locations. Attendance could have been even higher but for the fact that the number of people trying to get to caucuses was high enough to cause traffic jams, preventing many from getting to their caucuses on time. It was inspiring.
I'm in KY so we won't be voting for some time, but I'll echo that when I'm talking with fellow Democrats, regardless of our candidate, the discussion is always bright and moderated.
BTW, hang in there come August. I hear there's going to be a convention of scoundrels in Minneapolis at that time.
The convention activities are going to be split between Minneapolis and St. Paul (where I live) with the final convention held in St. Paul.
There goes the neighborhood.
You and Marker downthread can comiserate, he's in Minneapolis.
College educated people aren't regular? Hmm, that sounds like code for "the common man is stupid" to me. This constant derision of intellectual pursuits over the past few decades has ended up with a spoiled brat who has never had to face the realities of any of his failures in life and believes himself to be infallible being the President of the US because he's a guy "you'd want to sit down and have a beer with."
Having a college education doesn't make one person better than another, but thinking that there is something wrong with using your brain is pathologically stupid. Look at all the fake "regular guys" on tv and radio roday. Does anyone honestly believe that any of them would gladly trade in their high paying, brain using gigs for a life of constant hard labor in a mine because that would make them "regular joes"?
If a guy goes out of his way to tell you how common and normal and just like you he is, he's lying.
This primary season has shown something clearly: No matter how "BROAD" Democratic appeal is, Republican "appeal" is HALF as broad.
Or, looked at the other way, no matter how NARROW Democratic appeal is, Republican appeal is TWICE as narrow. At least.
So why the "concern" for the Democrats? Hand-wringing and tut-tutting about Democrats connecting with ... some demographic, the "common man"? Why are the DEMS the focus of this angst? If it is a malady, it is TWICE as bad, at LEAST, with the Republicans.
Nah, the narrative is and must always BE: Something is WRONG with Democrats.
"Why are the DEMS the focus of this angst?"
Because the media is big business Republican. The onus is always on the Democrats. Always.
These are all rich guys telling us how to think, what's important, and who our candidates ought to be.
Just look at them tonight, telling us how Clinton victories weren't really Clinton's. Nothing will stop them-- not logic, not morality, and certainly not their bosses.
When I was growing up, only a handful of Dem voters owned computers. Now a heavy majority do.Are they going to survive with this narrow "techie" base?
I was watching the returns last night, and trying to add up the total voters, Dem vs. Repub, in my head, and, aside from a few states (Arizona, Utah,) was confused about how much higher the Dem totals were.
I've been trying to look for a reason for the difference, but I don't see anything certain. I voted last night in California, where we unaffiliated* voters could vote the ballot of the parties that permitted it (Democratic, and Peace & Freedom or American Indep., I forget) & was almost thinking that this was a factor, that right-leaning voters not registered with a party weren't voting.
What was going on in other states? Were you allowed to vote other party ballots, or was it restricted.
* BTW, who came up with "Decline to state", it sounds like I'm taking the 5th. Can't we use "Free Agent" or something less weasely than "I'm not telling"?
http://action.credomobile.com/commentary/2008/02/rocky_mountain_realities.html
Also, it needs to be recognized that Obama did pretty well in the so called red states Tuesday. He dominated in the reddest of red Idaho. He took GA, CO, ND and KS.
http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl?moduleurl=http://www.google.com/mapfiles/mapplets/elections/2008/primary/primaries.xml&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-google-mp&utm_term=decision2008
I'm not so sure Repubs will be able to leverage guns to their advantage like they have in the past.
People are waking up.
Comments Bush has made concerning evolution and other things lead me to believe that he really buys into the mythology, but I wouldn't pretend to know for sure.
So I have an idea of the type you're talking about, do you consider Bush a theofacist? And if you have time, can you briefly explain why? - thomp.steve9098
I consider Bush to be 2 halves of a fascist, the first half being a Christianist Fascist, the second half being a Corporatist Fascist.
Which half do you want me to talk about first?
That is the story of the Primaries so far: The packed house standing-room-only "we need more ballots STAT!" extraordinary numbers of the American People, turning out to register their support for a Democratic candidate.
And this matthews guy, he's hyperventilating over something...
"Tim, I am stunned", and again to former Gov. Dean, "I'm stunned..."
What has "stunned" this guy?
Him and his "exit polls" show that 3 out of every 5 Democratic participant in these Primaries, when asked (and they asked dozens, maybe even a hundred!)... when asked "are you a college graduate?"
3 out 5 (out of the dozens maybe even a hundred asked) are saying "yes, why of course I'm a college graduate, isn't everybody?"
Stunning.
They need to think up more "exit poll" questions to pointlessly ask several dozen persons, as they leave the Polling places and head to their cars, to get back to their work and to the balance of their lives...
More questions that sound like dividing lines drawn in the sand, about your achievements in life and how much money you make, and whether you own your own home or do you rent, and do you buy a brand new car or are you a member of the wretched class of folks that buys "pre-owned", and do you punch a time-clock or are you on salary...
"College grad sir/madam?"
"Yes, of course, isn't everybody"
"Make much money do you?"
"Yes, lots"
"Smart?"
"You bet"
"White collar and salaried?"
"Of course"
"Ever been arrested?"
"Never"
"Do you use drugs and/or alcohol habitually, and to excess?"
"Nope"
"Still beat you wife and/or husband much?"
We need more info like that, for this matthews guy to be "stunned" about...
"Tim I'm absolutely stunned! We asked several dozen persons who had just voted Democratic (out of millions) we asked them if they're college graduates, and most said yes..."
STUNNING
"And would you believe that the great majority of them also said they'd never been arrested and don't abuse drugs and alcohol..."
STUNNING
"...and they unanimously claimed that they do not now nor have they ever, beaten their spouse"
STUNNING
ABSOLUTELY STUNNING
It's the story of the Primaries so far, what a few dozen people answered in an "exit poll", about the circumstances and achievements of their life.
Non-BWEs...
A few years before I retired from a very large telecommunications company, during a company-wide broadcast, we were told that, going forward, the company would be seeking the "bright and well-educated" to improve its workforce.
"BWE" became our favorite synonym for arrogant jerks, degree-waving idiots and others often featured in Dilbert (Scott Adams worked on our floor).
Perhaps Tweety really means those in the non-BWE club. If so, I'm proud to claim membership.
And, I did vote.
Not only are BOTH Matthews and Russert right wing conservative Republicans, BOTH Matthews and Russert accept speaking fees from corporatist conservative Republican lobbying groups. This was reported on some past stories on The Huffington Post.
This comman fact is just ONE reason why both Matthews and Russert are right wing conservative Republicans.
Tim Russert is lost if he doesn't have his "He Said/She Said" crib notes to read. Chris Mathews needs help! Who cares what they say. Watch Keith Olberman if you want to hear some intelligent commentary.
Matthews may have grown up in the 50's - but that was a LONG time ago - he is clearly out of touch with the expanded educational level of the "regular" people today.
I guess he hasn't noticed that even the "regular" folks have more education now than they did in the "old days" when he grew up!
Having college graduates vote for someone doesn't create a problem - it simple demonstrates that more people are going to college. And rather than creating a "problem" (!) it shows the expansion of the appeal of candidates!
from 1950 - the level of college graduates has risen from about 5% to almost 30% in 2000.
from 1950 - the level of high school graduates rose from roughly 35% to roughly 85% in 2000
Educational attainment
The educational attainment of the US population is similar to that of many other industrialized countries with the vast majority of the population having completed secondary education and a rising number of college graduates that outnumber high school dropouts. As a whole the population of the United States is becoming increasingly more educated. Post-secondary education is valued very highly by American society and is one of the main determinants of class and status. As with income, however, there are significant discrepancies in terms of race, age, household configuration and geography.[48] Overall the households and demographics featuring the highest educational attainment in the United States are also among those with the highest household income and wealth. Thus, while the population of the US is becoming increasingly educated on all levels, a direct link between income and educational attainment remains.[48]