Why Democrats can't win over (more) white working-class voters (Slate)

[All Along The Watchtower]

This article was from last month, but it's absolutely relevant to discussions nowadays.  I think it hits on some good points and adds an appreciation of the many factors-historical and contemporary-for why Democrats lose so badly with significant segments of white working-class voters these days.

Subtitle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some excerpts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html

I would also add that the contempt directed at working-class whites (particularly those who are "foolishly voting against their own economic interests", which as a Democrat, I admit is frustrating to watch) by many liberals-who are often middle-class whites themselves!-doesn't help build bridges to white working-class voters. Hell, the fact that Democrats need to "build bridges" at all is a big part of the problem!

At the same time, I don't want the Democrats to pander to racists- or bigots in general. That's a lousy strategy that would betray Democratic Party principles.  But it would be a grave mistake for the Democratic Party-and frankly, elitist, insulting, hypocritical, and quite arguably, bigoted in and of itself -to write off many millions of voters as "a bunch of ignorant, undereducated rubes, bigots, and fundamentalist morons." We need to do better with at least some of these voters.

[TJ in Oregon]

The article frames it primarily in racial terms, and part of it certainly is that, but it goes deeper than that. Quite frankly a lot of the working class whites were better off in the 1950s than they are today and there are a ton of structural factors behind that.

When I was growing up in blue collar rust belt northern Ohio, most of the kids in my class whose parents were college educated were Republicans and most whose parents were not were Democrats. Granted, this is northern Ohio not the rural south and auto manufacturing was the main industry. Now the two have swapped a little bit. A decent chunk of the Republican kids went off to college and went crunchy granola social lib, meanwhile a decent chunk of the Democratic kids who didn't go to college have slowly turned into nonvoters or Republicans, not because they've gone racist, but because they find the Democrats' rhetoric insulting for one reason or another and thus believe the Republicans are better looking after their interests. One issue the article didn't mention but is huge right now in the minds of the blue collar types back home is immigration. They largely feel that letting more immigrants stay here will increase the competition for their own jobs. It's not that they hate Hispanics; they just fear being laid off. That's just one example but there are dozens of small ways by which the Democrats have turned them off.

As PR already noted, the rhetoric is probably the Democrats biggest hurdle here. Much like the Republicans when it comes to trying to appeal to blacks, it's gotten to the point where the Democrats almost can't even address the issue with insulting working class whites somehow. The article and PR's response for instance implicitly assert racism as a major reason why they vote for Republicans and the charge of racism is itself generally viewed as an insult. Thus we circle the wagons on the topic.

On the whole though, the Democrats don't need to win the white working class vote. It's a shrinking portion of the electorate, one they have won without and can win again without. They aren't going to win it back as a cosmopolitan liberal party. They can peel off enough to win without the rest.

[Kraxner]

I would also add that the contempt directed at working-class whites (particularly those who are "foolishly voting against their own economic interests", which as a Democrat, I admit is frustrating to watch) by many liberals-who are often middle-class whites themselves!-doesn't help build bridges to white working-class voters. Hell, the fact that Democrats need to "build bridges" at all is a big part of the problem!

At the same time, I don't want the Democrats to pander to racists- or bigots in general. That's a lousy strategy that would betray Democratic Party principles.  But it would be a grave mistake for the Democratic Party-and frankly, elitist, insulting, hypocritical, and quite arguably, bigoted in and of itself -to write off many millions of voters as "a bunch of ignorant, undereducated rubes, bigots, and fundamentalist morons." We need to do better with at least some of these voters.

If the democrats just dropped gun control, and even abortion and left it to the states they might recover somewhat with working class whites. Also the subliminal use of the race card and identity politics in order to get minority voters is backfiring on them.


Then theres a second cache of issues like environmentalism, opposition to the death penalty, and disrespect for patriotism which has became integral to the democrat party which will never be flexible.

I don't forsee a future where unless in a future hypothetical landslide that democrats will manage to win a bigger share of the white working class vote.  The values of the democrat party are disrespectful towards white working class and they will not vote for them, just like how the values of the republican party are disrespectful towards minorities and they won't vote for them. If democrats want to regain a share of the white working class vote, gun control must be dropped.

The article frames it primarily in racial terms, and part of it certainly is that, but it goes deeper than that. Quite frankly a lot of the working class whites were better off in the 1950s than they are today and there are a ton of structural factors behind that.

When I was growing up in blue collar rust belt northern Ohio, most of the kids in my class whose parents were college educated were Republicans and most whose parents were not were Democrats. Granted, this is northern Ohio not the rural south and auto manufacturing was the main industry. Now the two have swapped a little bit. A decent chunk of the Republican kids went off to college and went crunchy granola social lib, meanwhile a decent chunk of the Democratic kids who didn't go to college have slowly turned into nonvoters or Republicans, not because they've gone racist, but because they find the Democrats' rhetoric insulting for one reason or another and thus believe the Republicans are better looking after their interests. One issue the article didn't mention but is huge right now in the minds of the blue collar types back home is immigration. They largely feel that letting more immigrants stay here will increase the competition for their own jobs. It's not that they hate Hispanics; they just fear being laid off. That's just one example but there are dozens of small ways by which the Democrats have turned them off.

As PR already noted, the rhetoric is probably the Democrats biggest hurdle here. Much like the Republicans when it comes to trying to appeal to blacks, it's gotten to the point where the Democrats almost can't even address the issue with insulting working class whites somehow. The article and PR's response for instance implicitly assert racism as a major reason why they vote for Republicans and the charge of racism is itself generally viewed as an insult. Thus we circle the wagons on the topic.

On the whole though, the Democrats don't need to win the white working class vote. It's a shrinking portion of the electorate, one they have won without and can win again without. They aren't going to win it back as a cosmopolitan liberal party. They can peel off enough to win without the rest.

This is something that amazed me with democrats, they refuse to believe why people can be so negative against obama's amnesty. All i hear is them tout about "Americans should support it because Were stopping families from being separated!!!", which is like having a group of people break into your house while your on vacation, calling the police and a bunch of hippies shows up and blocks the police from removing them because doing so would "separate families".

[Mehmentum]

Its really about cultural/social issues.  Abortion, gun control, race relations, environmental policy, gay marriage etc. all play into this.  That was the purpose of the Blue Dog Democrats, to get the votes of those working class whites who Democratic economic policies appealed to, but felt culturally alienated from the party.

[Indy Texas]

The article frames it primarily in racial terms, and part of it certainly is that, but it goes deeper than that. Quite frankly a lot of the working class whites were better off in the 1950s than they are today and there are a ton of structural factors behind that.

When I was growing up in blue collar rust belt northern Ohio, most of the kids in my class whose parents were college educated were Republicans and most whose parents were not were Democrats. Granted, this is northern Ohio not the rural south and auto manufacturing was the main industry. Now the two have swapped a little bit. A decent chunk of the Republican kids went off to college and went crunchy granola social lib, meanwhile a decent chunk of the Democratic kids who didn't go to college have slowly turned into nonvoters or Republicans, not because they've gone racist, but because they find the Democrats' rhetoric insulting for one reason or another and thus believe the Republicans are better looking after their interests. One issue the article didn't mention but is huge right now in the minds of the blue collar types back home is immigration. They largely feel that letting more immigrants stay here will increase the competition for their own jobs. It's not that they hate Hispanics; they just fear being laid off. That's just one example but there are dozens of small ways by which the Democrats have turned them off.

As PR already noted, the rhetoric is probably the Democrats biggest hurdle here. Much like the Republicans when it comes to trying to appeal to blacks, it's gotten to the point where the Democrats almost can't even address the issue with insulting working class whites somehow. The article and PR's response for instance implicitly assert racism as a major reason why they vote for Republicans and the charge of racism is itself generally viewed as an insult. Thus we circle the wagons on the topic.

On the whole though, the Democrats don't need to win the white working class vote. It's a shrinking portion of the electorate, one they have won without and can win again without. They aren't going to win it back as a cosmopolitan liberal party. They can peel off enough to win without the rest.

They're already here. Can't do anything about that. If you give them amnesty, they have no reason not to demand the same sort of wages that non-immigrant workers expect. There's no fear of deportation, so employers have lost that leverage.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If working-class whites are so Republican, how come I'm not a Republican?

In Campbell County, the Democratic base is working-class whites.

[Kraxner]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

Not really. I was surprised at this but gallup gives college grad whites more approving of Obama compared to working class whites.




The decline in support from working class whites has actually been double that of college grad whites.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

Good points. There are a fair number of wealthy whites (including a few on the Forbes 400)-and an even greater number of moderately well-off whites-who lack college degrees. These are the groups of non-college whites who are the most Republican, and who would certainly add a significant contribution to the Republican share of those white voters who lack college degrees. And even in the South, it's the upper and middle-income white voters who are the most staunchly Republican. And in much of the South, with its lower cost of living, people with rather modest incomes can live a "middle-class" lifestyle quite comfortably.

I'd also add that there are a good number of people who have bachelor's degrees-including many whites-but who really should be described as working-class based on their work. This would especially be true of the younger generation, working in the service sector, etc.-particularly in urban environs and places where a lot of people in general are highly educated. Not many (white) working-class Republican voters in many of the cities-especially not among the young and highly educated demographics.

[The Mikado]

Democrats need what, 40-42% of the overall white vote to remain competitive nationwide? That's going to require at least not getting killed with this subset, although not necessarily "winning" them.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think "true" Democrats (ones who truly believe in economic populism as the founding core of their party and honestly believe that this is the best way to help the most people) see this as a problem and want to correct it.  Unfortunately for them and the party as a whole, there seems to be at least a sizable portion of liberals who want to be viewed as an "elite" party - be it intellectually, economically, education-wise, more cosmopolitan as compared to rural or whatever else - and they'd actually prefer to scrape by in POTUS elections with increased turnout rather than truly compete for the House again.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think "true" Democrats (ones who truly believe in economic populism as the founding core of their party and honestly believe that this is the best way to help the most people) see this as a problem and want to correct it.  Unfortunately for them and the party as a whole, there seems to be at least a sizable portion of liberals who want to be viewed as an "elite" party - be it intellectually, economically, education-wise, more cosmopolitan as compared to rural or whatever else - and they'd actually prefer to scrape by in POTUS elections with increased turnout rather than truly compete for the House again.

Working-class people can be cosmopolitan too.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think "true" Democrats (ones who truly believe in economic populism as the founding core of their party and honestly believe that this is the best way to help the most people) see this as a problem and want to correct it.  Unfortunately for them and the party as a whole, there seems to be at least a sizable portion of liberals who want to be viewed as an "elite" party - be it intellectually, economically, education-wise, more cosmopolitan as compared to rural or whatever else - and they'd actually prefer to scrape by in POTUS elections with increased turnout rather than truly compete for the House again.

Working-class people can be cosmopolitan too.

I wasn't trying to suggest they couldn't be, but I'd wager a majority of the people in this "category" would be turned off by cultural liberalism.

[IceSpear]

Democrats need what, 40-42% of the overall white vote to remain competitive nationwide? That's going to require at least not getting killed with this subset, although not necessarily "winning" them.

Obama won fairly comfortably with 39% of the white vote. And since whites are gradually decreasing as a share of the electorate, Dems could even fall a point or two lower and still win. The real place where this kills us is midterms.

[henster]

This really only matters in the Midwest Dems do fine with whites in the West and Northeast. The white vote has largely been even in WI & MN while they've losing by double digits among whites in OH & PA.

[IceSpear]

I think "true" Democrats (ones who truly believe in economic populism as the founding core of their party and honestly believe that this is the best way to help the most people) see this as a problem and want to correct it.  Unfortunately for them and the party as a whole, there seems to be at least a sizable portion of liberals who want to be viewed as an "elite" party - be it intellectually, economically, education-wise, more cosmopolitan as compared to rural or whatever else - and they'd actually prefer to scrape by in POTUS elections with increased turnout rather than truly compete for the House again.

I wouldn't define 2012 as "scraping by". It was a fairly comfortable victory. 2000/2004 is "scraping by". Anyway, according to FiveThirtyEight's demographic calculator, merely performing at Kerry levels among whites/blacks would give Hillary a 52-46 win.

[Boston Bread]

How is democratic rhetoric insulting to working class whites? Maybe their words on immigration may stoke their fears but that's merely stating an opposing position, not an insult. I don't see it myself, and the average American follows politics far less avidly than I so I don't know why it would stick in their heads unless they watch Fox News all the time.
Note: I'm talking about democratic politicians. On this forum you can see plenty of leftists insulting working class whites but it's nothing that the party itself can change. And overall the democrats are generally classier than the GOP when it comes to talking about demographics.

[TJ in Oregon]

They're already here. Can't do anything about that. If you give them amnesty, they have no reason not to demand the same sort of wages that non-immigrant workers expect. There's no fear of deportation, so employers have lost that leverage.

On this issue I was speaking about the Rust Belt in particular here, where almost no immigrants have settled to this point. A sizable portion of the industrial workers are legitimately worried by amnesty because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that there will be more immigrants with it than without it, or that more future immigrants will come because of it to take their jobs.

Don't get me wrong; I agree amnesty is necessary at this point. But a whole lot of people back home disagree with that statement and racism and xenophobia have little to do with the reason. The reason why I mentioned immigration here is because it is an example of why working class whites may believe it is the Republicans who are looking after their interests rather than the Democrats, which is at the end the day the real reason why many of them vote Republican, not simply to express their outrage at the Democrats for having offended them.

[Indy Texas]

They're already here. Can't do anything about that. If you give them amnesty, they have no reason not to demand the same sort of wages that non-immigrant workers expect. There's no fear of deportation, so employers have lost that leverage.

On this issue I was speaking about the Rust Belt in particular here, where almost no immigrants have settled to this point. A sizable portion of the industrial workers are legitimately worried by amnesty because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that there will be more immigrants with it than without it, or that more future immigrants will come because of it to take their jobs.

Don't get me wrong; I agree amnesty is necessary at this point. But a whole lot of people back home disagree with that statement and racism and xenophobia have little to do with the reason. The reason why I mentioned immigration here is because it is an example of why working class whites may believe it is the Republicans who are looking after their interests rather than the Democrats, which is at the end the day the real reason why many of them vote Republican, not simply to express their outrage at the Democrats for having offended them.

Ironic, since the person who does eventually take their job away will almost definitely be a white male - either a C-suite type who decides to move the operations to Thailand, or a computer engineer who designs a robot that can do the job.

[freepcrusher]

i have some sympathy for the white working class but have absolutely zero sympathy for the "i'm for socialism when it benefits me" type who supported the GI Bill and availability for housing in the 1950s but when it became available to others, reacted negatively.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

I had a similar thought when I first read this article. By this article's definition Bill Gates is "working class white." To respond to an earlier post, I am one of those liberal/progressives that really does care about economic populism and wish Democrats would campaign on that rather then issues like abortion which really doesn't win in national elections. They should campaign on a living wage and student loan forgiveness. I think though that a lot of Rockefeller type Republicans have migrated to the Democrats over the years and dragged it to the right economically, in some ways even to the right of where it was under Clinton since as badly as he triangulated at least rhetorically was populist and tried to appeal to working class whites.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Isn't it obvious?  The answer is racism!

[Skill and Chance]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

I had a similar thought when I first read this article. By this article's definition Bill Gates is "working class white." To respond to an earlier post, I am one of those liberal/progressives that really does care about economic populism and wish Democrats would campaign on that rather then issues like abortion which really doesn't win in national elections. They should campaign on a living wage and student loan forgiveness. I think though that a lot of Rockefeller type Republicans have migrated to the Democrats over the years and dragged it to the right economically, in some ways even to the right of where it was under Clinton since as badly as he triangulated at least rhetorically was populist and tried to appeal to working class whites.

I do think the conflation of college/no college with upper middle class/working class is part of the problem.  The truly poor among the white working class generally still vote Dem outside the South, albeit with a closer split than poor minorities.  But on the other hand, white people who did not go to college but still achieved >75K family incomes are probably the most conservative constituency in the country.  In general, high income people don't swing Dem until they have graduate degrees.

Also, abortion shows no signs of being anything other than a 50/50 issue for the foreseeable future.  It was the conflation of birth control (which is easily an 80/20 issue) with abortion due to both GOP missteps and successful Dem campaign tactics that sank many Tea Party oriented candidates.  So abortion is the one present day social issue I would say the right should definitely retain, but they are getting slaughtered on just about all the others now.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The problem with this article, and many others, is that it conflates "non-college educated whites" with "working class whites". Although these categories overlap, they're distinct categories. In many parts of the country, Democrats have continued to perform strongly with working class whites. Non-southern working class whites who aren't tied to the extraction industry still compose a formidable Democratic constituency.

In many states, the white working class doesn't exist. Most working class voters in California, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are Latino. The working class in Hawaii is solely composed of Latinos and Asians. The majority of working class voters in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are racial minorities. The Democratic Party is still the party of the working class.

I had a similar thought when I first read this article. By this article's definition Bill Gates is "working class white." To respond to an earlier post, I am one of those liberal/progressives that really does care about economic populism and wish Democrats would campaign on that rather then issues like abortion which really doesn't win in national elections. They should campaign on a living wage and student loan forgiveness. I think though that a lot of Rockefeller type Republicans have migrated to the Democrats over the years and dragged it to the right economically, in some ways even to the right of where it was under Clinton since as badly as he triangulated at least rhetorically was populist and tried to appeal to working class whites.

I do think the conflation of college/no college with upper middle class/working class is part of the problem.  The truly poor among the white working class generally still vote Dem outside the South, albeit with a closer split than poor minorities.  But on the other hand, white people who did not go to college but still achieved >75K family incomes are probably the most conservative constituency in the country.  In general, high income people don't swing Dem until they have graduate degrees.

Also, abortion shows no signs of being anything other than a 50/50 issue for the foreseeable future.  It was the conflation of birth control (which is easily an 80/20 issue) with abortion due to both GOP missteps and successful Dem campaign tactics that sank many Tea Party oriented candidates.  So abortion is the one present day social issue I would say the right should definitely retain, but they are getting slaughtered on just about all the others now.

I'd say being pro-life (which I don't agree with) and being for protecting Second Amendment rights (which I do agree with) are both social issues that the GOP need not run away from.  The only things that are truly hurting them are gay marriage opposition and a perceived anti-immigrant stance.