May, 27 2009, 01:46pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Erikka Knuti (202) 756-4135
eknuti@mediamatters.org
Jessica Levin (202) 772-8162
jlevin@mediamatters.org
America the Progressive: Joint Report From Media Matters and Campaign for America's Future Shows America Is a Center-Left Nation
WASHINGTON
Today, Media Matters for America and Campaign for America's Future released a
special report, "A Center-Left Nation,"
rebutting the myth that America
is a "center-right" country. Using the latest public opinion data
from nonpartisan sources, the report shows that much of the country holds progressive
positions on a broad range of issues and demographic trends indicate it is
likely to remain that way.
"The media have long portrayed America
as a 'center-right' country, even after President Obama's
election," said Eric Burns,
president of Media Matters for America.
"But independent polling shows that, on
issue after issue, America
is actually progressive and is growing more progressive every day. This report
should serve as a wake-up call to the Beltway press -- especially in light of
yesterday's Supreme Court nomination -- that the idea that we live in a
center-right country is fundamentally false."
Bob Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, said that
the report "should give people the
courage to push ahead. The danger is not in going too far too fast, or
overreaching; it is in not doing enough. The people are hungry for progressive
change. Their leaders need to take them where they want to go."
KEY FINDINGS:
"A Center-Left Nation"
relied primarily on three data sources known for their methodological rigor and
nonpartisan analysis: the biennial National Election Studies, the Pew Research
Center, and Gallup. The report shows that, across a broad
range of issues, America
is a progressive country.
- The
role of government: Sixty-six percent of people -- a
9-percent increase since 2004 -- believe "there are more things
government should be doing," compared with 32 percent who believe
"less government the better." Sixty-two percent of people -- a
21-percent increase since 2004 -- believe "government has become
bigger because the problems we face have become bigger," compared
with 37 percent who believe government has gotten bigger because "it
has gotten involved in things people should do for themselves."
- Business:
Five times as many people (78 percent vs. 15 percent)
believe "[t]oo much power is concentrated in the hands of a few
large companies" as opposed to those who believe that the largest
companies "do not have too much power." Additionally, 68
percent of Americans would like to see major corporations have less
influence in the country.
- Health
care: Fifty-four percent of Americans think it is the
responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have
health care coverage; 46 percent support the implementation of a
government insurance plan, compared with 28 percent who favor private
insurance plans.
- Taxes:
Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe corporations
pay too little in federal taxes and 60 percent believe high-income people
pay too little. Unsurprisingly, a March Pew poll found that 61 percent of
the public supported Obama's proposal to raise taxes on those making
more than $200,000 per year.
- The
culture war: Sixty-one percent of Americans support
"government funding for research" on embryonic stem cells; 77
percent support allowing gays to serve in the military; 61 percent support
same-sex marriage or civil unions.
The report also shows that groups making up the progressive coalition
are on the rise while conservatives are declining in number:
- Young
voters: People under 30 chose Barack Obama for president
by a 34-point margin over Sen. John McCain (66 percent vs. 32 percent).
Every year, an additional 4.5 million members of the so-called Millennial
Generation will become eligible to vote.
- Hispanics:
Hispanics are the fastest-growing major demographic
group. It is estimated Hispanics will increase from 15.3 percent of the
population to 39 percent by 2050. According to the Pew Hispanic Survey, 65
percent of registered Hispanic voters indentified with or leaned toward
the Democratic Party.
- African-Americans:
The Obama election excited the African-American
community, long a rock of progressive support, as never before. The
turnout among African-Americans increased by 4.9 percentage points, from
60.3 percent in 2004 to 65.2 percent in 2008, nearly matching the white
rate of 66.1 percent.
- Older
voters: Senior citizens 65 and older represent only 16
percent of eligible voters. McCain won among senior citizens (53 percent
to 45 percent), but the next age group down, those between 50 and 64,
split almost down the middle (Obama, 50 percent; McCain, 49 percent).
- Women:
Women as a whole tend to lean Democratic, and Obama
outscored McCain among women 56 percent to 43 percent (compared with 49
percent to 48 percent among men). But a more notable story was that of
unmarried women, who are becoming key to the emerging American electorate.
They chose Obama 70 percent to 29 percent, a stunning 41-point margin.
- Geography:
More than half of the country (54 percent) now lives in
large metropolitan areas, defined as places with populations over a
million people. Obama won these 51 regions by a 17-point margin (58
percent to 41 percent). Another 20 percent of the population lives in
medium-sized metropolitan areas with 250,000 to 1 million people. Obama
carried these regions by 4 points.
To read
the full report, please visit:
https://mediamatters.org/reports/200905270017
To view
the report as a PDF, please visit:
https://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/caf_mm-20090526-4.pdf
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular