During the eight presidential elections from 1976-2004, Democrats received an extremely stable percentage of the self-identified Republican vote (source). The highest percentage of self-identified Republicans to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee was 13% for Bill Clinton in 1996, and the lowest percentage was 6% for John Kerry in 2004. In the other six elections, Democrats received between 8% and 11% of the self-identified Republican vote, amounts that are very close to the margin of error for all of these surveys.

Apart from presidential elections, the inability of Democrats to win votes from a high percentage of self-identified Republicans was perhaps put into its starkest relief in 2006. Despite the Democratic landslide around the nation, and despite Democrats increasing their share of the total national House vote from 47.5% in 2004 to over 53% in 2006 (source), Democrats still only received 8% of the self-identified Republican vote (source). Remarkably, in 2006, Democratic candidates actually improved more among self-identified Democrats than they improved among self-identified Republicans:

National Democratic Share of Partisan Vote, 2006 and 2004
Independent Identifiers: 57% in 2006, up from 49% in 2004 (+8%)
Democratic Identifies: 93% in 2006, up from 89% in 2004 (+4%)
Republican Identifiers: 8% in 2006, up from 6% in 2004 (+2%)

All of this is just scratching the surface. There is simply no empirical evidence from the past forty years that Democrats have the ability to shift a statistically significant number of Republican identifiers during a national election. Democratic margins among both Independent identifiers and Democratic identifiers have proven to be both far more variable and quite statistically significant. During the past three decades, both groups have given Democrats a 26-point variance in their voting percentage: between 67-93% for Democratic self-identifiers and between 31-57% for Independent self-identifiers. When it comes either to Democrats finding new voters, or to Democrats maintaining their current "soft" voters, clearly the overwhelming percentage of these "swing" votes are to be found within Independent self-identifiers and Democratic self-identifiers.

Given this, it would follow that the news outlets with the highest combined percentage of Independent and Democratic identifiers in their audience would be the most desirable outlets for Democrats to reach. A Pew study from last year provided information on this front, as the chart on the right shows. According to the Pew study, at least two news outlets, CNN and NPR, have more reachable voters for Democrats than Fox News. When one considers that Fox's ratings have been stagnating over the past year, it is now also entirely possible that MSNBC has more reachable voters in their audience than does Fox News. That becomes even more likely when one considers the relative rigidity of older voters in their party preference habits when compared to the party preference habits younger voters, as Fox's audience is chock full of the 55+ demographic. The Pew survey also suggests that morning news programs, especially the extremely popular Today and Good Morning America programs, would also have more reachable voters than Fox News.

My point in bringing this all up is to show that the main talking point the Nevada Democratic Party is using to justify holding a debate on Fox News is hogwash. There are numerous news outlets, including NPR, that have more reachable, "swing" voters for Democrats than Fox News. However, I certainly can't remember the last time a prominent member of the Democratic Party justified going on National Public Radio as a way to reach more voters, whereas that is constantly--and robotically--the justification many use for going on Fox News. This is not even to mention that NPR is a far, far more respectable news organization than Fox News, and it will treat Democrats much more fairly than Fox will before, during and after any debate.

Now, I am well aware there are few things most leading Democrats find more distasteful than actually trying to appeal to the Democratic base, and that giving into pressure from the progressive netroots might be the most unappealing prospect of all. After all, what would the viewers of Fox News think of such a thing? The last thing Democrats need to do is to appear captive to us extremists online, as that might provoke Bill O'Reilly's wrath. I also know that leading Democrats have a long and unfortunate obsession with trying to capture the votes of the demographic groups least likely to vote for them, such as the obsession over the past two years with white evangelicals. Given this, I don't want to put them in a position where they feel they have to choose between Fox News and the netroots. So here are some ways tNevada Democrats can avoid this problem when it comes to holding a debate on Fox News:

1. Have NPR co-host the debate. If, as leading Nevada Democrats have repeatedly stated, the rationale for have Fox News broadcast the debate is to reach new viewers / voters, than at least have a radio station with more reachable viewers / voters in its audience co-host the debate with Fox News. Since NPR is a radio station, it would not interfere with Fox News holding the television broadcast rights to the debate at all. It would also help temper coverage of the debate before it, during it, and after it, since NPR is not nearly as hostile to Democrats as is Fox News.
   
   
2. Have Air America co-host the debate. If, as leading Nevada Democrats have implied, they know that Fox News has an anti-Democratic agenda, then at least have a radio station with an arguably pro-Democratic agenda co-host the debate. This is, after all, a Democratic primary, and as such one would think that Democrats have as much right to examine the Democratic field as Republicans. Once again, this would not interfere with Fox News holding television broadcast rights. It would also show acknowledgment of emerging progressive media, which one would think is at least as important to Democratic prospects as is long established conservative media. It would also demonstrate a sense of respect toward the voters who will actually determine the next Democratic presidential nominee--you know, Democrats?
   
   
3. Do both. If this is about reaching out to new voters, and if you are aware that Fox News has an anti-Democratic agenda, then have NPR and Air America co-host the debate with Fox News.
   
   
4. Come up with new talking points to justify the debate. If having either NPR or Air America co-host the debate is too much for Nevada Democrats, then at least come up with new talking points to justify having Fox host the debate that don't insult our intelligence. Fox isn't the only place where you can reach new voters, nor the best place to reach new voters. Partnering with Fox on a project does endorse them and provide them with credibility, no matter what someone may claim otherwise. Further, the fifty-state strategy also isn't just about talking to red areas and purple areas of the country-- fifty-states means blue areas too (remember those?). We are not a bunch of idiots who can be placated simply by repeatedly stating the same talking point no matter what question we are asking you. How did that work out for you in your Dailykos diary yesterday, anyway? You may think we act like a bunch of snotty know-it-alls, but believe me when I write that during an episode like this, that feeling is absolutely mutual.

There are lots of ways we can reach a mutually agreeable solution on this issue. It does not have to be all or nothing. Let's work this out.

Oh, and anytime you need instructions on how to properly formulate an embedded hyperlink, you might actually ask someone who has done it before. Just a thought.

Best,
Chris Bowers