Talk Elections

I would have to go with Republicans on social issues, Democrats for fiscally/program issues. Both parties have something popular with the blue collar workers. They were Democrats that switch to Republicans because they hate "gays" and "blacks".

I voted Republican, but it's pretty close to a push.

You don't win elections by letting the other team be more blue collar.

Then if say there was a election in 2012 such as Ron Paul/John Stossel  vs Barack Obama/Joe Biden, how would they vote then?

In 2008?  Probably Obama.  Right message at the right time.  Biden's a goober but he's a blue collar-friendly goober.

In 2012?  Tossup, I'd give a slight edge to Paul until he goes tinfoil hat and scares the bejeezus out of the blue collar types.  Blue collar types don't like message without delivery.

I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be a prototypical blue collar candidate, though.  He's a bit of a wonky and weird doctor-as-small-businessman thing.

Objectively the Democrats, of course. (And no, I don't mean it in an opeboite sense.) But people usually mean "blue collar white" when they ask questions like that, and that makes answering the question far more complicated.

Republicans

I don't see Paul doing well with blue collar either. He's socially conservative but has appeal to 9/11 truthers and wants to bring back the gold standard.   

His son did well in Kentucky, a blue collar state.

Depends on how broad your definition of "blue collar" is, and as Lewis mentioned, whether or not you're including minorities. Even if you're only talking about blue collar whites, those who fit into that economic classification in Massachusetts are different from those who do in Tennessee.

I'd honestly say that both parties appeal to all economic categories, other than the completely destitute, who are by and large apathetic but kneejerk Democrat. Things like race, religiosity, personal taste, and broader cultural identification are far more important...

I would think "blue collar" support would divide among union and non-union lines. In general, I would guess the Republicans given the socially conservative, anti-tax nature of the average blue collar worker. It's a hard group to pin though, considering all of the variables.

Union or non-union

Both.

Republican on the presidential level and Democratic on the congressional, state, and local levels. I'm picturing West Virginia as my model for this.

Does "blue collar" = White blue collar?

Thats a perfect example-I come from a West Virginian family, and while some voted for Obama, a vast majority voted for McCain, though they ALL voted for Manchin.

Most likely, unfortunately.

Yeah, Republicans successfully scared them enough to have them support them, only for the Republicans to screw them over with trickle down economics and union-busting. And they will still vote Republican because gays are scary and abortions are bad, and then wonder why their lives are so difficult. :)

What, all of them? But then I suppose that the proletariat is a strange and exotic (if rather distasteful!) sub-species of humanity as far as the enlightened denizens of this forum are concerned, so I suppose it's only natural for said enlightened denizens to consider the possibility of diverse opinions amongst such an essentially worthless section of the population as the proletariat (of which I must, alas, confess to being a member of by birth) to be next to negligible.

Nowadays it is the Republicans, strangely enough.

Remove the phrase "next to" and you have it.

You have to be careful, though.  I also disagree with the generalization that the OP made, but you must remember that he's specifically asking about the blue-collar subset of the working class.  We could have a different discussion of the white-collar subset of the working class.  Generalizations about them would be equally offensive, but they'd be equally amusing I think.  And in the US, at least, you would not necessarily be a permanent member of either of those classes by birth. 

FWIW, I voted Democrat here.  I did it on instinct, of course, but then later did a little research into the 20 or so biggest donors of each party and found that my instinct was correct.

White working class are split between the Republicans and Democrats.


Working class Minorities are heavily Democtrat.

Among whites, nationally, I'd say Republican, presidentially, given that Obama only carried . according to exit polls, the white no college education vote in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (an assumption since there is no data for, well, 3% of its electorate), Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

In several states, which Obama won big (>60%), such as California, New York and Maryland, he lost the white "working class" vote

Democratic strength in blue states is more among college educated whites

It's not so easy to say in the United States. Politics aren't really based on economic class.

Prescient answer, and certainly a point that I used to try to make often when I was new on this forum.  But it's an answer to a different question. 

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/

Yes, that was my point.  He would take the lead because "he says interesting stuff about money" and "the n***** isn't doing sh** to fix things".

Well, if they see this stuff about economics, they would outright not vote at all. Unless there some southern racist like a George Wallace or Storm Thurmond  running for president, the blue collars would vote for the racist.

I take it you mean that politics is based on this sort of subculture (not on race or class)?

It's based on the wrong sort of white person and diversity (in that order). Thankfully we have insightful men like Thomas Frank and David Brooks to point the way.

Sure they are. Just not in the way most people think.