Among political scientists, it is a truism that many working-class white men left the Democratic Party in 1968, voted largely Republican in 1972, came back home for a moment in 1976, and switched to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Many pundits think that Bill Clinton "won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992," but data do not support this opinion. Exit polls actually show that in 1992 Bill Clinton won about the same share of white men as Michael Dukakis in 1988. It was Ross Perot who moved many of them away from the Republican candidate and undid George H.W. Bush.
Now it appears that, with Barack Obama heading the Democratic ticket, the party's trouble with working-class whites remains. Stan Greenberg (Bill Clinton's pollster) returned to working-class Macomb County, Detroit's suburb, a month ago for a new round of polling and focus groups.
According to Harold Meyerson's report in today's Washington Post the economic anxiety has skyrocketed -- understandably enough, with the auto industry in shambles and not much coming along to take its place. Their No. 1 concern is the off shoring of jobs, with rising gas, food and health-care costs running a close second. Their ideal presidential candidate, Greenberg says, would be an "outsider, middle-class" senator who expresses their anger at their betrayal by America's economic and political elites. And race is still a key hurdle for many residents.
In Greenberg's survey of Macomb, Obama is trailing John McCain by 7 percentage points, which in fact means that he's doing better at this point of the campaign than John Kerry and Al Gore were doing four and eight years ago. But that may not be enough to win in key States like Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. According to Princeton's Larry Bartels, outside the territory of the 11 Confederate States, "the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004."
One must realize that Democrats have been the party of minorities since 1972, and they did not really compete for white men since the Ford-Carter race in 1976. In 2008, with the Republican Party and its standard bearer remarkably unpopular, a war led by Republicans that has lasted longer than Second World War, during a struggling economy, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has ever lasted more than four decades: the New Deal one survived only 36), Democrats have their best opportunity in a generation.
This year, white men initially backed Hillary Clinton: their first instinct was to be with the front runner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to the senator of Illinois.
Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004, a share of the vote that left the Democratic candidate 3 million votes behind George Bush. Yet, so far Obama doesn't know exactly how to reach out to them, a problem critical to a victory in November. In John McCain, the Democrats find a daunting opponent in competing for white men's vote. He is the embodiment of much they admire.
A simple look at the 2004 exit polls provides a telling lesson for Obama.Using education level as an indicator of social class, you find that white male Democrats without college educations are roughly three times more likely than those who graduated college to value that the candidate who "cares about people like me." In comparison, those who graduated college are roughly three times more likely than those who did not value that the candidate "is intelligent." White male Democrats who graduated college were also three times more likely to say the issue that mattered most was the war in Iraq, where Obama benefited from his early stance against the war. It is no surprise that they would be more sympathetic to Obama today.
It will be this presidential election that tests whether Democrats can turn working class men’s frustration with Republicans into a new majority. In order to to that, however, they must offer something more than platitudes on the economy: it's the big issue of deepening economic inequality that the Democrats must confront. Will Obama say something about raising wages?
______________
Now it appears that, with Barack Obama heading the Democratic ticket, the party's trouble with working-class whites remains. Stan Greenberg (Bill Clinton's pollster) returned to working-class Macomb County, Detroit's suburb, a month ago for a new round of polling and focus groups.
According to Harold Meyerson's report in today's Washington Post the economic anxiety has skyrocketed -- understandably enough, with the auto industry in shambles and not much coming along to take its place. Their No. 1 concern is the off shoring of jobs, with rising gas, food and health-care costs running a close second. Their ideal presidential candidate, Greenberg says, would be an "outsider, middle-class" senator who expresses their anger at their betrayal by America's economic and political elites. And race is still a key hurdle for many residents.
In Greenberg's survey of Macomb, Obama is trailing John McCain by 7 percentage points, which in fact means that he's doing better at this point of the campaign than John Kerry and Al Gore were doing four and eight years ago. But that may not be enough to win in key States like Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. According to Princeton's Larry Bartels, outside the territory of the 11 Confederate States, "the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004."
One must realize that Democrats have been the party of minorities since 1972, and they did not really compete for white men since the Ford-Carter race in 1976. In 2008, with the Republican Party and its standard bearer remarkably unpopular, a war led by Republicans that has lasted longer than Second World War, during a struggling economy, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has ever lasted more than four decades: the New Deal one survived only 36), Democrats have their best opportunity in a generation.
This year, white men initially backed Hillary Clinton: their first instinct was to be with the front runner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to the senator of Illinois.
Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004, a share of the vote that left the Democratic candidate 3 million votes behind George Bush. Yet, so far Obama doesn't know exactly how to reach out to them, a problem critical to a victory in November. In John McCain, the Democrats find a daunting opponent in competing for white men's vote. He is the embodiment of much they admire.
A simple look at the 2004 exit polls provides a telling lesson for Obama.Using education level as an indicator of social class, you find that white male Democrats without college educations are roughly three times more likely than those who graduated college to value that the candidate who "cares about people like me." In comparison, those who graduated college are roughly three times more likely than those who did not value that the candidate "is intelligent." White male Democrats who graduated college were also three times more likely to say the issue that mattered most was the war in Iraq, where Obama benefited from his early stance against the war. It is no surprise that they would be more sympathetic to Obama today.
It will be this presidential election that tests whether Democrats can turn working class men’s frustration with Republicans into a new majority. In order to to that, however, they must offer something more than platitudes on the economy: it's the big issue of deepening economic inequality that the Democrats must confront. Will Obama say something about raising wages?
______________
