Only 7% of journalists say they're Republicans.

Here's story out of the Washington Post pointing out that only 7% of journalists identify themselves as Republicans while 28% as Democrats.  50% identify themselves as Independents.

Of course, journalists will argue they're still objective whatever their personal views. However, worldview, how a person sees the world, impacts what they perceive happening in the world.  Here journalists I suspect are overwhelmingly liberal whatever their political affiliation, even if they view themselves as Independents. 

Racial, ethnic divide and the Republicans and Democrats. Who will start to break the log jam?

This Gallup poll points out the major divide between the major political parties and the Republicans and Democrats.  Whites leaning Republican and minorities more towards Democrats.

A key question is will Republicans make a concerted effort to gain support among minorities.  If they do, that will change politics going forward. 

This is from the Gallup Poll.

This polarization could ease by the time Obama's term finishes, in three years. However, given the already large racial gap in party preferences in his first five years, unless there is a dramatic shift among whites toward the Democratic Party or among nonwhites toward the GOP in the next three years, party preferences will end up more racially polarized in Obama's presidency than in his two predecessors' administrations.

The divide in America on basic issues.

An ABC News/Fusion poll just released showed the significant divide in America on a wide range of issues - politics, role of government and religion to name a few.

Opportunities for women and minorities.

•    Among all adults, 53 percent think women have fewer opportunities than men in the workplace. But that ranges from 68 percent of Democrats to 38 percent of Republicans, a difference of 30 percentage points. Comparing the most unlike groups, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, it’s 76 vs. 35 percent.

•    Forty-one percent overall think nonwhites have fewer opportunities than whites in society. Fifty-six percent of Democrats say so, as do 62 percent of liberal Democrats (more than the number of nonwhites themselves who say so, 51 percent). Among Republicans that dives to 25 percent.

 Confidence in government in Washington to do the right thing.

•    Thirty-nine percent of adults say they trust the government in Washington to do what’s right; six in 10 don’t. Apparently reflecting views of the Obama administration, trust peaks at 62 percent of Democrats, as many liberals and 69 percent of liberal Democrats. Just a quarter of Republicans and conservatives, and 18 percent of conservative Republicans, feel the same.

 Importance of religious beliefs among political leaders.

•    Fewer than half of all adults, 45 percent, say political leaders should rely somewhat or a great deal on their religious beliefs when making policy decisions. But again the range is wide: Six in 10 conservatives, as many Republicans and 65 percent of conservative Republicans hold this view. That falls sharply to 39 percent of Democrats and independents alike, four in 10 moderates and 32 percent of liberals.

Views of millennials on religious faith and political engagement.

MILLENNIALS – Millennials, another group on which Fusion will focus coverage, customarily are described as Americans born from 1982 to 2004; for adults, that’s age 18 to 31. They’re not much different from other age groups on most of the attitudes measured in this survey, with two exceptions.

As noted, along with under-40s more broadly, they’re more apt to favor legal status for undocumented immigrants. And they’re 12 points less apt than their elders to say politicians should base policy positions on their religious beliefs, a result that fits with customarily lower levels of religiosity among young adults.

There’s another difference among millennials vs. older adults, reflecting another longstanding attribute of young Americans: Their comparative lack of engagement in politics. Among adults age 18 to 31, just 54 percent report that they’re registered to vote. That soars to 87 percent among those 32 and older. Indeed it increases steadily with age, peaking at 94 percent of seniors.

Political center is shifting to the right.

Here's an interesting article by William Galston, one time member of Clinton Administration and current policy person at left of center Brookings Institution.

He looks at the latest Pew Research poll on American's attitudes towards politics and the parties and the center has shifted dramatically from 2005 when the electorate tilted towards the democrats which I presume was Bush and Republican fatigue.

It's interesting how quickly the shift has gone the other direction.

In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.

In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.

There’s another difference as well. In 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’views of their own parties dovetailed with the perceptions of the electorate as a whole. Today, while voters as a whole agree with Republicans’ evaluation of their party as conservative, they disagree with Democrats, who on average see their party as moderate rather than liberal. So when Independents, who see themselves as modestly right of center, say that Democrats are too liberal, average Democrats can’t imagine what they’re talking about.

The shift to self described conservatives is interesting.

Compounding the problem, the American people are gradually polarizing. According to Gallup, twenty years ago, as Bill Clinton began his presidential campaign,self-described moderates formed the plurality of the electorate—43 percent; conservatives were 36 percent, liberals 17 percent. By the summer of 2011, the conservative share had risen to 41 percent and liberals to 21 percent, while moderates declined to 36 percent, surrendering their plurality status to conservatives. Because nearly all conservatives now vote for Republicans and liberals for Democrats, the share of the shrinking pool of moderates that Democrats need to build a majority is now larger than ever.

The drop in public confidence in government is huge and could last a long time. I don't see us government restoring the public's confidence in its ability to solve society's problems any time soon - whether democrats or republicans are in office. Why? Government is incapable solving the intractible social problems facing society. Government can't be replicate a family though it can help provide an environment favorable to families and marriages. But that's much different than trying to take over the tasks of parents.

Another Gallup finding that should alert Democrats is the ongoing collapse of public confidence in government. A survey released earlier this week found that Americans now believe that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, the highest estimate ever recorded. Twenty-five years ago, that figure stood at only 38 cents. While estimates of waste at the state and local level remain lower than for the federal level, they have also risen by double digits in recent decades.

Overall, it’s hard to avoid concluding that the ideological playing-field heading into 2012 is tilted against Democrats. This reality only deepens the strategic dilemma the White House now confronts. The conventional strategy for an incumbent is to secure the base before the general public gets fully engaged and then reach out to the swing voters whose decisions spell the difference between victory and defeat. By contrast, the Obama team spent most of 2011 in what turned out to be a failed effort to win over the Independent voters who deserted Democrats in droves last November, in the process alienating substantial portions of the base. To rekindle the allegiance and enthusiasm of core supporters, the president now finds himself having to draw sharp ideological lines, risking further erosion among Independents and even moderate Democrats. Tellingly, a number of at-risk Democratic senators up for reelection in 2012 have already refused to go along with key elements of the president’s recent proposals.

Granted, ideology isn’t everything. Political scientists have long observed that Americans are more liberal on particulars than they are in general—ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. (Surveys have shown majority support for most individual elements of the president’s jobs and budget packages.) And the Republicans could undermine their chances by nominating a presidential candidate who is simply too hard-edged conservative for moderates and Independents to stomach.

In the face of widespread skepticism and disillusion, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats to persuade key voting blocks that government can really make their lives better. But if they fail, the public will continue to equate public spending with waste, the anti-government message will continue to resonate, and Democrats will be in dire straits when heading into what is shaping up as a pivotal election.

Rasmussen: Election is referendum on Democrats more than vote for Republicans.

I found an interesting column by pollster Scott Rasmussen who says the election is more a vote against Democrats than for Republicans.

Rasmussen writes:

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

I think Rasmussen has a point. Voters haven't gotten the change they expected from Obama. Though ideology or philosophy is what guides individuals and in this instance political parties. If Republicans stand for less government I'm not sure how they can leave that ideology behind. The key question is: Will Republicans stand their ground rather than continuing the expansion of government but just more slowly than the Democrats?

Changing election dynamics in race for Congress -- Will Republicans regain control of US House? Gallup says it's a possibility.

Going into this election, the conventional wisdom held it would be a wipe out for conservatives. Bush's unpopularity, a war, and a struggling economy all pointed to liberals picking up the White House and expanding majorities in Congress.

But things have begun to change in the last few weeks. Sarah Palin's pick as McCain's VP pick has energized conservatives. The inherent weaknesses of Obama, e.g. style over substance, lack of experience and extreme liberalness. Aggressive campaigning by a 72 year old man who makes his much younger, liberal opponent look indecisive and uncertain. All of these things have changed the dynamics of the presidential race.

Now the dynamics are changing in the race for control of Congress. Congress' approval numbers are in the tank. Over 4o percent worse than George Bush's. A liberal controlled Congress has very little to show after 2 years of majority control. In voter preference for Congress, Democrats have held double digit leads over Republicans over the past two years. According to a Gallup poll, in February of 2008, they held a 15 point lead over Republicans among registered voters . Today it's down to 3 points. Among likely voters, Republicans actually have a lead of 5 points.

If this trend holds up, analysis from the Gallup polling people say Republicans will regain control of Congress.

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Gallup's long-term "generic ballot" trend shows, the Democrats held a sizable lead on this measure from the time they won back control of Congress in the fall of 2006 through last month. If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.

This would be a remarkable, stunning turn of events if it holds up. Of course, there is a long time between now and Election Day. I think things will remain very fluid between now and November 4th. There's no guarantee this generic numbers will hold up for conservatives. The timing of the most recent polling was right after the Republican convention so they could be viewed in part as a convention bounce. But the trend over the past couple months has been towards narrowing the gap. This is shaping up to be a very interesting, unpredictable election year.

More evidence for liberal media bias - members of media overwhelmingly support liberal political candidates

There's always talk among conservatives about liberal media bias, with the latest example being the highly favorable and extensive coverage of Obama's trip to Europe and Middle East. Well, Investor's Business Daily reports a recent analysis of which political candidates members of the media are donating to. The beneficiaries? Overwhelmingly liberal political candidates. They are giving money to Democrat candidates by a 15 to 1 margin.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

Now some might argue that simply giving money to particular candidates doesn't mean these media folks are biased. "They're professionals and can separate out their personal views from their media work." This of course is the myth of neutrality. Bias isn't just a deliberate effort to slant the news but which and how a story is reported. Their political leanings point to an underlying worldview which is no doubt more liberal and secular. Everything they, and everybody for that matter, do and say is filtered through a worldview. That's where the bias comes in to play. I know many journalists who strive to be fair and even handed but they'll still have blind spots and internal predispositions.

Despite the bias evidenced by the Obama overseas trip coverage, the American people don't seem to be taken in by it. Polls show the race with McCain tightening rather than moving the other direction.

Key Democrat Strategist is Nervous about Obama in November.

There's an interesting article by Susan Estrich, Democrat strategist and campaign manager for Dukakis in 1988, on why Barak Obama isn't ahead more in the race for president. She's nervous he' not doing better in a year when Democrats, generally, should do very well. Why is that? Race, inexperience, liberalness are some she mentions.

With an uncertain international world and now domestic scene, the poor economy, I think people are going to look for their next president to be a stable force. Some one with experience. Who's been tested. Despite his weaknesses, McCain has been through it. Usually when the economy goes sour, the party in power is in trouble. So one would expect that to benefit Obama. However, the uncertainly will make character and leadership a bigger concern than simply voting for change.

I've always viewed Obama as either a rising star or a shooting star. I think he maybe the latter when the rubber meets the road of an intense presidential campaign. He's already been playing both sides on a number of issues. He's been wrong on critical issues like the surge in Iraq. And he's very liberal, which will make him less appealing when the American people get a closer look at him. That doesn't mean he'll won't win in November, but I wouldn't bet on it if I was a betting man.