What is a "working class white?" What does the term conjure in your mind when you hear it? Is it the same image that would have conjured in your mind three months ago? Let’s look at how and when this term became such an issue in this campaign.
We didn’t hear anything about the working class, much less the "working class white" in this election until Edwards was long out of the race. We really didn’t hear much about the working class at all until the campaign leading up to Wisconsin, when there were little more than murmurs.
The discussion of the working class began in earnest leading up to Ohio/Texas, and not because of Texas. The middle class discussion was about something fairly substantive too. The discussion was about NAFTA and its effect on Ohio voters. Then those elections happened, and the MSM declared that Hillary had won back the working class whites she had lost in Wisconsin.
Now let’s review that article and find out how we define what a ‘working class white’ is according to the MSM.
Clinton's focus on experience may have helped to solidify her hold on many of these voters. About as many whites without college degrees ranked "experience" as their top candidate attribute as those who said "change" was their top priority -- a first in exit polls, and by a 2 to 1 ratio in Texas and 3 to 1 in Ohio, these voters felt that Clinton was more qualified to be commander in chief.
Whites without college degrees. That is who the media is consistently referring to when they use this phrase, however they sometimes augment the definition with reference to income. Is this accurate? Are people without college degrees the only ones who are working? Are there people without college degrees that are no longer working?
You get my point. 'Without a college degree' does not equal 'working class.' There are many people without a college degree who have done quite well for themselves, and there are plenty of people with college degrees who reside right smack dab in the middle of what we should all view as the real 'working class.'
But we also see a consistently disingenuous breakdown of the numbers. For instance, this article describes how 'working class whites' (which they define as those without college degrees) who also prioritize experience as an issue voted for her at a 3-1 margin. This serves to amplify the impression of the gotcha headline, which in case you had not noticed is in no way backed by the information that is given in the article. We are left to accept that this MSM source is correctly characterizing the polling data and that the message conveyed in the headline is sufficiently fleshed out in the actual article.
Exit polling shows Clinton won Ohio voters who have a high school diploma but did not finish college 65-33 (source: CNN as is all exit polling I reference in this diary). This demographic was one quarter of the electorate. So I ask you, who are the people that have never been to college but do go to vote in primary elections? Who of those is going to emphasize 'experience' over 'change?' Are they people in their 20's and 30's who work low to medium wage jobs? Are they journeyman trades people or factory workers? Now I don't mean to stereotype because obviously every demographic breakdown is going to have some over lap, but I suggested the answer to you in the title to this diary.
After Ohio, the next important primary was Pennsylvania, a state we were told is just like Ohio, the bastion of the 'working class white' voter. The endorsement of Bob Casey was called a way for Obama to 'win back' the vote of these white working class voters. The interpretation of who exactly the 'white working class' consisted of and whether that group of voters was actually identifiable by whether they went to college was no longer to be questioned. It was accepted CW, based on the misread exit polling of one state, Ohio.
And then there was bittergate, and the mythical "white working class" had a rival, the "elitist." The drama necessary to a completely bullshit narrative was born. So let's look into exactly how full of shit the MSM has gotten when it comes to playing up the 'white working class' voters.
Again we are told that working class whites are those that didn't go to college
But Clinton won support from two of three whites without college degrees, and about the same number of whites from families earning under $50,000 a year, according to preliminary figures from exit polls of voters conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks. It was one of her stronger performances of the year with these groups.
Interesting. As it turns out, Hillary won 64-36 amongst ALL voters with High School diplomas but no college degrees. So did the AA population with HS diplomas but no college degree go at the same rate as whites with the same education, or did the AP just pee it's pants here trying to get the story out with 'preliminary figures?' Where's the follow up with what the actual tally is? Truly confounding considering this suggests that her percentage amongst whites with high school but no college was probably even higher than the '2 to 1' stated in the article.
But what is particularly interesting here is the information they do not tell us about in the discussion of the 'white working class.' Oh they are happy to tell us about those who make less than 50K per year because it seems to be so revealing, but I ask you Alan Fram from the AP who has done one race baiting article after another for several months now, how did Hillary do amongst those voters who make 100K-150K per year? It seems that was Hillary's VERY BEST income demographic. Tell me, do these voters count as 'white working class?' I would think a discussion of these very wealthy people who only comprise 13% of the vote but netted Hillary 75,000 votes in an election decided by 225,000 votes is extremely relevant in an article about the 'white working class.' And who is Hillary's strongest most consistent demographic again? Are they working Americans, or are they the people suggested in the title to this thread?
But tell something else Mr. Alan Fram, why don't you tell us who you asked in your poll when you determined that Obama is losing support amongst white working class voters in the run up to NC and IN?. Is it plausible that Obama's alleged sinking favorability rating from your poll is attributed to more and more people who self identify as Republicans changing their attitudes about Obama now that he is the presumptive nominee, as opposed to being the candidate running against Hillary Clinton? How about some information about how Democrats and D leaning Independents feel about Obama. I think that is relevant in this discussion, if you're not just searching for additional pre-textual evidence about the pre-textual narrative you have worked so diligently to develop over these past few months. Is it not necessary for you to mention this when using a poll that includes Republicans in the context of the "white working class" discussion since it primarily relates to the Democratic primaries? Whats that? It's about electability? Indeed it is, so why don't you identify what the electability issues are really about? After all Mr. Fram, all you need to do is look at the title to this diary to figure out what is really going on. The question is, do you want to do that?
Now Indiana should have put this to rest. It was the next state that was 'just like Ohio' and what the MSM told you to expect was the "white working class" to go for Hillary. So let's look at the exit polls and see what we can glean from them.
In Ohio, a state where white/AA was 76/18 with Hillary taking 64 to 34 of the white vote, we saw the high school, no college vote go in favor of Hillary 65 to 33.
Then in PA, Hillary did slightly worse with white voters at 63 to 37, and she also did a couple points better with AAs. So even though she did worse with whites this should be offset by doing better with AAs, and the fact that white/AA goes 80/15 in PA, when it comes to high school, no college voters, according to the source material for this narrative. Well not exactly. Obama did slightly better with this demographic than he did in OH, 64/36.
But surely this was just a mirage. Some last minute white guilt or something. An aberration. The true measure will be Indiana, a state where white/AA goes 78/17, right in the middle of OH and PA demographically. Surely Obama will get clobbered here similarly to how he was clobbered in OH and PA, with the voters who graduated high school but didn't go to college and happen to be white. Well no, that didn't happen at all. Clinton's support amongst whites slipped to 60/40 and her support amongst high school, no college voters slipped even further to 54/46.
So naturally, this narrative of "white working class" died a quiet death when it turned out that Obama seems to be actually gaining steam with these voters, if you use the definition the MSM has been using since it began discussing the "white working class" which is voters with a high school diploma but without college. Obama is doing better and better in that regard even though the demographics of the states he's been competing in remain the same.
But of course that's not what happened. What happened was the narrative went mega. Every aspect of the possibility of Obama not being able to win "white working class" voters was examined, save one, whether the evidence actually backed up this assertion. Clinton used as a wedge issue, and not soon thereafter the new issue is whether Hillary's alleged white working class voters will vote for McCain. No reference to the fact that by their own measure that narrative has proven to lack merit or at a minimum should be re-examined. The narrative proves the narrative, therefore the narrative should be taken to its next illogical conclusion. Journalism USA style.
Let's take a step back here. I'm not saying that Obama is consistently winning the white vote. But the fact of the matter is, you take out possible Operation Chaos impact, and one other demographic, and Obama is either winning or coming very close with almost all white voters. And that other demographic? Well, the title of this diary should be strongly suggestive, but let's use some common sense and see if we can figure it out.
Who is most likely to be threatened at the prospect of a mixed race guy in his 40's who is framing his campaign around the concept of change? Who has been Hillary's most consistent voting block? Who, other than the right-wingnuts, are likely to say they will vote for the white 71 year old former POW if the mixed race guy in his 40's who frames his campaign around change wins the Democratic nomination? Who is infamous for not telling anybody who they will vote for and thus are a large contingent of the 'late breakers?' Who is likely to be largely represented in primaries, where participation is generally only a few minutes? Who is likely to be under represented in caucuses, which generally takes a few hours?
Ironically, this nomination of change and the upcoming general election which we all hope is about change, is all about Grammy and Grampy, or Mom and Dad as the case may be. The only thing that has kept Hillary in the race up until this point is Obama's failure to gain traction amongst older white voters. If he could have held the margins to 10-15 or so points in the 60+ white demographic, he wins several more states, and the pledged delegate gap is probably in the neighborhood of 300-400. The only hope McCain has in the general election is winning the Reagen Democrats, who are now 60+ white people, most of whom are no longer working. People like ex-coal miners, and doesn't that fit into the narrative nicely.
Young white women will come around to vote for Obama. Most blue collar white Democratic men will come around to vote for Obama. Who we need to worry about, who the undecided Superdelegates need to be watching, who we need to give a call and talk to about Obama v. McCain on Social Security and Health Care and other issues important to them, is Grammy and Grampy, or Mom and Dad as the case may be. Give them a call.
