The New Republic

He HAS cut her lead among whites overall in half, which is nothing to sneeze at. I wonder if it's a function of familiarity (not just name rejection, which Gallup suggests and then discounts as an explanation).

- miceelf

April 9, 2008 at 4:15pm

It may be that Rev. Wright, while it did not do net damage when compared with his numbers prior, has slowed what would have been greater progress among this constituency.  I'm also concerned that his switch to retail mode coupled with TV ads in Pennsylvania won't get the job done.  Showing him feeding a calf or bowling, especially when he's embarrasingly bad at bowling, diminishes him and obviously doesn't play to his strengths.  He's good at town-hall policy stuff, but I'm not sure that that gets much play except among those who attend.  Perhaps going small isn't as important as reframing and tweaking the big stuff -- the rally-style events -- to appeal more directly to the white working class.  This means hammering his (good) economic proposals and contrasting them sharply with what would be John McCain's so-what shrug -- his neglect of economic security and health care.  (At this point, I think it's more important, as I've advocated ever since Ohio and Texas, for him to campaign against McCain rather than Hillary, which shows not only that he's on the voters' side on these issues but a strong candidate in the general.)

- jhildner

April 9, 2008 at 4:37pm

Obama has totally proven he's far more electable than HRC, but this touches on the one weak spot he has.  It isn't that difficult to figure out, but you've got to get out of being PC to do it.  Many of those in this bucket aren't all that keen on having an African-American in charge.  Many of them are on the bottom rung of the social ladder and are seriously worried about any other person of color (brown, yellow, black, doesn't matter) as they are perceived as a threat.  I've posted earlier how I really felt Obama's speech on beginning a dialog on race was seriously needed.  This is one part of the American fabric that points it out.

HRC's problem is totally different.  She has a track record from Bill's years through today - say whatever is needed to get a vote, and then do what you want after winning office.  Sort of like Dubya, but still like the way our politicians have been behaving for years.  On top of that is the (again, not PC) issue of prejudice and bias about having a woman as President. It's there, and while Obama refuses to get into the race thing, the Clinton folks are using this 'card' regularly.

If (and I'm really hoping he does and follows through on what he's promising) Obama wins, I believe the Democratic party will make a turn towards a more representative, honest and forward thinking one - but then I've always been an optimist!  

- WaltB

April 9, 2008 at 4:41pm

Obama and his elite supporters are tone deaf and patronizing when it comes to talking to people outside their own class -- unaware of their own prejudices and the many arrogant, ignorant and unfortunate ways in which they reveal their prejudice and their lack of respect for, even disdain for, the working class. How, for instance, do you think an older, white woman from a working class background, like me, who marched with MLK as a teenager and has devoted my adult working life -- as I rose against odds from clerical worker to corporate manager to business owner -- to trying to create opportunities for minorities and disadvantaged young people of all races, likes being told by Obama that the "typical" older, white woman is a racist? Or, reading nonsense by

30-something "pundits," -- who have never in their life lifted a finger for anyone's rights or political equality, who are too limited in experience of the world to understand that "Archie Bunker" is as much and as offensive a media created stereotype as "Steppin Fetchit" -- claiming that half the Democratic party's preference for a candidate other than Obama is explainable mostly by racism?

How about the absolute cluelessness and disrespect shown in calling a working class woman "sweetie?" As Obama did recently. How about a "professor" posting at TPM a few months ago who, when I identified myself as a working class woman and made the suggestion that there were serious gender and class issues being raised in this primary that should be of concern to every progressive, answered me in pig Latin. It was very funny -- to see someone, totally without irony,  rejecting the notion of class or gender prejudice by patronizingly dismissing and demeaning someone because of their class and gender.

The Democratic party does have a problem with prejudiced, low information voters of very limited life experience and exposure to diversity -- unfortunately, those voters are mostly found among its most elite and powerful cohorts.

- esmense

April 9, 2008 at 4:52pm

Based on this theory, Hillary is completely screwed with college-educated whites if she wins the nomination?

Primary election demographic problems do not equal general election demographic problems: they are different contests. This is a Democratic Primary. Only Democrats are voting. Only Democrats (and Democratic leaners) are polled here. Unless the poll shows McCain also beating Obama among this same sample group, it’s impossible to say Obama has a problem in the general with the polled demographic.

Apparently lightly-educated Democrats like Hillary and heavily-educated Democrats like Obama in the primary. That is a problem for each as they try to win Pennsylvania primary, but not for winning the general election as those polled are all Democrats. Obama will not be facing Hillary in November. He will be facing McCain, a Republican, who is tied to the Bush economic record.

A high percentage of those supporting Hillary will support Obama come November, and likewise if Hillary is the nominee. These voters are not going to go vote for McCain because their preferred candidate lost.

- adamvaught

April 9, 2008 at 4:53pm

Obama needs more heavyweight white endorsements. Tis a pity Edwards has remained aloof.

I agree with the post - capturing the Blue Dog and other white working-class voters is going to be tough. Hopefully a brilliant VP choice will help.

- fougasseu

April 9, 2008 at 5:06pm

Esmesne, you didn't hear what he said, or had someone tell you what he said second hand. He speciifically said that the typical white person ISN'T racist, but has some socialize reactions that are uncomfortable. You're buying the Fox news spin (or the clinton campaign spin, they amount to the same thing in this department). You're also ignoring the hundreds of thousands of working class white folk who have voited for Obama. Do they also look down their noses at you? Let's face it, supporters on both sides have been occasionally nasty. For every  pig latin speaker on Obama's side, I'll point you to a diaper joke about Obama supporters, a joke about "cults', etc.

Fougasseu, not sure if Edwards helps with blue collar workers. His message might, but he- I am not sure.

The rural primaries have tended to be predominantly working class, and he has won those handily. The question he has is how to translate that into a more general, national way of reaching these people.

- miceelf

April 9, 2008 at 5:24pm

Adamvaught  points out the obvious flaw in this kind of analysis. Where is the evidence that lower education voters who prefer Hillary prefer McCain to Obama?

I can't find a breakdown of this, but the breakdowns for age and gender suggests that HRC and Obama will capture almost all of the others voters in a match up with McCain.

www.gallup.com/.../Age-Vote-More-Strongly-Related-ObamaMcCain-Matchup.aspx

- liamvt

April 9, 2008 at 5:25pm

esmense:  I do not see an elitist or prejudiced tone coming from the Obama campaign or from his supporters.  The first point that bothers you, the use of the phrase "typical white person" has nothing to do with class.  The entire  comment is as follows:

"The point I was making was not that grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t.  But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society."

The notion that a white person might react with some suspicion to a black stranger -- a "reaction that's been bred in our experiences" -- is not accusing whites of racism.  It's just observing an obvious reality.  The use of the phrase "typical white person" was not the best choice, but the point is that the reaction he's describing is a common one, and so it is.

Your second concern is that the media is blaming Obama's problems with the white working class on racism.  I see very little media coverage that jumps to that conclusion.  That said, there are some hard numbers to support the theory that race is a factor -- specifically, the number of people who say in exit polls that race was a factor.  It's not insulting to acknowledge that and talk about it.

I would have to know the context of the "sweetie" remark.  It doesn't strike me as automatically out-of-bounds.  Of course, once again, I fail to see the connection with class that bothers you so much.

I can't speak for one crank at TPM, but I doubt he speaks for anyone but himself.  This one blog encounter hardly justifies your broad criticisms.

Meanwhile, your own post demonstrates a sort of reverse snobbery that sounds a lot like the condescension you accuse Obama's supporters of demonstrating.  You angrily ask that Obama supporters empathize with you and understand where you're coming from while simultaneously dismissing everyone who supports Obama as arrogant, elitist, prejudiced, phony, and so on.  Understanding is a two-way street.

- jhildner

April 9, 2008 at 5:35pm

It seems to me the white working-class constituency at the worst is simply unable to accept the idea of a black or otherwise racially different American in the White House.  This would be a version of the "po' white trash" configuration in which people who are economically and socially near the bottom have only their race to comfort them.  "I have nothing, but hey I'm white!  So I have something."  But if a black man becomes president, that last shred will be gone.

So, in many ways, it's good that it goes.  It'll be painful, but afterward maybe white Americans who have been cast onto the garbage heap by this economy will realize that their race doesn't protect them in any way except psychologically, and that not so much any more.

- ironyroad

April 9, 2008 at 5:44pm

I think your low information theory still applies. We easily forget that ordinary people don't pay attention to primaries. I'll bet Obama's numbers will be just fine when the general rolls around.

- ralphnelle

April 9, 2008 at 6:49pm

"This would be a version of the "po' white trash" configuration in which people who are economically and socially near the bottom have only their race to comfort them.  "I have nothing, but hey I'm white!  So I have something."  

Nice stereotypes. You do understand that the above is a prejudiced rant? And that your cute use of "po' white trash" is as offensive as any other derogative, bigoted name calling?

- esmense

April 9, 2008 at 8:00pm

It may be prejudiced but it's not a rant.  Unless feeling bothers you.

- ironyroad

April 9, 2008 at 8:38pm

Just wondering if anyone can point to Obama's history of civic organizing in Chicago or his experience campaigning downstate in IL .  I would bet that in neither of those situations were the primary consumers of his product over-educated, liberal, white elites.  How did working class populations buy into him then?

- MJMCKAY

April 10, 2008 at 12:11am

That's a very good question.  It seems to me that there's some kind of weird three-card trick going on in which solid "working class" folks are set up against people who live in a "community" in which there's "organizing" going on.  It's difficult to understand what's the deal with that distinction.

No it isn't

- ironyroad

April 10, 2008 at 12:38am

b.s, esmense. I'm going to go with less-educated-white-people-are-more-racist, in general. Why that is true, I don't exactly know. I could speculate all day. But I think I'm right, and I don't think it's snobby for me to say it. Any more than it would be snobby for me to say that there is more racial prejudice in the old south than there is in, oh, the Northwest. It's just true, get over it.

- psantillana

April 10, 2008 at 4:45am

Well, I have a more benign interpretation of the class issue. The less educated people generally have less time and interest to spend watching cable news and following politics closely. So, they're going to be inclined to vote with whoever has more familiarity. In this election, that's Clinton. That's why Obama tends to do well with lower-class voters in states where he's had an opportunity to spend more than a couple of weeks campaigning.

Not saying race isn't a part of it. It may be, but I think we are ignoring the institutional advantages Clinton had going in. She squandered these resources grossly, but I suspect they accrue to her at a higher rate with blue collar folks than with other folks.

- miceelf

April 10, 2008 at 6:57am

miceelf -- I agree

I think the rank and file voters are, by and large, not paying nearly the kind of attention to the primary circus as the activists are.  As my Mother says, "Well, I guess one's gonna win and one's gonna lose. Have another piece of pie, dear."

I do wonder however, if Obama's liberalism more than race is a contributing factor. In the general election, I think it would hurt him.  

- jts44

April 10, 2008 at 9:02am

In fact, I don't think that to say "there's white working-class racism" or "southern white paranoia" or whatever historically provable fact you want is the same as saying, "Obama can't ever win these people."  It's not a fixed future.  It's just to say that it'll be harder than he and his people might have thought to win the white working class who (like all of us) operate as much on unspoken intuitions as on rational considerations.  One of those intuitions is a kind of subterranean mental hierarchy of race that has gone underground as it's no longer welcome in open public discourse.

But men have voted for female candidates over the last 25 years in a way that suggests that many apparently inflexible notions are ultimately fluid and can be altered and weakened.  What Obama needs to do -- if he can -- is connect with people who are not automatic supporters and may have weird and ugly assumptions about race that they perhaps can't even confront themselves.  It'll take a different kind of approach, and it may not work, but he has to get there.  He has to make them feel *instinctively* comfortable with the idea of him in the White House.

- ironyroad

April 10, 2008 at 9:59am

What Obama needs to do is explicitly map out a plan for our economic future.  McCain's laissez faire approach is not what this country needs.  We need a national economic policy--one that advances the interest of all Americans and not just the short term gain of a specific corporation.  Obama already has my support but I wish he would put forth an aggressive agenda that creates good paying jobs accessible to all Americans.  Too often the Democratic leadership has preached to us about training and education.  It's their cure all for whatever ails us.  They preach this in spite of the fact that the majority of jobs we are creating are in the low wage service sector/retail category.  How is a college degree going to help us stock shelves better or answer calls in a call center any better?

Hillary may offer more details but I have serious doubts on her willingness to see them through once she is in office.  I have more faith in Obama to enact the changes he promises, but I wouldn't be going on so much faith if he'd be more explicit about how to grow and keep good paying jobs here in America to benefit working families.

- RichardDuBois

April 10, 2008 at 11:06am

I think ironyroad is right. This Obama candiacy is flushing out the latent racism, or in many cases not so latent, among the old white working class in big northeastern states.

- tkozal

April 10, 2008 at 11:09am

I am a white woman with a masters degree and an annual income above $200k and a Democrat and I still won't vote for Obama.   Why, because he does not have enough experience to be President of this country.  Period!

- dzinn1264

April 10, 2008 at 11:12am

esmense and ironyroad bring up valid points each but I think they're talking past each other. The key issue I think of Obama's support gap between working-class whites and college educated whites is not so much determined by the precursor of race to class as it is heavily weighted by class divide period. A majority of Americans like to deny socio-economic disparities as being based solely on race but race is just a factor. Socio-economic standing affects one's perception of stability and security far more than racial uncertainty.

The white working class voter may have as much disdain for upper class whites as they would for upper class African-Americans or Hispanics. It's the perception that one has "worked' their way up the economic ladder with years of experience, sacrifice and determination to get to a certain economic stage in America only to see a younger, college educated person be put into a position above them that hasn't "earned" it. Class divides are evident in minority populations as well. As Chris Rock so unelegantly put it...everyone's got their own N****R.

Middle and upper class African Americans, Hispanics, Asians look down on their own lower socio-economic, working class counterparts with the same "elitism and disdain" as the working class and poor look up with jealousy, spite and disdain.

What I haven't seen in any of these polling break downs is how Obama does across socio-economic lines regardless of race. Does he do well with all blacks? Does he do well with college educated Hispanics and Asians as white? Does he poll well among "educated elites" versus "working class poor"? What is the income cut-off for that? Does it couple with education? Does an underemployed English Lit professor feel more or less trust for Obama as an underemployed lineman?

Irony's point about the tenuous clutching of race as the last vestige of identity in America amongst poor  and working class white/blacks or Hispanics is not disparaging when it tends to be true. They see anyone who threatens that tenuous economic existence as a threat. A jobless white man will see a Hispanic and automatically think "illegal", while a poor working class Hispanic will see a black man as "lazy and shiftless".  The racial or gender prejudice is amplified by the socio-economic imperative. Once a certain economic level is reached where living paycheck to paycheck is not the reality, the racial uncertainty becomes less amplified.

- singlespeed

April 10, 2008 at 12:41pm

dzinn1264, does that mean you would support McCain in the general if Obama wins the democratic nomination?  Hmmm...what a choice...vote against your democratic values and for your over 200K salary interests by voting for McCain because of a perceived "lack of experience", or stand up for your democratic principals and vote for Obama.  I didn't think any of the three, HRC, Obama or McCain had any experience being President of the United States.  I'm sorry, I'm just an ignorant man who does not have a Masters Degree or make over $200k....could you explain it to me?

- rbstanley

April 10, 2008 at 1:31pm

Agree with jhilder in that Obama must remain 100% himself. This honesty is where his strength lies (the Race speech was a perfect example).  People respond to his authenticity and the fact the he rarely panders and when he bowls, it cuts in to that.  

FDR didn't bowl, didn't milk cows and neither did RFK - both wealthy and both comfortable with themselves.  Obama's strength is in his truth, he needs to stay there always.

As far as the "elitist" slur, this has always said much more about the insecurities and resentments of the person hurling it  than the hurl-ee.  

He's a flawed candidate yes, no question.  But Obama has never uttered an elitist syllable in this entire campaign. He was raised by his (at best) middle class grandparents and everything he ever had or has, he worked hard for - he is utterly self-made.  He didn't marry in to name recognition, wasn't born in to money and privledge.  Whoever calls him or his campaign elitist is not listening at all or lying.  Or both.

I'm sorry for the people out there who hide their own insecurities behind a very obvious defensiveness towards certain alma maters, or words that are too pretty - but honestly, that is their problem and if they vote on something so stupid, good riddance.

- Wandreycer1

April 10, 2008 at 2:57pm

And just what makes being an "elitist" so awful?  When did imitating DUBBYA get to be such a political must do?  Have any of you listened to an FRD speech or Eleanor Roosevelt speak?  PS had a documentary recently on them.  My lord but I had forgotten just how upper class they were.  And just what was it that made that so awful?  There never was a less prejudiced more decent  more committed woman that Eleanor in public life or more courageous... so since when have all the pundits on these pages picked up the Karl Rove screed... paint Obama with an elitist brush.

And what you are all forgetting is that he won down state Illinois, which is closer to Mississippi than it is to Chicago and very poor white Southern at that.

People who are more precarious economically and educationally do tend to be more conservative in part because they are more frightened, with reason.. they do have fewer options and a smaller cushion of all sorts and being able to look down at others or being afraid that others are looking down at them are easily played upon... how else to explain all those poor white farmers with no slaves fighting for the right of "their betters" to own slaves.  Makes not a whit of rational sense.

So don't kid yourselves that race doesn't matter with that tranche of the electorate.  It does.  Until they have a chance to hear and to meet Obama in person.  Is he the Second Coming?  Hardly.  But does he try to get past the divisions that for elections now have made people vote based not on their real interests but on fear of one kind or another.

As for Esmense being pissed at the condescension of some pointy head... well that's the way some profs are... condescending... their strong suit is rarely "the real world..." but then what's the point of being so thin skinned?

- Annabella2

April 10, 2008 at 6:02pm

Anabella2 - great point about unreasonably negative connotations attached to the concept of elitism. I personally yearn to see a successful, well-educated intellectual in charge. Have we not had enough of average nice-enough-to-have-a-beer-with Joes already? Does not public office demand exceptional intelligence and self-assurance? I blame this apparent necessity to dumb oneself down in order to appeal to the general electorate on rampant anti-intellectualism that has been raging in this country. (MInd you, I have frequently been accused of elitism myself, especially when I express comments akin to those Anabella2 makes in her post).

As far as the correlation between low education and support for Clinton goes, I will say I think it overstated. In fact, I offer myself as a living proof. I hold two Bachelor degrees, will soon be going off to law school, pay minute attention to politics and - support Hillary Clinton even though, by all statistical indicators laid out in this piece, I ought to be in the Obama camp.

- jkolic

April 10, 2008 at 10:40pm

Like, who cares?  The point of the Obama campaign -- from the point of view of his fans -- is not to win an election.  It is to enable the Leon Weiseitlers and Marty Peretzes and Andrew Sullys of the world to shed a tear as they vote on election day, so they can let us know.  And to allow Meatheads across the land to feel all superior to their dumb fuckin' father-in-laws in flyover country.  What justice, what a cause!!!  

Another chapter of the revolt of the elites, and the betrayal of democracy.  

- gurdjieff66

April 11, 2008 at 1:17am

Hm.  And which coast is Iowa on?

- ironyroad

April 11, 2008 at 11:13am