...Regardless of their race.

Is what he said true?

And?  I know that we lose the white male working class consistently by over 20% (I think Kerry lost it by 23%).  I would assume that means we also lose the overall white working class vote election after election.

honestly I don't know though

is what he said true? anyone have the stats are is this a hit diary and we don't care about the truth?

Clinton won the white working class in the 1990s and thats why he was president.  Hillary will do the same.  Obama can't.  Someone please save the Democratic party from nominating him.  He will lose to McCain.

Although he may have some distance to go.

OMG These folks really are living in fantasy land. Of course its not true, blue-collar white voters are the core constituents of the Democratic Party. This guy is out of touch with reality. HC supporters should play that podcast over and over again to working class voters, especially in Indiana. What a terrible blunder, and misquote.

I can't believe now they are dissing "white democrats"!!!  Is this another "typical white person" comment?  

Sore loser stuff is a non-starter.  Trying to say that Obama didn't win because of white people, is umm, both unfortunate and completely untrue.

Stunning.

What he said is true

In Gore v. Bush (Where Gore actually Won)...Gore lost the White Working Class by around 7%, hispanic and black working class pulled him up.  It is also worth noting that Working Class voters only make up 18% of the electorate - White ones drops that number to around 12% of the electorate.

Gore lost those attend religious service weekly 63-36.

but it is also misleading.

Democrats have lost the white vote for ages.  Typically, a democrat can hope to get about 43% of the white vote (As I recall).  If the democrat gets more (and also gets the black vote, and a substantial fraction of the latino vote), then the democrat wins.  If he gets less than 43%, he/she loses.

So the real question is: by what margin will Sen. Obama lose the white vote in a matchup with Sen. McCain ?

The candidate of hope is morphing into an Ivy League scold, Ayres said -- and Republicans can hardly believe their fortune.

White working class voters voted Democratic regularly until Reagan.

But, since then, the GOP has managed to keep them solidly Republican. That will not be the case this time; white working class voters are looking for an invitation to come back to the Democrats. Axelrod just slammed the door on 'em.

Good work, David. Goodbye, White House.

This is the kind of thinking that has kept the "Reagan Democrats" in the Republican Party since Reagan.

Is this is an example of Obama's "hope" and "change?"

It looks like Obama's the status quo candidate to me. The status quo of Democrats giving the White House to the Republicans.

How pathetic!

Wow, if he said this, this is just bad.  Just bad.

Here's the thing.  No one denies this.  The Democratic Party has not done well in recent history with the blue collar workers.  Once the labor issues of the 70's gave way to, well the destruction of labor in the 80's, Democrats have struggled.

But the reason isn't "Because it is so" as Axelrod seems to want to suggest.  The reason is that we haven't been able to articulate a strong enough economic message to convince them.  The reality is this (IMO).  The Democratic Party's economic message is the right one for the blue collar workers.

So why haven't they voted with us?  Because we haven't completed the sell.  In this cycle, though, we have had two of the best sellers that I can recall in Edwards and HRC.  HRC has been fabulous at selling an economic vision.  Even Obama supporters would have to begrudgingly agree on that.  She is, without a doubt, IMO, better than Bill in that regards.

This was a prime year for labor, for blue collar voice to be heard again.  Irrespective of the fall, the party needs to hear out those voices.  Irrespective of what happens, I hope, I urge, party leaders to sit down and figure out how to bridge the gap.  Because for once, we have blue collar sellers, and we have a shot at regaining a base that Republicans have effectively marginalized, partly due to their strategy, partly due to our candidates.

This election cycle, up AND down, needs to be on the future of this party.  It needs to be aware of the long term ramifications.  We cannot consistently win without reuniting the base that his been effectively splintered through the last couple decades.

from the much ballyhooed "50-state strategy".  I thought that according to the Obama playbook it was the CLINTON campaign that was writing off democratic voters right and left, much to the party's detriment.  

Now he's writing off the Democratic base?   Democrats don't get elected without those people, and Axelrod is now neatly piloting the Obama ship right onto the very shoals that foundered Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.   The northern intellectual thing.  

I detected this property in Obama's detached debating style from the very start, but got 'liberally' trounced for mentioning it on dkos.  Now it's becoming clear to a lot more people that Obama and his crew are too smart for ...  if not their own britches, then certainly the britches of the U.S. electorate.    

That a lot of Obama supporters over at kos are arguing for the third rail being the economic disparity, and Axelrod essentially comes out and says this.

So now who is talking about voters that don't count?

Oh the irony...

I just sent his podcast remarks to CNN News. What a great misquote this is.

I don't think this is going to play too well with the supers that are legitimately undeclared (as mrsuper argues, most have chosen a side, only a 100+ are legitimately undeclared).  I think a lot of the party feels energetic about our chances with the blue collar voters for once.

Whether or not this hurts Obama overall, I don't know.  But I don't think it will play well for politicians, and this is the sort of sound bite that could come back and really hurt Obama in a GE.

On a side note, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Obama should not be going more negative.  This opens him up to negative attacks on him, and in general, this hurts him more.  Simply put, negatives are there for Hillary.  She's not changing them at this point.  But it's not likely to go up or down significantly.  For Obama, he's at huge risk here.  I still believe, for him, that the playing it safe route would still be more effective.  

So is this the next headline,

"Obama camp blames loss on White People."

AAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!

Someone buy these guys a pair of metal boots so they can stop putting their feet in their mouth!

What an idiotic comment by Axelrod.  This was a Democratic primary.  The vast majority of the people who voted, including "working class whites," are potentially Democratic voters for November.  It's legitimate to ask which candidate would bring out a greater segment of that swing constituency.

Are there millions of other working class whites out there who consistently vote Republican?  Of course there are.  Those people didn't vote in the Democratic Primary yesterday, and no one is talking about them.

The fact that so many Obama supporters appear to see some logic in what Axelrod said is very troubling to me.

Democrats who LOSE don't win working class whites.

Democrats who WIN do win working class whites.

What an idiot.

He didn't slam white working class people. He merely observed that the white working class - particularly men - has gone Republican for several elections. Clinton did not win white working class males. And I'm not sure Gore won white working class males OR females.

And if anybody is going to argue that Democrats DO rely "solely" on white working class voters then I will show you President Gephardt.

But keep playing GOP talking points and trying to make Obama into an elitist. What's next? Obama's a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim, radical elitist secularist who hates patriotic red-blooded Americans? This site has turned into MyGOP.

To his credit, it is rare for Axelrod to misspeak so badly.  Although, the media is so preoccupied trying to explain how Barack secretly "won" last night that I don't think they will tag him with this.

By the way Clinton won not because of all Reagan democrats he won in 92 and 96 because he carried Women Reagan Dems.  And as i recall Gore won the women's vote by 9 or 10%.  As my wife says when women vote democrats win.  This is the voting group that BO is doing poorly with and it is this group that upset with "what they consider a sexist campaign" against HRC.

And it really doesnt matter if BO supporters disagree with this the fact is these are the Reagan democrats that david alexrod is losing and unless BO starts connecting with these voters he will be toast.

david

Obama & Axlrod should setup their own parties and run for POTUS if they are not happy with Democrats base.

Gee, if working class whites don't matter, then why did the Obama campaign outspend the Clinton campaign something like 3:1 in PA? Or is burning through millions in campaign contributions something they do just because they can?

Just asking.....