MyDD :: Republican economic policies are shifting working class voters to Democrats

Republican economic policies are shifting working class voters to Democrats

by Chris Bowers, Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:16:29 PM EST

One of the most visible and most often discussed political narratives of our time is how Democrats are losing the working class vote and, because of this, have lost their national majority. One of the reasons this narrative has such sway over our national political discourse is that it is accepted as truth by both the right and the left, if for different reasons. Conservative commenters would argue that the working class, like the rest of the country, has swung to the right in a populist backlash against government intrusion and the "liberal elite." Many commenters on the left would argue that the working class is leaving the Democratic Party because it has adopted conservative economic policies in recent decades, fueled by the DLC and other centrist organizations. Many on both sides would simply argue that the working class is socially conservative and it is abandoning the Democratic Party because, for many people, social issues trump economic ones.

There is one major flaw with these arguments, and their many variations and combinations: no one seems to have ever bothered to prove that the working class is actually no longer voting for Democrats. As it turns out, as long as class is understood as a function of income rather than education, working class voters, including white, non-southern working class voters, are doing no such thing. If anything, they are becoming more Democratic, not less.

That the working class is leaving the Democratic party for whatever reason or reasons--racism, social conservatism, the "Great Backlash," corporatist economic policies of Democrats--is such a prevelant idea within our national culture that even a close poll and demographics watcher such as myself accepted it prima facia for a long time. Personally, I accepted the left-wing rationale for some time but, much to my surprise, found evidence back in August that strongly suggested otherwise. Not only were factors such as race, sexuality and church attendance more of a factor in determining partisan identification than income, it turned out that income was actually becoming more of a factor in determining partisan self-identification, not less:

Analyzing NES data, McCarty found that in the elections of 1956 and 1960, respondents in the highest income quintile were hardly more likely to identify as Republicans than were respondents in the lowest quintile. But by the elections of 1992 and 1996, those in the highest quintile were twice as likely as those in the lowest to call themselves Republicans. Pew's 2000 and 2004 election year surveys show that this pattern has persisted.

In short, the familiar "Republicans are rich/Democrats are poor" stereotype is much more true now - at least at the extremes of the income curve - than it was a half century ago when the AFL-CIO was founded. However, when it comes to partisanship and income, the key battleground in American politics is in the middle brackets. And there, after a long slow climb that has occurred mostly in the past two decades, the GOP has reached parity with the Democrats.

In other words, income has become more of a determining factor in partisan self-identification during a supposed era of Democratic corporatist economics than it was in the past, during a supposed golden age of Democratic economic populism.

That's not all. In a recent academic paper on this subject, What's the Matter with What's the Matter With Kansas?, Larry Bartels explores the voting patterns of the white working class (emphasis mine):

Figure 1 shows remarkably little evidence of class voting in presidential elections from 1952 through 1972. Averaging over this period, Democratic presidential candidates garnered 46% of the votes of whites in the bottom third of the income distribution, 47% of those in the middle third, and 42% of those in the upper third. In only one of these six elections, 1964, did the gap in Democratic support between upper-income whites and lower-income whites exceed 6%.

On the other hand, from 1976 through 2004 there is a strong and fairly consistent income gradient evident in the presidential voting behavior of white Americans. Averaging over the eight presidential elections of this period, whites in the bottom third of the income distribution cast 51% of their votes for Democrats, as compared with 44% of middle-income whites and 37% of upper-income whites. The gap in Democratic support between upper-income whites and lower-income whites thus increased from 4% in the earlier period to 14% after 1976. The 2004 election was, as it happens, quite consistent with the pattern since 1976: John Kerry received 50% of the two-party vote among whites in the lower third of the income distribution and 39% among those in the upper third of the income distribution - a difference of 11%.

It should be clear from these comparisons that economic status has become more important, not less important, in structuring the presidential voting behavior of white Americans over the course of the past half-century. Moreover, the general trend in support for Democratic presidential candidates among whites in the bottom third of the income distribution has been upward, not downward. Nor is this merely an artifact of anemic working-class support for Adlai Stevenson running against Dwight Eisenhower in the first two elections of this sequence; Al Gore and John Kerry did better among low-income whites in the close elections of 2000 and 2004 than John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey did in the close elections of 1960 and 1968. Thus, while it is generally true that Democratic presidential candidates have lost support among white voters over the past half-century, those losses have been entirely (and roughly equally) concentrated in the middle- and upper-income groups, and have been partially offset by increasing support for Democratic candidates among low-income white voters.

Not only is there no trend of the white working class away from Democratic Presidential nominees over the last thirty years, there is quite clearly a white working class trend in favor of Democratic Presidential candidates over the past thirty years. As both studies show, Republican gains have come among the upper income brackets, while Democratic gains have occurred in the lower income brackets.

This is, I imagine, heresy to a lot of people on both the right and the left, as well as to an entire legion of talking head wags who hold esteemed positions within the MSM. However, it is supported by both facts and research, rather than the anecdotes that are the favorite means of propping up both this and other myths. The working class did not move away from the Democratic Party because of the DLC, deregulation and NAFTA. The working class did not move away from the Democratic Party because it is filled with liberal elites who are hostile to the traditional values of the working class. The working class did not move away from the Democratic Party because we have become so affluent as a nation that cultural issues are now more important than economic ones. I know that all of these arguments and any of their variations are wrong because, as the evidence quite clearly shows, in terms of Presidential votes the working class is moving toward the Democratic Party, not away from it.

One objection that may be raised to this argument is that Democrats have lost their colossal mid-century lead in partisan self-identification, even if the working class is trending Democratic when it comes to Presidential elections. However, as is the case with so much else in American politics, outside of the south, this is also completely untrue. To again quote from Bartels:

For the South, Figure 3 shows a substantial and fairly steady decline in net Democratic identification over the entire half-century, from 46% (a 65-19 Democratic margin) in 1952 to −6% (a 38-32 Republican margin) in 2004. However, outside the South there is no evident trend in party identification among low-income whites. Indeed, a simple comparison of beginning and end points shows that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in this group by exactly the same 10% in 2004 (a 31-21 Democratic margin) as in 1952 (a 41-31 Democratic margin).

Outside of the south, even among the white working class, Democrats have maintained a large and steady edge in partisan self-identification. So, once again, what pundits and Republicans have tried to spin as a national shift is, in reality, almost entirely a southern shift. Read these two articles, here and here, for more on that topic.

I don't imagine that it will be easy for many in the netroots to accept this reality. As much as we like to consider ourselves reality-based, we have as much difficulty letting go of our favorite narratives and punching bags as anyone else. Just look at the anguish in the comments to my article It's Not the DLC and I Can Prove It, which examined the voting records of different intra-party Democratic congressional caucuses. It was really, really hard for people to accept that the DLC New Democratic Caucus was not the main source of Democratic defection in the House of Representatives, simply because, through a series of anecdotes, the DLC had become a favorite punching bag of many netroots activists. Again, we will experience much of the same. It will simply be hard for many to accept that the Democratic Party is actually doing better among working class voter now than at any time over the past half-century, no matter what the research and facts of the case actually are. It will probably be just as hard for people to accept that the DLC is really disorganized, and doesn't really hold that much sway over the Democratic Party itself, except as a means of issuing self-loathing press releases bashing the Democratic Party in the MSM).

And when that fails, the accusations that I am other bloggers are being paid by NPI, NDN or the DLC will start to fly. I've been dealing with those baseless claims since the end of the previous election, and those people who make them really need to rethink the way in which they process information about the world around them. If, when someone doesn't agree with you, they must automatically be a part of some conspiracy, then you really have problems.

However, I urge everyone to accept the reality of these numbers and, for the love of God, stop fueling the baseless narrative that Democrats are struggling among the working class. We all saw how easy it was to foist an anti-Miers narrative on the nation when the right-wing was echoing the same talking points (crony, unqualified, stealth) as we were. The triangle closed instantly. As long as we do the same when it comes to voting patterns and demographics, then we are only further fueling the false Republican narrative that Republicans are emerging as the natural, long-term, ruling party in the country. Further, we are simply spreading lies about ourselves. Democrats are not shedding working class voters. The evidence quite clearly shows that we are gaining them as Republicans engage in class warfare against the working class. Republican economic policies are shifting working class voters to Democrats. That should be our talking point, because it is true and because it helps Democrats. It won't be easy to let go of familiar narratives and punching bags, but if we are really going to try and regain power and we are really going to be part of the reality-based community, it is something that we must do.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Agree (none / 0)

Let the Republicans spin. If Democrats express the facts in the frame of class warfare (tax cuts for wealthy, CAFTA, estate tax, privatization...) we can cut throught the GOP BS. This will only happen though if the leaders of the Democratic Party say it and mean it in their words and more important their convictions.

by optimusprime on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:42:04 PM EST

Positive Program (none / 0)

We need to look for good
programs to favor. It's not
enough for Dems to be
anti Republican radicalism
and pro status quo.

With the right issue we could
bring back some of those
middle income voters who
have been drifting to the Wrong.

The middle-aged middle class
and the middle-aged working class
share one huge concern:
the impact of age discrimination
and corporate cutbacks on their
future security.

Look again at national health. Instead
of trying to solve the whole problem
at once, let's try to do something
for the late middle-aged workers
and the kids.

Let's expand Medicare from starting
at age 65 to start at age 50,

That move would remove the largest
single factor driving job cuts aimed
at employees reaching a certain age.
It would also help protect early-retired
employees who can find themselves
naked if a company eliminates their
medical insurance coverage before
they reach age 65.

And let's add all kids to Medicare.
When a woman is diagnosed as
pregnant, her Medicare coverage
should kick in with that doctor's
appointment and cover the cost of
childbirth and all the child's medical
expenses up to, say, age 7 -- for now.

O.K., this plan would help to "bail out"
GM and some other big employers
that have thousands of retirees
between the ages of 55 and 65.
So maybe the plan would get some
corporate support. What's so bad?

Insurance companies would hate it
and fight it. But this plan would leave
them the slice of the market for
employees up to age 50 and for
employees' kids from age 7 until
they turn 50.

This plan would leave a few millions
still without medical coverage, but
tens of millions fewer than now.

The main virtue of this proposal is
that it's simple: Everyone knows
how Medicare works. We just want
to expand its coverage.

I understand that Medicare needs
some fixing. But it is easier to fix
and expand an existing program
than to start something new.

In the first Clinton Administration,
Hillary & Co. launched a godawful
plan to reorganize everything medical
to cover everyone in very complicated
ways. It was not simple, no one could
understand it, no one could explain it,
and it was D.O.A.

But expanded Medicare is easily
explained, and its benefits are
easily understood.

by Woody on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Positive Program (none / 0)

Woody posted on Thu Oct 13th, 2005 at 06:23:22 PM:

"In the first Clinton Administration, Hillary & Co. launched a godawful plan to reorganize everything medical to cover everyone in very complicated ways. It was not simple, no one could
understand it, no one could explain it,
and it was D.O.A."

Woody, the reason Hillary's health plan was so complicated was that she was trying to assuage the large corporations who had been providing health insurance for their employees and retirees and would face higher taxes as a result of the plan. She tried to balance fairness when small and medium sized businesses would be forced to provide health insurance, albeit with subsidies (which was another complication). She was tasked with balancing too many conflicting goals and she couldn't make it simple.

Simple would have been single payor health insurance. Of course, the fun house and magic show which are HMOs hadn't been experienced yet. The big companies were told that managed care could solve their health care insurance problems forever and their employees didn't know any better to object. So, the corporations defected from supporting Hillary's plan in the end for the quick buck and left her to twist in the wind. The small and medium-sized businesses just abandoned efforts to provide health insurance for their employees and their owners and managers couldn't care less about their employees so long as they can get health insurance themselves.

With the big corporations now defaulting wholesale on their health insurance obligations, any Democratic effort can ignore them. They should just be attacked unmercifully like the Big Trusts were at the end of the 1890s. Extending Medicare is one way of applying single payor practices and could be explored now that that boogey-man can be interred. The nation knows what HMOs and managed care really mean now and it ain't "choice."

by VizierVic on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Positive Program (none / 0)

Let's expand Medicare from starting
at age 65 to start at age 50,

This would take a tremendous burden off those who are outsourced at an age where finding a new position is problematic. BC/BS coverage for a couple over age 55 is something like $1300 a month for major medical. This includes no coverage of doctor visits, prescriptions, durable medical equipment or many other things that help keep one healthy - it's basically protection against bankruptcy unless the cost drives one bankrupt first.

by Denim Blue on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thank you for this great post (none / 0)

i always thought this intuitively and through anecdotal evidence, but to actually "see the numbers" is another thing.

my web log.

by matty fred on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:48:33 PM EST

thinking of hackett in oh-02 (none / 0)

he ran very well in the lower-income white areas iirc. perhaps neutralizing the gun issue really drives it home?

my web log.

by matty fred on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:50:52 PM EST

right on (none / 0)

i read this essay the other day and was struck by how incorrect almost everybody has been on this topic for so long. i was never a fan of tom frank's book as it was so simplistic and, well, completely wrong, as evidenced by this essay (plus tom frank's analysis does not explain the most powerful kansas republican of the past half-century: bob dole). but i'm glad that you posted this here to really clear some stuff up, those who wish to cling to their little world views about how the democrats are losing the working class vote can continue to do so. and if they wish to attack smart people like chris bowers and markos by calling them pawns of NDN or the DLC I say let them live in their bubble - or more likely the political equivalent of the island in 'Lost'.

by ECLE on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:14:08 PM EST

I Don't Think Frank Was Completely Wrong (none / 0)

I think he overgeneralized. But there was something real he was pointing to. However, it's not about partisan voters in general, it's about activists and about the radicalizing of people who are already partisan. In other words, it's complicated.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've always thought the key (3.00 / 1)

to the Democrats getting back into power is a simple, solid, and consistent economic message.

When one party uses social conservatism to drive a wedge between people and the other party does not counter with a economic message these same people can understand and that directly affects them and their lives, guess who wins the argument and election? Hint: it ain't us.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 05:15:46 PM EST

Keep a close eye on the Delphi bankruptcy case (none / 0)

This case has the potential to determine labor/management relations for a generation. If Delphi is successful in utilizing bankruptcy laws to effectively reduce its labor expenses by as much as the 60% mark the company is striving to achieve, expect other companies to follow suit. Not only is Delphi's current workforce at risk for a major reduction in salary and benefits, its retirees may also see substantial losses. This could effectively forever break whatever remaining bonds still exist between labor and management.

Currently, I don't see the Democratic Party as being in a strong position to take advantage of the turn of events which could spin from this case. Delphi's corporate bankruptcy will allow the company to continue to operate and return hugely disproportionate salaries and incentive packages to management in relation to labor compensation while forcing numerous workers and retirees into personal bankruptcy which the latter group will find increasingly distasteful due to recent changes in bankruptcy laws recently supported on a bipartisan level by Democrats.

The future depends largely upon which cause Democrats are perceived to advance in both theory and practice. At present, there's not a meaningful distinction in this regard in either instance between Repugs and Democrats to suggest that Democrats are in a position to improve their status among working class Americans despite the increasingly widening gap between management and labor.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:28:18 PM EST

It's not going to happen (none / 0)

They are not going to be successful-but they will hurt everybody in the process. Here is the probable sequence of events:

There is a date where Delphi is scheduled to throw out the contracts (I believe Dec. 13). Delphi will negotiate prior to this, the UAW will be willing to accept some cuts-but not 63%, and not unless management shares the pain (they got big bonuses the day before Delphi filed for bankruptcy). The talks will obviously go nowhere.
Delphi will lower everybody's salary unilaterally (with court permission).
The UAW goes on strike.

Now, here's the real "fun" part-what happens next? If a strike lasts more than a week, GM will be completely shut down (can't build a car without parts). If GM was smart, they will simply buy Delphi back and keep the union contracts. But they are run by fucking morons who prefer to do things like spending two billion dollars not buying Fiat than, oh, I don't know, investing in hybrid technology. Maybe Delphi will use scabs, although I then can see the UAW striking GM (or refusing to touch the scab-made parts, which amounts to the same thing).

The most likely scenerio is a GM chapter 11 bankruptcy, frankly, with Delphi filing chapter seven and ceasing to exist (although thier overseas divisions will still be up and running, and could (eventually) take over for thier domestic ones-but not before GM is totally fucked). Maybe GM could climb somewhat out of the hole, using those Chinese made parts after six months or so. Or maybe the UAW will strike them too.

In any case, such a shakeup is capitalism in action. The current GM management (and it's management for the past 20 years or so) are stupid dumbasses. They way GM is currently run, they don't deserve to survive, and they won't. The only problem is that lots of workers will be hurt in the process.

by Geotpf on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not going to happen (none / 0)

Part of the Delphi bankrupcy agreement included huge severance packages for top management. This could still be thrown out in bankruptcy court but that's yet to be determined.

Unlike many of it's other components, Delphi (formerly Delco) actually made money for GM for decades.

This is life or death for the UAW. If they don't beat this one, it's over. Retirees getting slammed seals the deal.

Like I said, keep an eye on this one.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not going to happen (3.00 / 1)

Do you have any idea how many GM and GM subsidiary retirees live on the west coast of Florida? When Delphi and then GM start terminating their health insurance coverage and cutting their pensions and, the balloon will go up. Most of those guys thought they were fixed for the rest of their lives with a nice little retirement house, golf every day, dining out regularly, cruises, etc. Most of them even vote Republican because they didn't kowtow to punk workers. What happens when they discover that they're just as expendable as the guys who had been laboring on the factory floor, just before the mid-term election? Those guys will be seeing their retirement plans shredded, high gasoline prices and soaring electric rates in time for the summer air conditioning season. What do you think their mood might be come November 2006? Throw in a pinch of hurricane season 2006 and stir for good measure.

by VizierVic on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:07:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fairly Inane (2.00 / 1)

This is not very well thought out. First off, the decline of the Democratic party has been several things, but one and most important was a unanimous Democratic South, gradually over four and half decades basically split in half. So to say it doesn't matter except for in the South doesn't make sense, a unanimous South was one of the pillars of the old New Deal coalition

Secondly, the decline of voter paticipation over the past 40 years(which has gone up in last two elections without much question as to why) had been overwhelmingly lower income voters who tended to vote Democratic. If they weren't voting it mattered. Third has been the sell out of the DC Democrats, the Clintons being an easy example, to corporate as opposed to working class economics.

If you swallowed the idea that a 2 million vote win by the president and a couple seat advantage in both houses was a historical shift, not much can be said. While the Reps did win the House after forty years, a decade ago, the real change in Party identification over the last 4 decades has been the growth of independents from 1% to over 20% of the electorate.

The Dems may very well take the Congress back in 2006, but it's not going to be a Vote Dem message, it's going to be throw the Reps out. Understand that's a big difference.

by brutus1 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:57:07 PM EST

Tottaly inane (none / 0)

What you wrote: "So to say it doesn't matter except for in the South doesn't make sense, a unanimous South was one of the pillars of the old New Deal coalition."

That's funny, I don't remember saying it didn't matter. I remember saying that the national shift to Republicans is contained almsot entirely within the south. What I wrote: "So, once again, what pundits and Republicans have tried to spin as a national shift is, in reality, almost entirely a southern shift."

Here's another gem: "Third has been the sell out of the DC Democrats, the Clintons being an easy example, to corporate as opposed to working class economics."

That's funny since, as the article demonstrated by citing statistics from two academic studies, working class voters have shifted to Democrats over the past few decades.

"If you swallowed the idea that a 2 million vote win by the president and a couple seat advantage in both houses was a historical shift, not much can be said. While the Reps did win the House after forty years, a decade ago, the real change in Party identification over the last 4 decades has been the growth of independents from 1% to over 20% of the electorate."

And the decline of Democratic self-identifiers from a 20+% lead over Republicans to near parity now:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548. Yeah, I would say that is a bit of a shift.

Tis si your first comment here. If your entire point of showing up is to not closely read posts and then make comments that attempt to "refute" those posts that are filled with obvious mischaracterizations of the post in question, I suggest you take it somewhere else.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tottaly inane (none / 0)

"in reality, almost entirely a southern shift."

This is no secret, that's where the loss of the white working class was, this says nothing new.

Just because a study is "academic" and has statistics doesn't mean it has anything to say.

As someone who watched the elected officials of the Democratic party sell out to corporate interests for the past 2 decades, it's not news that working class never shifted in big way to Reps, they quit voting as the Democratic political class sold out their base.

My point is that a study saying that low income voters never moved to Reps in a big way isn't anything new.

by brutus1 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fairly Inane (none / 0)

Amen, Brother!!

by farmergiles on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another myth? (none / 0)

There's another very pervasive piece of conventional wisdom that I'm sceptical of, namely that the greater number of conservatives v. liberals tells us something important about the makeup of the US electorate.

The reason I doubt this is that I once came across a poll where they asked if you considered yourself leftwing or rightwing and suddenly there was parity.

Left-right parity seems to gel with what you can see from polls on people's opinions on issues, and more sophisticated attempts at political typology, as well as voting results obviously.

So maybe people just don't like the word "liberal"?

Also, it would seem that quite significant numbers of people don't know what conservative and liberal means (see that New Yorker article everyone blogged about last year.) Since liberal and conservative has many different meanings other than the convention pundit/pollster use of the word, it would make sense if it was less confusion about left or right.

by David Weman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:08:58 PM EST

Re: Another myth? (none / 0)

This is inconclusive speculation, obviously. I'dlike to know if the left/right question has been asked regularly and if the rsults are consistently like what I said.

by David Weman on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dem base is NOT white (none / 0)

Okay Chris -- I'm totally willing to accept this piece of research indicating a growth in Democratic identification among white working class voters outside the South.

But I am not willing to accept the almost universal narrative the frames the Democratic party as the party of "white working people." In real life the most faithful Democrats are African American and to a slightly lesser extent Latino. That is the core base block -- those white working class voters whose Democratic leaning you are trying to remind us of wouldn't add up to squat without the real Democratic base which is now not white.

Until the Dems understand how to make that something to celebrate rather than take advantage of and hide under a bushel, they aren't dealing in "reality."

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:59:27 PM EST

Yes, But... This Misses Something (3.00 / 1)

This is very important information, and I downloaded "What's the Matter With What's the Matter With Kansans" yesterday to read it more carefully for myself. I think it's very important. But it's not the whole story.

What's it leave out?

Voter participation. While turnout was up significantly in 2004--55.3% compared to 51.3% in 2000 and 49.1% in 1996--it was still well below where it was in the 1960s, when it was in the 60s. The decline in mid-term voting was even steeper. [Link] And participation is lowest among the lowest-income voters. So Democrats have increased their share of low-income voters. But the pool of low-income voters has been shrinking relative to the pool of all voters.

In other words, we have a much more complex situation. Union density has declined precipitously during this period. And voting participation differs significantly from state to state. (Remember the Electoral College? Sure you do!) So before we can say anything for certain in a positive sense--that is, anything aside from rejecting simplistic myths--we need to do a much more sophisticated analysis than any of the studies cited so far.

Gee, Chris, I wonder who might do that sort of thing? Chris?

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:19:56 AM EST

Re: Yes, But... This Misses Something (none / 0)

I was thinking the same thing. If low-income workers are less likely to turn out than they were years ago, we could be losing ground despite these findings. I don't if they do turn out less frequently now when compared against the other classes, but that would be a key issue to figure out.

by danielj on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then There's This (3.00 / 1)

It's the White Working Class, Stupid, Posted by Ruy Teixeira, February 8, 2005

There are many theories about what drove the 2004 election results . . . One such trend was the movement of white working class voters away from the Democratic ticket. . . .

In 2000, Gore lost white working class (defined as whites with less than a four year college degree) voters by 17 points; this year, Kerry lost them by 23 points . . .

Among white working class voters, 66 percent said they trusted Bush to handle terrorism, compared to just 35 percent who said the same about Kerry. That's pretty bad, but check this out: 55 percent of these voters said they trusted Bush to handle the economy and only 39 percent said the same about Kerry. . . .

I know you've disputed the validity of defining "working class" by education attainment rather than income (what was the argument again?). But there seems to be a real problem for Democrats with this non-college class.

I guess one question would be - how much overlap is there between "working class" and "non-college class"? Is much of the non-college class higher up in the income distribution than we presume?

by tgeraghty on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:16:14 AM EST

Re: Then There's This (3.00 / 1)

This problem is addressed in the Bartels article. Most voters don't have a 4-year degree, so defining them as "working class" is too broad.

by danielj on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 02:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then There's This (none / 0)

Thanks. Maybe it helps to read things before asking dumb questions.

by tgeraghty on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems represent who? (none / 0)

If we remember the Dems as the party of the workingman and minorities then we can guess that the fall off in party affiliation may be partly because of the decline in the number of "workingmen" in the country.

The falloff of the blue collar job is a non-reversible trend. The new middle class is comprised of middlemen (euphimistically identified as the service sector). We have not just stock brokers in the financial sector, but hedge fund managers, risk managers, mutual fund managers, lawyers for mergers, etc., etc. So the number of people involved in the financial sector is now much larger than in the heady days prior to 1929.

The same pattern in the health care industry. Previously we had doctors, patients and nurses; now we have claims managers, benefit managers, etc.

Do any of these new employment sectors identify with the old-line Democratic party positions?

Finally, the high cost of running for office means that only the wealthy, or those backed by business interests can afford to run. That's why on many votes the Dems are almost indistingishable from the Republicans. Look at the votes for NAFTA, CAFTA and the bankruptcy bills, for example.

It's not just a new platform the Dems needed, but a way to finance campaigns designed to benefit the lower 2/3 of the population that is seeing a decline in their standard of living.

I don't have any practical suggestions.

---Policies not Politics
Daily Quiet Image

by rdf on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:51:12 AM EST

Good post Chris (none / 0)

A few thoughts... thanks for expanding on your initial "it's not the DLC and I can prove it" comment. I was about to take issue because what your data showed was the it was not the DLC Congressmen that were the defectors (it's the mostly southern Blue Dogs) but evidence still shows that the DLC "leadership" (if you call that leadership) is definitely part of the problem. So thanks for later including the "self-loathing" comment about the DLC "leadership."

Now, with my DLC rant out of the way...

It is interesting to note that you show the following statistic:

However, outside the South there is no evident trend in party identification among low-income whites. Indeed, a simple comparison of beginning and end points shows that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in this group by exactly the same 10% in 2004 (a 31-21 Democratic margin) as in 1952 (a 41-31 Democratic margin).

Which indeed shows the same gap in partisan self identification outside of the south... however... equally importantly, it shows a 10% drop in identification for both parties. That is a significant number and needs to be further investigated. What are the white non-identifying voters doing these days?

Another thought...

As the economic disparity grows in this country I would ask the question of what constitutes the "working class?" How much of that economic lower third of voters are in fact not "working class" but rather the "impoverished class?" How much of the economic middle third is in fact "working class?" I am in that middle third, do not work in a factory, am not a union member, and am barely making it financially due to modern day strains and disparities.

As jobs in America migrate away from factories and other industry/manufacturing related areas I guess what I am asking/wondering is how useful is the term "working class" anymore? It conjures up pictures of auto and steel workers not office and service employees or the wal-mart economy. Is it better to simply refer to the economic classes by tier, upper, lower, and middle?

I don't know the answer but I am wondering.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:27:42 PM EST

Fighting for the Middle Class (none / 0)

If my interpretation of these data is correct, there is an HUGE opportunity for Democrats to make headway by fighting FOR the Middle class.

Am I misreading this?

by 5oclockshadow on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 03:44:12 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.