White working class, Obama doesn't need you.

[Jacob]

According to the NYT, Obama is giving up on the white working class and will try to loss only by a small margin among the white college educated.

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

"professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists?" That sounds like a pretty boring group of people, and an incredibly small one.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

Interesting stuff.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

Obviuosly, this is all in contrast to the republicans, who who are apparently losing blacks, latinos, and just holding on to college educated whites who were caught up in the Obama symbolic race of 2008("in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51)").

Then there is this:

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive.

Less affluent wing? Wouldn't working whites qualify as less affluent? Does the writer mean "poor?"

If the NYT is right about Obama's new strategy, Isn't this race-based strategy kinda...racist?

[il Padrino Ute]

It certainly looks to be a racist strategy. What other conclusion could one make of it?

[Goatnapper'96]

According to the NYT, Obama is giving up on the white working class and will try to loss only by a small margin among the white college educated.



"professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists?" That sounds like a pretty boring group of people, and an incredibly small one.



Interesting stuff.



Obviuosly, this is all in contrast to the republicans, who who are apparently losing blacks, latinos, and just holding on to college educated whites who were caught up in the Obama symbolic race of 2008("in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51)").

Then there is this:


Less affluent wing? Wouldn't working whites qualify as less affluent? Does the writer mean "poor?"

If the NYT is right about Obama's new strategy, Isn't this race-based strategy kinda...racist?

Now I openly admit I hate the word racist and think it is used far too often, but what is racist about this plan? He and his team are making a decison about what is an achievable path for them to gain the votes they need to be re-elected. These decisions are made based upon a great deal of data and many factors outside of the President's control. For example, what they are in essence doing is exchanging hoped for victories in Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado for potential losses in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Part of that strategy might be expecting Romney, whose family roots in Michigan might put those norther industrial states in play more than other Republican candidates, to be the Republican opponent. Further, one of President Obama's challenges was he cobbled together a patchwork constituency that was inevitably mutually exclusive of each other. This plan allows him to discard hard core industrial states who dislike many of his EPA and environmental policies in order to appeal to the wacko environmental progressives nervous that he will sell out the environment in the name of improving unemployment. The reality is the unemployed from the industrial heartland are not going to get jobs by next November no matter what Obama does concerning the economy but if the wacky environmental progressives lose interest in actively campaigning on behalf of Obama he is more likely to lose. What is racist about recognizing your demographic strengths and playing to them? I see his strategy as no more racist than folks who think former coal miner hillbilly's who don't plan to vote for him are racist.

Besides that while he might not get the union voters he will still get their money.

[Jacob]

My last line about it being racist was a throwaway comment. Probably should have left it out to not create a distraction from what I think is an interesting topic.

As for whether it is racist, it seems like it is clearly a plan of discrimination based on race. It may not be the more odious kind of racism born of a more fierce hatred for one racial group, but it is clearly a case of racial discrimination. It is one thing to say, I am not going to worry about whether one racial group is going to vote for me based on my preferred policies. It is quite another to say that you are going to give up on that racial group and propose policies based on placating your more favored racial group. I'll also add that the hope for a colorblind government is unlikely as long as the elected chief administrator bases his election on race-based strategy. That's all I'll say about that.

[New Mexican Disaster]

My last line about it being racist was a throwaway comment. Probably should have left it out to not create a distraction from what I think is an interesting topic.

As for whether it is racist, it seems like it is clearly a plan of discrimination based on race. It may not be the more odious kind of racism born of a more fierce hatred for one racial group, but it is clearly a case of racial discrimination. It is one thing to say, I am not going to worry about whether one racial group is going to vote for me based on my preferred policies. It is quite another to say that you are going to give up on that racial group and propose policies based on placating your more favored racial group. I'll also add that the hope for a colorblind government is unlikely as long as the elected chief administrator bases his election on race-based strategy. That's all I'll say about that.

Where have you been the last thirty years? Oh, and before that, since the beginning of time?

Politicians make decisions on what they will do while in office and whom they will target as their likely voters based upon a variety of demographic factors. One of these factors is race (and one with a really strong predicitive capacity). This has always been the case, and with the amount of data that is available nowadays, splicing the electorate in ever more fine detail, you are likely to see more of it, not less.

[Jacob]

Where have you been the last thirty years? Oh, and before that, since the beginning of time?

Politicians make decisions on what they will do while in office and whom they will target as their likely voters based upon a variety of demographic factors. One of these factors is race (and one with a really strong predicitive capacity). This has always been the case, and with the amount of data that is available nowadays, splicing the electorate in ever more fine detail, you are likely to see more of it, not less.

No kidding. How does that change anything I said?

[New Mexican Disaster]

No kidding. How does that change anything I said?

Maybe it doesn't although perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

As to your point about working class whites they have been trending heavily to the right for a generation. The primary battle between Clinton and Obama was in large part a battle between the old working class left and the new energized left. That the working class left is usually identified as white is a testament to the fact that in racial politics voters tend to identify in groups, with whites that tends to be more closely linked to social class and education, with other groups ethnicity seems to be more important.

As a working class white member of the left, I can tell you that it can take awhile to find other working class white males that are also in the left. So much of the working class left was unionized and with the well documented decline in that base-well, you can't rely much on that group anymore.

[il Padrino Ute]

Let's turn the tables here. What if a white conservative candidate for POTUS announced an election strategy that was to ignore a portion of the black community?

I believe we would hear an endless stream of accusations of racism.

[Jacob]

Let's turn the tables here. What if a white conservative candidate for POTUS announced an election strategy that was to ignore a portion of the black community?

I believe we would hear an endless stream of accusations of racism.

We have heard such a stream of accusations since Nixon allegedly went with his "southern strategy" 4 decades ago.