Why the Democrats Still Need Working-Class White Voters

[DC Al Fine]

It's more a question of perception than what the politician in question actually does. Compare Bush Sr & Bush Jr. Both were really wealthy guys who went to Ivy League schools, but Bush Jr had a much better connection with the white working class because he seemed more like them.

[HansOslo]

I am not as familiar with American politics as I am with those of my own country, but isn’t the problem that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to offer for the working class? I’ve read somewhere that their wages have stagnated since the 1970s, and the price of healthcare and college have spiraled upwards greatly at the same time. This means they have less money to spend, and their sons and daughters are less likely to reach a middle class economic status, because they can’t afford an education.

To me it looks like the Republicans doesn’t have anything to offer except for identity politics (“Real America”, abortion and guns), but what are the Democrats proposing to help the working class?

[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.

[memphis]

It's more a question of perception than what the politician in question actually does. Compare Bush Sr & Bush Jr. Both were really wealthy guys who went to Ivy League schools, but Bush Jr had a much better connection with the white working class because he seemed more like them.

He only "seemed" more like them because of a incredibly cynical and meticulous presentation for the TV. But Bush '88 also did very well amongst white people of all classes, farm crisis and traditional Dem areas like the Iron Range and West Virginia, notwithstanding. I also don't fault Torie for not knowing much about working class people. Outside his breadth of experience.

[DC Al Fine]

It's more a question of perception than what the politician in question actually does. Compare Bush Sr & Bush Jr. Both were really wealthy guys who went to Ivy League schools, but Bush Jr had a much better connection with the white working class because he seemed more like them.

He only "seemed" more like them because of a incredibly cynical and meticulous presentation for the TV.

That's the point. There is no reality in politics, only perception.

[memphis]

It's more a question of perception than what the politician in question actually does. Compare Bush Sr & Bush Jr. Both were really wealthy guys who went to Ivy League schools, but Bush Jr had a much better connection with the white working class because he seemed more like them.

He only "seemed" more like them because of a incredibly cynical and meticulous presentation for the TV.

That's the point. There is no reality in politics, only perception.

Not true at all. Thousands of American soldiers are dead and Mitt Romney is millions of dollars richer as a direct result of the policies of Bush Jr. There's a lot of reality in politics.

[Sol]

I am not as familiar with American politics as I am with those of my own country, but isn’t the problem that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to offer for the working class? I’ve read somewhere that their wages have stagnated since the 1970s, and the price of healthcare and college have spiraled upwards greatly at the same time. This means they have less money to spend, and their sons and daughters are less likely to reach a middle class economic status, because they can’t afford an education.

To me it looks like the Republicans doesn’t have anything to offer except for identity politics (“Real America”, abortion and guns), but what are the Democrats proposing to help the working class?

More services. Food Stamps, medicaid, etc. Democrats are also generally in favor of raising the minimum wage and are pro-union. Essentially, they're the economically leftist party*.

*Of course, this is relative. Objectively, Dems are center-right on economics compared to the far-far-right pubs.

[pbrower2a]

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.

... 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?

Working-poor white people seem to have little involvement in formal organizations. Being stretched to their financial limits, they are unable to afford memberships in anything. Often working split shifts or on an on-call basis they are often unable to participate in anything. They often live in a cultural and intellectual vacuum and they often kiss up to their employers for even a slight advantage in getting a chance at a few more hours of work.  Kissing up means in part adopting the political views of the employer.

White working people used to be heavily unionized, so they got some view other than "this company is the closest thing to a friend that I can have". (Some friend!) Maybe they even believe that if the minimum wage is cut, they might get more hours on the job. 40 hours a week at $6 is better than 28 at $8 -- right? (The difference is $16, which means that an employer would get 12 more hours of work at an average of $1.33 for each additional hour worked.)

 

[Non Swing Voter]

Obama got destroyed among working class whites in Virginia and still won the state pretty easily based on minorities + white collar whites.  Not sure why Democrats would want to focus on a group that is declining as a share of the electorate when they are currently winning elections pretty easily without all that much support from them.

I also doubt Republicans can pad their numbers that much more among that group anyways.  It's not like every blue collar white worker works in an oil field in Texas.   There are a lot of people who waiter or work at Best Buy for a few years after college or between jobs that probably fall into that category but aren't NRA members or churchgoers.

[Sbane]

Obama got destroyed among working class whites in Virginia and still won the state pretty easily based on minorities + white collar whites.  Not sure why Democrats would want to focus on a group that is declining as a share of the electorate when they are currently winning elections pretty easily without all that much support from them.

I also doubt Republicans can pad their numbers that much more among that group anyways.  It's not like every blue collar white worker works in an oil field in Texas.   There are a lot of people who waiter or work at Best Buy for a few years after college or between jobs that probably fall into that category but aren't NRA members or churchgoers.

Also I don't see any evidence that young working class whites (aka service workers) vote any differently than their more white collar white counterparts. If anything they are probably even more Democratic. It is older working class whites who are a thorn in the side of the Democrats and many are dying off.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would, of course, be better for the Democratic Party's soul (and for the general tone and tenor of U.S politics) if they were to think in such terms, but the reality is that neither institutional party 'needs' any group of voters as such.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I dislike it when "working class" is used to mean "not a college graduate", with no economic variables included, as in Torie's link. This group includes plenty of small business owners and managers, among others (and is also a fairly elderly-skewed group, given the historical expansion of post-secondary education).

Of course it's kind of complex what counts as working class, but there's no need to get into this in this type of context; it would not be at all difficult, confusing, or uninteresting for journalists and pundits just to write "whites without college degrees". There's no other group where pundits routinely take the perfectly comprehensible phrase actually used in the exit poll question and substitute a much vaguer phrase with connotations that apply variably to the group in question.

[Mechaman]

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.

... 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?

Working-poor white people seem to have little involvement in formal organizations. Being stretched to their financial limits, they are unable to afford memberships in anything. Often working split shifts or on an on-call basis they are often unable to participate in anything. They often live in a cultural and intellectual vacuum and they often kiss up to their employers for even a slight advantage in getting a chance at a few more hours of work.  Kissing up means in part adopting the political views of the employer.

White working people used to be heavily unionized, so they got some view other than "this company is the closest thing to a friend that I can have". (Some friend!) Maybe they even believe that if the minimum wage is cut, they might get more hours on the job. 40 hours a week at $6 is better than 28 at $8 -- right? (The difference is $16, which means that an employer would get 12 more hours of work at an average of $1.33 for each additional hour worked.)

 

Nominee for most elitist post of the year, anyone?

[badgate]

I'd be much more interested in a thread about why working-class whites still need Democrats to win elections

[memphis]

I dislike it when "working class" is used to mean "not a college graduate", with no economic variables included, as in Torie's link. This group includes plenty of small business owners and managers, among others (and is also a fairly elderly-skewed group, given the historical expansion of post-secondary education).

Of course it's kind of complex what counts as working class, but there's no need to get into this in this type of context; it would not be at all difficult, confusing, or uninteresting for journalists and pundits just to write "whites without college degrees". There's no other group where pundits routinely take the perfectly comprehensible phrase actually used in the exit poll question and substitute a much vaguer phrase with connotations that apply variably to the group in question.

This is hardly the only case of euphemistic language. "Inner city", for instance, gets thrown around all the time to refer to black people. It's very well understood that phrase does not refer to anybody south of 110th street. 

[Linus Van Pelt]

I dislike it when "working class" is used to mean "not a college graduate", with no economic variables included, as in Torie's link. This group includes plenty of small business owners and managers, among others (and is also a fairly elderly-skewed group, given the historical expansion of post-secondary education).

Of course it's kind of complex what counts as working class, but there's no need to get into this in this type of context; it would not be at all difficult, confusing, or uninteresting for journalists and pundits just to write "whites without college degrees". There's no other group where pundits routinely take the perfectly comprehensible phrase actually used in the exit poll question and substitute a much vaguer phrase with connotations that apply variably to the group in question.

This is hardly the only case of euphemistic language. "Inner city", for instance, gets thrown around all the time to refer to black people. It's very well understood that phrase does not refer to anybody south of 110th street. 

Of course that's true in many contexts, but I was talking specifically about analysis of polling breakdowns. You would never see an article in a real newspaper about racial voting patterns where the categories in the article's text were "white", "Hispanic", "Asian" and "inner-city" even though the poll itself had used "black" or "African-American".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's the sort of thing that reveals quite a lot about the writer, isn't it?

[HansOslo]

I am not as familiar with American politics as I am with those of my own country, but isn’t the problem that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to offer for the working class? I’ve read somewhere that their wages have stagnated since the 1970s, and the price of healthcare and college have spiraled upwards greatly at the same time. This means they have less money to spend, and their sons and daughters are less likely to reach a middle class economic status, because they can’t afford an education.

To me it looks like the Republicans doesn’t have anything to offer except for identity politics (“Real America”, abortion and guns), but what are the Democrats proposing to help the working class?

More services. Food Stamps, medicaid, etc. Democrats are also generally in favor of raising the minimum wage and are pro-union. Essentially, they're the economically leftist party*.

*Of course, this is relative. Objectively, Dems are center-right on economics compared to the far-far-right pubs.

Some sort of welfare is of course a step in the right direction. But they don't really have any sort of industrial policy. At least that is my impression.

I think good jobs must lie at the heart of any policy for the working class (or “middle class”). It looks like the American working class is increasingly working in the service sector, where they don’t earn more than minimum wage, which is insufficient to support a family and retain a decent living standard. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Democrats' problems with white working class voters are skewed by the South and Appalachia (increasingly), but if you look at wealthy white-collar types in those regions, they're even more GOP than their working class counterparts.

Also, there are plenty of business owners and managers in "blue collar" industries who don't have as much formal education as the white collar professional set, yet are often quite wealthy themselves. This is especially true in rural areas and more conservative regions like the South, Appalachia, and parts of the Midwest and interior West.

Rich people with less formal education, especially business owners, managers, and many retirees, are a prime GOP cobstituency.

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Of course, plenty of working class whites vote Democratic. I remember reading a Pew report that put the number of partisan Democrats in the white working class as greater than the number of partisan Republicans. The issue for the Democrats are the many white working class types who are Independent, apathetic, cynical, and suspicious of the entire political process, which includes the federal government. There are grievances among many people in this demographic about gun rights, immigration, affirmative action, economic issues like free trade, and environmentalism.

Also, I think a lot of white working class people tend to work in industries where you can potentially make a lot of money without much formal education. They live and work in rural areas and small cities where their employers are similar to them in terms of educational attainment, culture, and religious practices-which are still a big deal in a lot of rural or ruralesque areas. Working class whites don't begrudge their immediate employers for making a lot of money in a blue collar skilled job. Indeed, the fact that their "self-made" employers, who likely came from working class backgrounds themselves, could become successful at what they do is inspirational to many of the employees.

When you have people who are concentrated in areas of the country where local ties, a long family history within the towns they grew up in, a sense of economic and cultural identity with their immediate employers are shared, and where tradition and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" are valued over change and reform-that's going to breed conservatism naturally within much of that population.