Workers leave the Warren Truck Assembly in Warren, Mich. during a shift change, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)
by Frank James
For Sen. Barack Obama, there's good and bad news as far as white working-class voters are concerned.
The good news is that the kind of voters who once again showed in Pennsylvania their unwillingness to vote for him are declining as a percentage of the electorate.
The bad news is that their proportion among voters generally isn't going to shrink fast enough to help him.
That and other conclusions can drawn from a new and very enlightening paper by Ruy Teixeira, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.
In "The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class," Teixeira and Abramowitz say that however you define the white working class--by income, education, or occupation--its percentage among all voters is declining. It has fallen 30-50 percentage points since the World War II period till now.
Depending on which definition you use, the white-working class population has gone from being the vast majority of white Americans 60 years ago to a third or less of then white population.
Even so, white working-class voters have been the kingmakers ever since they became the backbone of the Democratic Party during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era.
Ever since then, no one has become president without them. Yesterday's Pennsylvania primary showed how formidable they remain.
In the 1960s and 1970s, they started trending Republican for cultural reasons--like the backlash against feminism--and racial reasons--anger at a welfare state they saw as taxing them to benefit blacks, the authors say.
The emergence of the Reagan Democrats just continued a long trend; those voters had appeared earlier as part of Nixon's "silent majority."
As Teixera and Abramowitz note, sometimes the best a Democratic presidential candidate can hope for is to keep down the percentage of working-class whites that votes for the Republican candidate. This happened with the most successful Democratic presidential candidate in recent decades, former President Bill Clinton:
But despite Clinton's electoral success, it was not the case that he received a great deal of white working class support. He averaged only 41 percent across his two election victories. But he did, at least, prevent these voters from siding with his Republican opponents in large numbers, eking out one point pluralities among the white working class in both elections (the rest went to Perot).
His designated successor, Al Gore, was not so successful. He lost white working class voters in the 2000 election by 17 points. And the next Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, did even worse, losing these voters by a whopping 23 points in 2004. One could reasonably ascribe the worsening deficit for Democrats in 2004 to the role of national security and terrorism after 9/11 but the very sizeable 2000 deficit cannot be explained on that basis. Apparently, the successes of the Clinton years, which included a strong economy that delivered solid real wage growth for the first time since 1973, did not succeed in restoring the historic bond between the white working class and the Democrats.
So even Bill Clinton, the best Democratic presidential candidate of a generation, didn't do all that well with white working-class voters, and he started out in life as one of them.
That illustrates the enormity of the challenge confronting Obama, especially if he goes on to win the Democratic nomination and face, in the general election, Sen. John McCain, the all-but-official Republican nominee.
Of course, Hillary Clinton would have a challenge too, just as her husband and other recent Democrats vying for the White House. But at least she wouldn't have the problem of the race issue with these particular voters, which appears to be significant in Obama's case, judging from yesterday's exit polls.
Democrats clearly have a problem attracting white working-class voters, period. If Obama's the nominee, that historic difficulty could be magnified, at least that's what history suggests.
Obama's challenge is compounded by this--the white working-class is found largely in the very states that are the battleground states that will likely decide the election, states like Pennsylvania. The numbers in the following paragraph represent the percentage of the population in that state defined as white working class.
Significantly, with the exceptions of New Mexico and Florida (48), the twelve most contested states in the last couple of presidential elections all have levels of white working class voters well above the national average. These are the five states which have been carried by Democrats by an average of less than 5 points in the two elections (Michigan, 59, Minnesota, 58, Oregon, 64, Pennsylvania, 56, Wisconsin, 64), the three states that changed hands across elections (Iowa, 70, New Hampshire, 60, New Mexico) and the four states the GOP carried by an average of less than 5 points in the two elections (Florida, Missouri, 58, Nevada, 56, Ohio, 60)iv.
These are the sort of facts that the Democratic superdelegates must be assessing very closely today. The question they must be now ask themselves is an excruciating one: Would giving the nomination to Obama worsen the disaffection these all-important working-class white voters have had with the Democratic Party for decades and make it impossible to retake the White House in what should be a Democratic year?
Towards the end of their paper, Teixeira and Abramowitz make the point that if Democrats wind up losing the white working class vote this year, at the very least they need to keep the margin of defeat to 10 percentage points or less.
During this year's Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton has generally run far ahead of Barack Obama among white working class voters (though there are signs this may be changing). But due to the structure of the Democratic primary electorate, with its heavy minority and college-educated representation, this has not translated into electoral dominance and her campaign is now in serious trouble.
The story will be different in the November general election however. Here the voting proclivities of the white working class will make a huge difference and could well determine who the next president will be. At the most general level, Bush carried white working class voters by 23 points in 2004. A replication of this performance by the GOP candidate in 2008 would make it quite unlikely that the Democrat could prevail.
Indeed, given the structure of the rest of the electorate, the Democrats have to get that deficit down to around 10 points to achieve a solid popular vote victory. How feasible is this?
The results of the 2006 Congressional election indicate this is possible. In that election, the Democrats dramatically improved their performance among white working class voters, running only a 10 point deficit, down from a 20 point deficit in 2004 Congressional voting. Moreover, the Democrats reduced their deficit from 32 to 21 points among noncollege whites with $50,000-$75,000 in household income and completely eliminated their deficit among noncollege whites with $30,000 to $50,000 in household income, going from 22 points down in 2004 to dead even.
Then the paper's authors have this really striking observation, that maybe a populist, class warfare argument isn't the way to win over these voters who see themselves as rising up the income ladder eventually.
Populism appeals to the negative, pessimistic side of these voters' outlook, but it frequently falls short in appealing to the positive, optimistic side. These are voters who, after all, are more and more likely to have at least some college education and, over time, have become decidedly more affluent than the New Deal working class for whom Democratic economic appeals were originally crafted. The white working class today is an aspirational class not a downtrodden one.
This suggests that Democrats may have to go a step farther to reach white working class voters and connect economic security to economic opportunity. When Democrats talk about social insurance and economic security, they tend to focus on how programs like Social Security and Medicare help prevent financial disaster. But there is another, more positive way to talk about insurance: as a way for families to get ahead. Just as businesses and entrepreneurs are encouraged by basic protections against financial risk to invest in economic growth, so adequate security encourages families to invest in their own future -- something many now find quite difficult. It's not easy to invest in the future, after all, when a sudden drop in income or rise in expenses could completely blow away your family budget. That sense of insecurity will make a person less likely to invest in specialized training, cultivate new career paths, aggressively change jobs -- the very things that are likely to allow that person to get ahead.
Democrats could therefore connect more positively to the white working by speaking convincingly about the need to provide economic security to expand opportunity. Efforts to increase health coverage and contain health-care costs (including the cost of prescription drugs), to improve the quality and availability of child care, to defend and extend guaranteed retirement benefits (including Social Security), to provide middle-class families with strong incentives to save and build wealth, and to make college and specialized training available to all are the subjects of countless and competing policy prescriptions. But it is critical that these policies be put in the context of helping Americans get ahead. These are measures the could allow the typical white working class family to raise its head from the day-to-day struggle of an insecure world and concentrate on its most heartfelt wish: to achieve the American Dream.
Whether offering such a message to white working-class voters would boost Obama's fortunes with these voters is an open question since much of their reluctance to vote for him appears to be based on race, something he can do nothing about.
But if the goal isn't to win a majority of these voters but instead to keep the largest percentage of them possible from going to his opponent, the approach suggested by Teixeira and Abramowitz may be worth trying. In any event, the paper is really worth reading.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"SAGGY BOTTOM NO BELT WEARING BROTHERS AND SISTERS SPEAK"
WE WANT TO VOTE! WE WANT TO BUY A BELT! BUT YOU KEEP CHANGING THE RULES.
WE WANT TO VOTE, BUT WE ARE A "PROVISIONAL VOTE" YOU KEEP CHANGING THE RULES.
WE WANT TO BE HEARD, BUT YOU "SILENCE" US WITH "SECRECY"
WE WANT TO SHOW UP, BUT YOU KEEP CHANGING DRIVERS LICENSE, POLL STATIONS, DISTRICTS, BALLOTS!
WE WANT TO VOTE, BUT YOU DON'T WANT US TO VOTE, YOU DON'T WANT US TO SHOW UP! YOU KEEP CHANGING THE RULES!
WE WANT TO VOTE, BUT YOU KEEP RAISING GAS PRICES, FOOD PRICES, HEATING PRICES, TUITION, AND "BEER" PRICES!
WE WANT TO BUY A BELT, WE WANT TO VOTE, BUT YOU KEEP CHANGING THE RULES TO VOTE!
Posted by: Roger Morris | April 23, 2008 2:29 PM
This article is reverse rascism by the same pople who would call it a hate crime to say "you people" It works both ways but as a white/hispanic man I know for a fact I've been descriminated against more then any black man of my generation.still if I thought obama was the best man for the job I'd vote for him but I'm turned off by his commments and like Mccain.
Posted by: william | April 23, 2008 2:41 PM
How is it that Obama always has 'the problem' because he is not getting the big share of white vote when it is Hillary who has the bigger problem because she is not getting hardly any share of the black vote and not nearly as much percentage of the black vote that Obama's getting of the white vote. Ever since Obama has been trouncing Clinton with the black vote, you don't hear any mention of this voting block anymore when the black vote is just as real as the white vote. When is the media going to come out and tell it like it is that if Hillary can't get the black vote she will have BIG problems come the general election? And right now, blacks won't vote for her, only the stupid ones, and I know that I am not voting for her even if she is the democratic nominee and even if she shares a ticket with Obama I won't vote for THEM together, with her on it!!!
Posted by: RuthieM | April 23, 2008 2:44 PM
We all pray for Mr. Snow a sppedy recovery..
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 2:53 PM
Obama will never be President...He needs the blue collar workers, the union workers, females and elderly that will continue to be loyal to HRC. We have just seen a glimps of his background and already it is dis-pleasing to lots of Americans and will continue to worsen as more comes out...Too bad the donars he has are not sending $$ to HRC as for him they are throwing good money away. SAD!!!
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 3:00 PM
Can we talk about Hillary's black working class problem? How about Hillary's problem attracting new voters and young voters? Why is everything being positioned as detrimental to the Obama campaign?
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | April 23, 2008 3:17 PM
I think that whites, and Hillary Clinton, have a lot of nerve to want to perpetuate the evil of racism and just because they do does not mean we should sit idly by and just watch it continue with nothing ever said that it is so. So these white people who are voting for Hillary just because she is white and not voting for Barack just because he is black, need treatment, they need to check into mental hospitals, because blacks don't ever intend to be slaves ever again so you just might as well resign yourselves to the fact or just stay behind your closed doors so you never have to pass us on the streets or see us in our supermarkets or sit next to us on the bus. The only time you need worry about seeing blacks is when you go to the polls to vote for someone like Hillary Clinton, but then again, you can always download an absentee ballot. The sad thing about this ignorance is that Hillary Clinton is doing all she can to perpetuate this bigotry because she thinks it can get her to the white house just like John Edwards thought. He was campaigning telling the unions that he was more electable because he was white and male and that Barack wouldn't win certain states' and he, Edwards, would. And on another subject here, that's why Elizabeth Edwards was recently in the news endorsing Hillary Clinton's health care plan because it was a preemptive move kind of like giving the nation a (false) reason to endorse white Hillary from Edwards when North Carolina rolled around. So here this woman, Hillary, wants to be president of the United States and she's doing the same thing as John Edwards across America, further dividing, further spreading hatred and segregation among Americans and giving a wink and a nod as she squeals she is more electable because of winning this segregation racist vote. Yet, we don't hear Barack Obama scream that he is more electable because he can win 'certain states', meaning the black vote. No, he just let's it happen as he campaigns on his hope for a better America, without playing the race card like Edwards did and like Hillary does and like Billary does. And like Edwards, Hillary does not deseve to be president of our United States if but for that one reason alone -- spreading racism instead of democracy.
Posted by: RuthieM | April 23, 2008 3:19 PM
Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw Em"
--tha''s an exact quote, by the way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
Posted by: Walter | April 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Has anybody thought of how Hillary is going to get the young voters to vote for her? How about the most reliable democratic voters--blacks? How about the affluent white voters? Its always Obama can't do this! Obama can't do that! Has anybody thought of the fact that Hillary's voting blocks are the voters we went into two elections with and lost miserably to George Bush? Democrats, unless we expand the voting public we will be left with the same blue state, red state nonesense and we will lose once again. You may not like it, but Obama expands the voting base for the democrats by far than Hillary
Posted by: Siam | April 23, 2008 3:33 PM
You got to give to her...out spend 3 to 1, out pledged by super delegates since Super Tuesday. She is taking it directly to the people, remember how Obama used to do in the beginning. But the issue is that we all are taking our eyes off the big one in NOV. We have to unite now folks. On that note a suggestion, it’s not perfect. We know these facts
Without the super delegates no one can get to the delegate count required. This shows they both are good candidates and there will be rumors and murmurs from the loosing side.
Hillary supporters are more likely to vote for McCain if she is not the candidate
Hillary is 60 and if she is out of this race a come back down the road is very difficult, while Obama is very young
Country is more or less in recession and we are fighting two wars and the gas prices are going up and up, please no on the job training at this moment.
It will be extremely hard for a person more liberal than Mr. Kerry, a war hero to win in Nov.
Let alone it’s hard for a black candidate to win, but with the baggage he is bringing with I am not sure the South is ready for him.
So my suggestion is to give the Hillary the nomination with Obama has her VP. Her term will be limited to ONE term and she gets to hand it over to Obama. Then Obama get to go for 2 terms with or without Hillary. As time passes he get to bury some of these baggage’s, get more experience and change the liberal label to a more moderate label.
Posted by: James | April 23, 2008 3:34 PM
Check the margins on votes against affirmative action for an additional clue.
Posted by: whatnow | April 23, 2008 3:35 PM
I like James' logic above - which is not much different than most Hillbots' logic - because the voters are racist idiots, let's nominate the candidate that appeals to racist idiots.
What about "let's not let racist idiots dictate who our president will be"?
Posted by: chad_broski | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM
"So my suggestion is to give the Hillary the nomination with Obama has her VP. Her term will be limited to ONE term and she gets to hand it over to Obama."
Who would be dumb enough to believe a Hillary one term pledge?
Let alone the disgusting act of telling Obama that even though he has won the majority of the votes and delegates that he should take a back seat because he is black. We should never, ever surrender to racism, which is exactly what you propose.
Posted by: Lois | April 23, 2008 3:54 PM
I AM OUT of politics. That SUCCESSFUL smear campaign worked on OBAMA. And now whites see him a "N word" instead of an American. Campaigning isnt about the truth or whats right, but POWER. Obama and his followers - are disallusioned. NO HOPE.
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Southsider | April 23, 2008 4:01 PM
Obama is our Savior. Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right! God D*** america! The stupid, bitter, racist "typical white people" of pennsylvania voted for clinton. How disgusting. They ignored their opportunity to redeem themselves for their racist past - slavery - and finally make Michelle proud. How sad. Please no hater responses, but do please stop buying guns you biiter small town hicks, and save it for my reparations check! Obama ''08, Repartions Check, ''09!
http://www.npr.org/programs/spe
cials/racism/010827.reparations.html
Posted by: Obamamania | April 23, 2008 4:05 PM
One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is making to the supers, hoping they'll overturn the will of the voters, is that Obama can't win certain demographics. Yet looking at the exit poll numbers, it's clear that Obama has actually been making serious gains the past six weeks.
Obama's percent of the vote:
OH PA
60 and older OH-28 PA-38
White OH-34 PA-38
White men OH-39 PA-44
White women OH-31 PA-34
Less than $50K OH-42 PA-46
No college OH-40 PA-38
College OH-51 PA-49
Catholic OH-36 PA-31
Protestant OH-36 PA-53
What was a 10.5% win in demographically friendly Ohio has become an 8.6% 9.4% win in similar Pennsylvania, except the state was even less black and with a much smaller youth voter population (Pennsylvania's seniors accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, compared to 23 percent in Ohio).
And, those gains were made despite the Wright controversy as well as manufactured bullshit about "bitter" and flag pins and whatnot.
On top of that, Obama has had to run against Hillary Clinton, against former President of the United States Bill Clinton, and against John McCain and the entire GOP apparatus, which has trained its guns on Obama hoping to give Clinton a boost.
Yet he continues to gain among most of Clinton's best demographics, is still raising more money, leads comfortably in delegates, leads comfortably in the popular vote, leads in states won, leads in the national polls, and does better in the head-to-head matchups against McCain.
So why should the supers spark an intra-party civil war by overturning the will of the electorate again?
Posted by: Katherine | April 23, 2008 4:26 PM
Posted by: Obamamania | April 23, 2008 4:05 PM
I just wanted to ask you if you have a clean sheet for tonights meeting?
Posted by: bill r. | April 23, 2008 4:31 PM
Katherine...What I find funny is that the campaign manager said "Clintin continues to win the states that count"??????
After she jumps on Obama for his small town remark, she can say the small states don't matter.
Posted by: bill r. | April 23, 2008 4:39 PM
It has come down to race.. At least 1 in six Pennsylvanians admitted voting
against Obama because he was of mixed heritage..it's sorrowful to think how many men and women of potential lose opportunity in this "blessed America" because of the color of their skin. Let it rip USA..
damn your bigotry..
Posted by: ac | April 23, 2008 4:46 PM
the obama folks cant handle the pressure either
Posted by: brigitte | April 23, 2008 5:06 PM
So Clinton won the Floyd Turbo vote and pulled the wool over the eyes of the grandpas and grandmas who can't accept the reality that those overpaid union jobs are gone forever. Whippy fizz. Hillary would lead the democratic party to an electoral disaster if she gets the nomination. Whyso? Black America - the core supporter of the party - would abandon it en masse - some might even vote Republican. Kiss off the Independent vote - they loathe the woman. Kiss off the veterans and active military - multiple sources indicate the serving military prefer Obama even over McCain - but if it becomes Hillary vs. McCain the military vote goes overwhelmingly to McCain. White males are not going to support the Wicked Witch in November - they'll go for McCain no matter how bad the economy becomes. And the media won't be able to softpeddle all of the dirty linen that the Republicans will dig up about her and Slick Willie - the swift-boating done to Senator Kerry will look positively benign by comparison. So, who's left? The Floyd Turbo vote? By itself, no longer decisive. The aging feminist fanatics? Hillary represents their last hurrah as they become increasingly irrelevant and marginalized. The Catholic vote? By itself, not dispositive. Latinos? Maybe in California and New Mexico - they'd be offset by the anti-Hillary groundswell in the big midwest and eastern states. So, Hillary fanatics - savor your essentially meaningless victory - one battle does not decide a war - and the powers that be in the Democratic party want to win the '08 election, not genuflect to Empress Hillary.
Posted by: Wolfgang | April 23, 2008 5:22 PM
The PA Department of State's unofficial numbers as of today, 04/23/08 are 54.3/45.7%, indicating an 8.6% difference. Even with generally accepted rounding rules, it seems the reporting should be: 54/46% with a 9% difference not a "huge double-digit win". Please report accurately. Thank you.
Posted by: SMS | April 23, 2008 5:34 PM
All workers are "working class".
Let's stop using classism, racism, and sexism to divide people.
*Vote Smart! Vote Patriotic! Vote Hillary Clinton!*
Posted by: Jack | April 23, 2008 5:50 PM
Online Concert for Barack!
John Mellencamp Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8
Elvis Presley - Amazing Grace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3XdXEJEI4E
Bruce Springsteen Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q
Supporting Barack Obama 08!
Posted by: Raven Girl Rocks | April 23, 2008 7:05 PM
Write Obama's Name on Ballot if Clinton Steals Nomination
If Hillary Clinton steals the Democratic nomination from Obama, I will not vote for her or John McCain. I feel strongly about voting because people died so that we could have the right to vote; however, I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton or McCain. Early during the primary season, I was okay with Clinton or Obama winning; however, the prolonged fight, increased negativity, and dirty tactics have soured my opinion of Hillary Clinton.
I don’t trust her now, so how can I trust her as president? I’m a registered Democrat. I used to be an Independent until I realized in Florida you had to belong to a particular party to participate in primaries. Her kitchen sink strategy and determination to muddy Barack Obama beyond repair for the General Election is too much.
If Clinton “steals” the nomination and you plan on staying home or writing Obama’s name in on the ballot, please sign this guestbook so that the media, pundits, voters, and superdelegates realize that the media spin and polling is not always accurate and can be skewed.
-Ceci Bell of Florida
http://gbook.dvercity.net/
Posted by: Ceci Bell of Florida | April 23, 2008 8:57 PM
Every time a black man loses, he blames it on, "Race." Yes, it is true that sometimes it is; but, grow up. Earn your living by doing real work and compete!
Posted by: Lou | April 23, 2008 11:22 PM
Leave it today's " paid for " press to posit the question, incorrectly!! It should have been stated this way: Are some white people having problems with an African-American presidential candidate, who is poised to win?!!! I would say, yes! There are many who will vote against someone for poor reasons and that includes voting for someone because of their ethnic heritage. Even in 2008, we still have that mistrust among racial and ethnic groups, even though the African-American, or the Hispanic-American, to name just two, have been great contributors to America and have made America even greater! Excuse me for saying so, but I think it is about time we gave these good Americans a chance to lead this nation, they surely, have earned it!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 23, 2008 11:39 PM
Yes we can Change ...go Obama ...
Posted by: john | April 23, 2008 11:59 PM
I am ashamed of Hilary Clinton and her dirty tactics.
Anybody but Hilary!!!!
Posted by: sandra | April 24, 2008 11:04 AM
White working class voters will never vote for a black candidate, especially in PA. In fact in 2000 and 2004, they predominarly voted for Bush and he sent their jobs oversea. I hope they wake up and learn the lesson before it is too late.
Posted by: silverspring | April 24, 2008 1:24 PM