Why the Democrats Still Need Working-Class White Voters

[Torie]

Because that is the math, even as the nation becomes less white. Why? Because there are still a lot of whites, and more of them are working class than you think. The nation overall is just not like Orange County, CA, or San Francisco, or Manhattan, or San Jose, etc.  It is more like Winchester, Virginia in fact, when it comes to working class whites. Working class whites ("WCW's") don't like big cities much anymore.

How can the Dems seal the deal?  The author says the old fashioned way, by the Dems returning to their roots and becoming the friends and neighbors of WCW's once again (and although the author does not say this, getting outside of their urban satrapies). It seems a bit of a buggy whip solution to me. Plus, the Dems don't want to live in Winchester. They don't live the lives of working class whites - and don't want to. They don't hunt. They don't really like to go to church that much although they may say they are religious. And just how often do you see them at High School football games? No, the Dems, and those who aspire to lead them,  want as it were to live in places like Whittier and Como in Minneapolis, to pick two hoods at random, not, and watch independent films.

So, for the moment, given the shape of the two competing coalitions, and unless the Dems get down and dirty in Winchester, the Pubs will tend to have the advantage in off year elections, and the Dems in POTUS elections, when persons of color, and youngs find the time to put down their bongs, and go out and vote in a way they don't in off year elections, which tend to be boring provincial affairs that seem sort of meaningless to them.

[Torie]

Actually I mentioned Whittier and Como memphis. My text is a big more subtle than the strawman you created, and then beat up, and then incinerated the ensuing mayhem of straw.

[Torie]

Actually I mentioned Whittier and Como memphis. My text is a big more subtle than the strawman you created, and then beat up, and incinerated the ensuing mayhem of straw.

Your whole point seems to be that Dems can't win without at least some working class white people. Ignoring the implication that Dems do better among the well off, which is factually incorrect, that doesn't strike you as blindingly obvious? I think you need to meet more working class people. Don't you have a farm in Iowa? How did that state vote, again?

You didn't understand my point (nor perhaps the point of the article itself), and I said nothing about non working class white people to boot.

[Torie]

Sigh.

[Torie]

Torie you need to read your article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He uses a mid term election during a tough economic time as his worst case scenario.  Parties in power lose midterms all the time.  It is the norm.  I would not use it to extrapolate presidential elections.

And I don't think anyone on this forum or beyond thinks the Democratic party can jettison white working class voters.  That's absurd.  Why do you think Dems are so chummy with unions?  Only getting 40% of that vote is an electoral drubbing, but even your article states 40% almost ensures a perpetual lock on the White House.

The rich or upper class are by definition a small minority.  I don't think anyone in the Democratic coalition would swap all the white working class voters for a handful of latte sippers.  Democrats can do math.  Obama isn't running the United States like Vermont.  Anyone that has paid attention to Obama's track record and been to Vermont wouldn't confuse the two.

Yes, and the point, is that if the Dems can get a tad more of the white working class vote, then they will be able to trump the Pubs in off year elections, even if their person of color and youngs base turnout falls off in off year elections. But absent that, off year elections remain a problem for the Dems all things being equal at this point.

And yes, for POTUS elections, the Pubs are indeed in deep trouble, if they cannot evolve to become competitive again. And their performance in big metro areas among non working class whites outside the South is in general just terrible these days, relative to what was once the case. Few, and certainly not I, would suggest that the Pubs are in good psephological health. And yes, again, the Pubs just repackaging the message is not where it is at.

[Torie]

How can the Dems seal the deal?  The author says the old fashioned way, by the Dems returning to their roots and becoming the friends and neighbors of WCW's once again (and although the author does not say this, getting outside of their urban satrapies). It seems a bit of a buggy whip solution to me. Plus, the Dems don't want to live in Winchester. They don't live the lives of working class whites - and don't want to. They don't hunt. They don't really like to go to church that much although they may say they are religious. And just how often do you see them at High School football games? No, the Dems, and those who aspire to lead them,  want as it were to live in places like Whittier and Como in Minneapolis, to pick two hoods at random, not, and watch independent films.

I hate this kind of logic because it implies that Democrats should have to do something that Republicans don't do either. Mitt Romney has gone hunting all of, what, two times in his life? (Small varmints, if you will.) Religious? Romney isn't even a Christian by some standards; Grover Norquist is married to a Mohammedan and Rand Paul's subversive heresies as a student at Baylor University became well known during his Senate campaign. How many high school football games do you think Bobby Jindal ever went to before becoming governor? When did George W. Bush ever live the life of a working class white person? Spending a summer as a roughneck in the oilpatch working for your daddy's company doesn't count.

So please spare me any more of this idea that the Republican members of the political class are any more connected to WCWs than their Democratic counterparts.

That however is precisely the claim of the article. It kind of surprised me too, but then it sort of helped connect the dots for me a bit, so it caused me to pause. Anyway, take up your beef with the author, not me. I was merely positing questions, and musings, with ultimate truths a mere speculation in any event, but the wolves smelled prey, and nature took over. It kind of reminded me of that sleigh ride in War and Peace.

[Torie]

How can the Dems seal the deal?  The author says the old fashioned way, by the Dems returning to their roots and becoming the friends and neighbors of WCW's once again (and although the author does not say this, getting outside of their urban satrapies). It seems a bit of a buggy whip solution to me. Plus, the Dems don't want to live in Winchester. They don't live the lives of working class whites - and don't want to. They don't hunt. They don't really like to go to church that much although they may say they are religious. And just how often do you see them at High School football games? No, the Dems, and those who aspire to lead them,  want as it were to live in places like Whittier and Como in Minneapolis, to pick two hoods at random, not, and watch independent films.

Jesus Christ could you be any more smug, wrong, and stupid?

Senility I guess.

[Torie]

Because that is the math, even as the nation becomes less white. Why? Because there are still a lot of whites, and more of them are working class than you think. The nation overall is just not like Orange County, CA, or San Francisco, or Manhattan, or San Jose, etc.  It is more like Winchester, Virginia in fact, when it comes to working class whites. Working class whites ("WCW's") don't like big cities much anymore.

How can the Dems seal the deal?  The author says the old fashioned way, by the Dems returning to their roots and becoming the friends and neighbors of WCW's once again (and although the author does not say this, getting outside of their urban satrapies). It seems a bit of a buggy whip solution to me. Plus, the Dems don't want to live in Winchester. They don't live the lives of working class whites - and don't want to. They don't hunt. They don't really like to go to church that much although they may say they are religious. And just how often do you see them at High School football games? No, the Dems, and those who aspire to lead them,  want as it were to live in places like Whittier and Como in Minneapolis, to pick two hoods at random, not, and watch independent films.
So, for the moment, given the shape of the two competing coalitions, and unless the Dems get down and dirty in Winchester, the Pubs will tend to have the advantage in off year elections, and the Dems in POTUS elections, when persons of color, and youngs find the time to put down their bongs, and go out and vote in a way they don't in off year elections, which tend to be boring provincial affairs that seem sort of meaningless to them.

Who are you and what have you done with usually reasonable non-trollish Torie?

More to the point, has anyone found any, you know, exit polls or other actual data that supports the whole "white working class" argument of this article? As much as the whole "latte liberal" image is appealing to some, Obama's support dropped in direct coralation to higher family income, including among whites. I couldn't find exit polls after a search that correlated race AND income together, but would love to see it.

The article has its flaws, and hardly provides adequate data to fully support the hypothesis of the article. But I did an assuming arguendo, and went off on a riff to wordsmith the author's theory in a bit  more colorful way, with Naso as my inspiration as to the color scheme. And I quite enjoyed the exercise. Thank you.