Romney and the 'White Working Class"

[All Along The Watchtower]

There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the "white working class" or "blue collar whites" and the Republican Party's purported dominance among them.

Here's a blog post that demonstrates that, even using the most Republican-friendly definition of "white working class", it is revealed that it is Southern whites without college degrees-and more particularly, whites in the middle and upper thirds of the income distribution, who have become more Republican in voting habits at the Presidential level, at least, while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/06/18/the-party-of-the-american-working-man-and-woman/



It strikes me as particularly hackish and dishonest, though, to try to pick and choose sections of the 'working class' electorate in an attempt to prove the point that the "working class" or "blue collar" people are voting Republican-especially when women, minorities, and immigrants tend to be lower-income than white men in each respective educational category. The fact is, people of higher income, at every level of education, are more likely to vote Republican than people of more modest income.


Now, to be fair, the "white working class" (or rather, middle-income high school graduates without college degrees ) has become less Democratic in identification over the past several decades, this is true. But so what? Even though this group is considerably  less Democratic than other parts of the 'working class' vote (especially when you consider non-whites, and there are a lot of them), they still haven't changed that much in regards to actual voting habits.

Which brings us to 2012. Yes, Obama has a problem with "working-class"/poor whites in the South, Appalachia, and similar areas (or rather, they have a problem with him. ) Which is why the Republicans picked the worst of their candidates to try to appeal to that vote.

Somehow, I don't see inroads being made into many Democratic-trending suburbs, especially the ones that are more cosmopolitan, urban, and diverse in their own right, with Mitt Romney. I could be wrong, though.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Mitt Romney is a comically terrible candidate.

[AmericanNation]

That chart shows a downturn in "non-south" from 2006 and ends before 2010...  Maybe look at the mid west specifically since 2010.   

[argentarius]

Well the chart only goes to 2008, and if southern whites are excluded, so should whites from California, New York and Illinois.

[AmericanNation]

Well the chart only goes to 2008, and if southern whites are excluded, so should whites from California, New York and Illinois.

agreed. 

I thought this topic title was going to talk about the first "bad" Dan Henninger column I can remember.
http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html
...where he doesn't seem to understand that the 'white working class' has absolutely no problem with jet skis, in fact they own them!  Most "Rich" look their nose down at them and try to implement bans keeping them off "their" lakes.  Maybe people who have never seen water recreation on an inland lake are under this impression that millionaires are the only people on them.  Most people buy a jet ski because it's cheaper and smaller than a speed boat.  I think anyone that knows anything about this has an impossible time taking this seriously, other than the stupid perception angle. 
     

[pbrower2a]

There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the "white working class" or "blue collar whites" and the Republican Party's purported dominance among them.

Here's a blog post that demonstrates that, even using the most Republican-friendly definition of "white working class", it is revealed that it is Southern whites without college degrees-and more particularly, whites in the middle and upper thirds of the income distribution, who have become more Republican in voting habits at the Presidential level, at least, while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

It strikes me as particularly hackish and dishonest, though, to try to pick and choose sections of the 'working class' electorate in an attempt to prove the point that the "working class" or "blue collar" people are voting Republican-especially when women, minorities, and immigrants tend to be lower-income than white men in each respective educational category. The fact is, people of higher income, at every level of education, are more likely to vote Republican than people of more modest income.


Now, to be fair, the "white working class" (or rather, middle-income high school graduates without college degrees ) has become less Democratic in identification over the past several decades, this is true. But so what? Even though this group is considerably  less Democratic than other parts of the 'working class' vote (especially when you consider non-whites, and there are a lot of them), they still haven't changed that much in regards to actual voting habits.

Which brings us to 2012. Yes, Obama has a problem with "working-class"/poor whites in the South, Appalachia, and similar areas (or rather, they have a problem with him. ) Which is why the Republicans picked the worst of their candidates to try to appeal to that vote.

Somehow, I don't see inroads being made into many Democratic-trending suburbs, especially the ones that are more cosmopolitan, urban, and diverse in their own right, with Mitt Romney. I could be wrong, though.

In 2008 the vote for President correlated less for income than did many other factors. Barack Obama won Marin and San Mateo Counties in California; Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk  Counties in New York;  Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia. Those are among the richest counties in America. Barack Obama got crushed in lily-white, but very poor counties in Appalachia. He did extremely well among middle-class blacks (no surprise there) but also among middle-class Hispanics and Asians... and Barack Obama is in no way either Hispanic nor Asian.

Maybe if you understand 'cosmopolitan' to mean non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian you have a point.  Non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian members of the middle class have much to lose in an economic calamity if demagogues take over America and decide to share the wealth and opportunities of people like themselves in origins or beliefs while leaving them nothing -- no jobs, assets, or opportunities. The anti-intellectualism  of the GOP has to be troublesome to people whose jobs depend upon independent or trained thought. Poor white people have nothing to lose to the GOP which has been flattering them as the salt-of-the-earth. They are going to be poor no matter who is President and someone who tells them that 'liberal elites' in Manhattan and San Francisco are completely immoral unlike themselves because of their cultural differences they will sop it up.

We have yet to see the 2012 GOP National Convention, and if politicians at it like Santorum, Bachmann, and others turn up the nativist and anti-intellectual rhetoric, then people will be reminded of why they voted as they did in 2008.  

[AmericanNation]

Tangent:
A good number of people that are "upper middle class" got there buy working out of the "working class."  Savings, investment, property, etc is the only difference between them and the guys they work with who are "working class."  Same job, same income from that job, different choices.    Than the whole tradesman type guy who owns his own business and builds it up thing...  But, those incomes fluctuate wildly.  One year you're the evil rich, the next you're a working class guy.  So, yes income/ wealth / choices plays a role in how the working class breaks down. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

We know this from 2008. Romney will obviously win the white working class, though turnout will probably be down, especially if Mitt picks Condoleeza Rice as his running mate (obviously not going to happen, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!)

[All Along The Watchtower]

There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the "white working class" or "blue collar whites" and the Republican Party's purported dominance among them.

Here's a blog post that demonstrates that, even using the most Republican-friendly definition of "white working class", it is revealed that it is Southern whites without college degrees-and more particularly, whites in the middle and upper thirds of the income distribution, who have become more Republican in voting habits at the Presidential level, at least, while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

It strikes me as particularly hackish and dishonest, though, to try to pick and choose sections of the 'working class' electorate in an attempt to prove the point that the "working class" or "blue collar" people are voting Republican-especially when women, minorities, and immigrants tend to be lower-income than white men in each respective educational category. The fact is, people of higher income, at every level of education, are more likely to vote Republican than people of more modest income.


Now, to be fair, the "white working class" (or rather, middle-income high school graduates without college degrees ) has become less Democratic in identification over the past several decades, this is true. But so what? Even though this group is considerably  less Democratic than other parts of the 'working class' vote (especially when you consider non-whites, and there are a lot of them), they still haven't changed that much in regards to actual voting habits.

Which brings us to 2012. Yes, Obama has a problem with "working-class"/poor whites in the South, Appalachia, and similar areas (or rather, they have a problem with him. ) Which is why the Republicans picked the worst of their candidates to try to appeal to that vote.

Somehow, I don't see inroads being made into many Democratic-trending suburbs, especially the ones that are more cosmopolitan, urban, and diverse in their own right, with Mitt Romney. I could be wrong, though.

In 2008 the vote for President correlated less for income than did many other factors. Barack Obama won Marin and San Mateo Counties in California; Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk  Counties in New York;  Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia. Those are among the richest counties in America. Barack Obama got crushed in lily-white, but very poor counties in Appalachia. He did extremely well among middle-class blacks (no surprise there) but also among middle-class Hispanics and Asians... and Barack Obama is in no way either Hispanic nor Asian.

Maybe if you understand 'cosmopolitan' to mean non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian you have a point.  Non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian members of the middle class have much to lose in an economic calamity if demagogues take over America and decide to share the wealth and opportunities of people like themselves in origins or beliefs while leaving them nothing -- no jobs, assets, or opportunities. The anti-intellectualism  of the GOP has to be troublesome to people whose jobs depend upon independent or trained thought. Poor white people have nothing to lose to the GOP which has been flattering them as the salt-of-the-earth. They are going to be poor no matter who is President and someone who tells them that 'liberal elites' in Manhattan and San Francisco are completely immoral unlike themselves because of their cultural differences they will sop it up.

We have yet to see the 2012 GOP National Convention, and if politicians at it like Santorum, Bachmann, and others turn up the nativist and anti-intellectual rhetoric, then people will be reminded of why they voted as they did in 2008.  

To be fair, most of the aforementioned wealthy areas are also very highly educated, and are in states or regions that are wealthier than average. A rich person in Alabama or Oklahoma is more anxious about class differences than a rich person in DC or New York or San Francisco, where the rich tend to be of a more educated professional class than in the aforementioned Republican states.

High income has a bigger correlation with voting Republican in more conservative states or areas than in areas that are more Democratic to begin with.

[Indy Texas]

while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

Could this be due in part to the decline of pro-union moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Upper Midwest? I'm referring to the Peter King type of Republican - social conservative and hawkish foreign policy, but pro-labor and fairly moderate on fiscal issues.

[pbrower2a]

There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the "white working class" or "blue collar whites" and the Republican Party's purported dominance among them.

Here's a blog post that demonstrates that, even using the most Republican-friendly definition of "white working class", it is revealed that it is Southern whites without college degrees-and more particularly, whites in the middle and upper thirds of the income distribution, who have become more Republican in voting habits at the Presidential level, at least, while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

It strikes me as particularly hackish and dishonest, though, to try to pick and choose sections of the 'working class' electorate in an attempt to prove the point that the "working class" or "blue collar" people are voting Republican-especially when women, minorities, and immigrants tend to be lower-income than white men in each respective educational category. The fact is, people of higher income, at every level of education, are more likely to vote Republican than people of more modest income.


Now, to be fair, the "white working class" (or rather, middle-income high school graduates without college degrees ) has become less Democratic in identification over the past several decades, this is true. But so what? Even though this group is considerably  less Democratic than other parts of the 'working class' vote (especially when you consider non-whites, and there are a lot of them), they still haven't changed that much in regards to actual voting habits.

Which brings us to 2012. Yes, Obama has a problem with "working-class"/poor whites in the South, Appalachia, and similar areas (or rather, they have a problem with him. ) Which is why the Republicans picked the worst of their candidates to try to appeal to that vote.

Somehow, I don't see inroads being made into many Democratic-trending suburbs, especially the ones that are more cosmopolitan, urban, and diverse in their own right, with Mitt Romney. I could be wrong, though.

In 2008 the vote for President correlated less for income than did many other factors. Barack Obama won Marin and San Mateo Counties in California; Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk  Counties in New York;  Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia. Those are among the richest counties in America. Barack Obama got crushed in lily-white, but very poor counties in Appalachia. He did extremely well among middle-class blacks (no surprise there) but also among middle-class Hispanics and Asians... and Barack Obama is in no way either Hispanic nor Asian.

Maybe if you understand 'cosmopolitan' to mean non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian you have a point.  Non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian members of the middle class have much to lose in an economic calamity if demagogues take over America and decide to share the wealth and opportunities of people like themselves in origins or beliefs while leaving them nothing -- no jobs, assets, or opportunities. The anti-intellectualism  of the GOP has to be troublesome to people whose jobs depend upon independent or trained thought. Poor white people have nothing to lose to the GOP which has been flattering them as the salt-of-the-earth. They are going to be poor no matter who is President and someone who tells them that 'liberal elites' in Manhattan and San Francisco are completely immoral unlike themselves because of their cultural differences they will sop it up.

We have yet to see the 2012 GOP National Convention, and if politicians at it like Santorum, Bachmann, and others turn up the nativist and anti-intellectual rhetoric, then people will be reminded of why they voted as they did in 2008.  

To be fair, most of the aforementioned wealthy areas are also very highly educated, and are in states or regions that are wealthier than average. A rich person in Alabama or Oklahoma is more anxious about class differences than a rich person in DC or New York or San Francisco, where the rich tend to be of a more educated professional class than in the aforementioned Republican states.

High income has a bigger correlation with voting Republican in more conservative states or areas than in areas that are more Democratic to begin with.

True. We need remember that high-income members of non-white, non-Anglo, and non-Christian minorities tend to be well educated and don't fully trust conservative interests. White people with high incomes are more likely to be members of agrarian elites that in all other places and times have been the staunchest conservatives in any political system, and such is especially true in the South, which is still much more rural, much more traditional, and much less ethnically-diverse than the North. (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia are becoming shaky in any old 'Southern' political and cultural heritage).   

It may be that southern agrarian elites have been more successful at 'slumming' in the culture of poor whites who might be their fifth cousins or so and exploiting shared culture for political gain as the old northeastern and related WASP (that goes all the way to California) elites can't. Maybe that is because the old northeastern and related WASP elites can 'slum' with parts of the middle class successfully only by abandoning a part of their heritage. Southern agrarian elites have yet to pull the wool over the eyes of black people who have never had any affection for the agrarian elites and probably never will.

 If I went to the rural South and exposed my cultural proclivities by discussing 'un-American' literature (Goethe, Dostoevsky, Kafka) or playing lots of 'un-American' music (Mozart, Puccini, Shostakovich) while defending liberalism and other un-Christian ideas such as evolution. I would probably inspire lots of questions about my origins. Everyone knows about liberals with German surnames and big noses or 'former' big noses. (No, really they don't).

[All Along The Watchtower]

There's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about the "white working class" or "blue collar whites" and the Republican Party's purported dominance among them.

Here's a blog post that demonstrates that, even using the most Republican-friendly definition of "white working class", it is revealed that it is Southern whites without college degrees-and more particularly, whites in the middle and upper thirds of the income distribution, who have become more Republican in voting habits at the Presidential level, at least, while lower-income whites elsewhere have actually become more Democratic.

It strikes me as particularly hackish and dishonest, though, to try to pick and choose sections of the 'working class' electorate in an attempt to prove the point that the "working class" or "blue collar" people are voting Republican-especially when women, minorities, and immigrants tend to be lower-income than white men in each respective educational category. The fact is, people of higher income, at every level of education, are more likely to vote Republican than people of more modest income.


Now, to be fair, the "white working class" (or rather, middle-income high school graduates without college degrees ) has become less Democratic in identification over the past several decades, this is true. But so what? Even though this group is considerably  less Democratic than other parts of the 'working class' vote (especially when you consider non-whites, and there are a lot of them), they still haven't changed that much in regards to actual voting habits.

Which brings us to 2012. Yes, Obama has a problem with "working-class"/poor whites in the South, Appalachia, and similar areas (or rather, they have a problem with him. ) Which is why the Republicans picked the worst of their candidates to try to appeal to that vote.

Somehow, I don't see inroads being made into many Democratic-trending suburbs, especially the ones that are more cosmopolitan, urban, and diverse in their own right, with Mitt Romney. I could be wrong, though.

In 2008 the vote for President correlated less for income than did many other factors. Barack Obama won Marin and San Mateo Counties in California; Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk  Counties in New York;  Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia. Those are among the richest counties in America. Barack Obama got crushed in lily-white, but very poor counties in Appalachia. He did extremely well among middle-class blacks (no surprise there) but also among middle-class Hispanics and Asians... and Barack Obama is in no way either Hispanic nor Asian.

Maybe if you understand 'cosmopolitan' to mean non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian you have a point.  Non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian members of the middle class have much to lose in an economic calamity if demagogues take over America and decide to share the wealth and opportunities of people like themselves in origins or beliefs while leaving them nothing -- no jobs, assets, or opportunities. The anti-intellectualism  of the GOP has to be troublesome to people whose jobs depend upon independent or trained thought. Poor white people have nothing to lose to the GOP which has been flattering them as the salt-of-the-earth. They are going to be poor no matter who is President and someone who tells them that 'liberal elites' in Manhattan and San Francisco are completely immoral unlike themselves because of their cultural differences they will sop it up.

We have yet to see the 2012 GOP National Convention, and if politicians at it like Santorum, Bachmann, and others turn up the nativist and anti-intellectual rhetoric, then people will be reminded of why they voted as they did in 2008.  

To be fair, most of the aforementioned wealthy areas are also very highly educated, and are in states or regions that are wealthier than average. A rich person in Alabama or Oklahoma is more anxious about class differences than a rich person in DC or New York or San Francisco, where the rich tend to be of a more educated professional class than in the aforementioned Republican states.

High income has a bigger correlation with voting Republican in more conservative states or areas than in areas that are more Democratic to begin with.

True. We need remember that high-income members of non-white, non-Anglo, and non-Christian minorities tend to be well educated and don't fully trust conservative interests. White people with high incomes are more likely to be members of agrarian elites that in all other places and times have been the staunchest conservatives in any political system, and such is especially true in the South, which is still much more rural, much more traditional, and much less ethnically-diverse than the North. (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia are becoming shaky in any old 'Southern' political and cultural heritage).   

It may be that southern agrarian elites have been more successful at 'slumming' in the culture of poor whites who might be their fifth cousins or so and exploiting shared culture for political gain as the old northeastern and related WASP (that goes all the way to California) elites can't. Maybe that is because the old northeastern and related WASP elites can 'slum' with parts of the middle class successfully only by abandoning a part of their heritage. Southern agrarian elites have yet to pull the wool over the eyes of black people who have never had any affection for the agrarian elites and probably never will.

 If I went to the rural South and exposed my cultural proclivities by discussing 'un-American' literature (Goethe, Dostoevsky, Kafka) or playing lots of 'un-American' music (Mozart, Puccini, Shostakovich) while defending liberalism and other un-Christian ideas such as evolution. I would probably inspire lots of questions about my origins. Everyone knows about liberals with German surnames and big noses or 'former' big noses. (No, really they don't).

Yep. It's interesting, because you can even seen this contrast between urban and rural elites within states, like in California. The diverse, educated, urban, and affluent professionals of the California coast are nowadays quite Democratic, while the farmers, real estate developers, insurance executives, and other business elites in the outer exurbs and towns of the Central Valley and other rural regions are still rigidly conservative Republican.

[sg0508]

Places like my native Long Island used to be strongly republican when the party was about crime, jobs, taxes and the social fringe issues weren't issues.  Long Island is mostly, white collar suburban, educated voters.  Over the past 20 years, Long Island has become solidly blue. It's a microcosm of what's happened to the GOP nationally with the lost suburban vote.

I'll tell you this too, McCain probably outperformed what Romney will here in Nov.

[Phony Moderate]

American electoral politics would be far more interesting if it had our three main parties....

[pbrower2a]

Northern moderates -- often the Rockefeller Republicans -- had big problems with liberals on crime when liberals had the assumption that crime was the result of bad economic conditions instead of lax law enforcement and the bad character of offenders.  Such were the 'limousine liberals' who had no idea of how out-of-touch they were.

Barack Obama may not have shattered the image of a limousine liberal, but he certainly isn't one.  I'm sure that his days as a community organizer taught him that there were people more intent upon stealing his car or wallet than any self-improvement.

[Sbane]

American electoral politics would be far more interesting if it had our three main parties....

That's the thing though, there can't be a party system similar to Britain in electoral politics.