The media usually spins the gender gap as being driven by female voters' preference for Democrats. In fact, however, much of the polling data I've seen suggests that the female vote is fairly closely divided between the two parties. A major article in today's LA Times (of all places) confirms what I've suspected for a long time; namely, that the gender gap is driven mainly by a preference for the GOP among white males:
In the modern political era, Democrats never expect to carry white men, who reliably tilt Republican. But the emerging threat to Democrats in 2004 is that Bush will win white men so decisively that the party can't overcome his advantage with other voter groups that lean in their direction, such as minorities and college-educated white women. ...
Recent polls underscore the challenge for Democrats with white men. In an ABC/Washington Post survey released last week, white men preferred Bush over an unnamed Democrat in 2004 by 62% to 29%, a head-turning 33-point margin; by contrast, white women gave Bush just a 10-point lead. ...
[Some] Democrats worry that if Dean's liberal positions on social issues, such as civil unions for gays, and his emphatic opposition to the war in Iraq allow Republicans to typecast him as a Northeastern cultural elitist, "he could get wiped out among [white men] not by a 24-point margin like Gore, but by a 30- or 35-point margin...."
I only have one wish this Christmas and that is that you never ever use an [editor] aside again. Please? ...
The tic is most famously used by Mickey Kaus, but apparently it makes some people cringe. I've always found it one of the most useful ways to mock myself .... But I'm in no particular mood to make my readers cringe, after all. So out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know whether you hate the "ed." persona.
I use the fake editorial comments for much the same purpose, plus sarcasm. Since this blog is not a democracy, I'm not going to put the issue to a vote here. But if you want to vote in Baude's poll, go here.
LA Times media critic Tim Rutten pens an attack on partisan journalism, which is pretty amusing given the blatant biases of the paper for which he works, but what really caught my eye was this comment:
On the eve of the Civil War, Americans were per capita the greatest readers of newspapers in the world. ... Nobody is arguing that our current divisions remotely approach those of 1863.
The civil war began in 1861, which would make the "eve" of the war something like 1860 wouldn't it? Perhaps one could debate the merits of partisan reporting, but surely nobody would support incompetent journalism.
In his second annual roundup of blogs, Bruce Bartlett writes:
A more specialized economics blog is maintained by Stephen Bainbridge, a professor of law at UCLA (www.professorbainbridge.com). He often illuminates fine points of corporate law that I find very helpful in a day when various corporate scandals seem to fill the paper daily. He also has a great love of fine wine, which he discusses frequently and knowledgably.
Did youguys see that - "frequently and knowledgably"? As somebody famous would say, "heh"!
The chopped tomatoes I used to make tonight's shellfish stew were a Parmalatproduct. I like them a lot, even though their makers managed to misplace several billion dollars.
In summing up the Democrat presidential candidates' positions on tort reform, Ted Frank observes:
As a senator, Joe Lieberman was one of the most prominent Democrats in support of tort reform, including voting for cloture in the debate over the Class Action Fairness Act. On September 11, 2000, his spokesman, Dan Gerstein, told the Wall Street Journal that the tort system "drives up costs, stifles innovation, limits products available to consumers and undercuts the competitive advantage our leading companies have." Lieberman was on the correct side on the PSLRA and the product liability bill; we earlier reviewed his promising record when he was named to the 2000 Gore ticket (Aug. 8, 2000). His presidential campaign web site, however, makes no mention of the issue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I were a Democrat I'd be supporting Lieberman. Of course, given Lieberman's status as "burnt toast," it's probably moot.
Back before the shot clock was introduced, then-UNC head basketball coach Dean Smith was famous for running the four corners offense to control the ball while waiting for the opposition to self-destruct. After watching Howard Dean's latest open mounth-insert foot moment - re Osama - I had a vision of what the '04 election will look like. Bush will run a ball control, low risk four corners waiting for Dean to self-destruct. Just like UNC basketball, it'll be really ugly and really boring. And, just like UNC basketball back in those days, it'll probably work.