Top of the Morning: Winning the Blue Collar Vote, Revisited
First, The Nation's Katrina vanden Huevel alerted me to the following:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051011/cm_thenation/728262&printer=1
"In a fascinating paper called "What's the Matter With What's the Matter with Kansas?", Princeton professor Larry Bartels uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis." (that the poor white voters are now routinely voting against their own self interest). "He examines class-related patterns of issue preferences, partisanship, and voting over the past half-century. Bartels concludes that the white working class hasn't moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican.
Moreover, for the most part, voters' economic and cultural attitudes are either both liberal or both conservative rather than the bifurcated split Frank sees. Bartels also disproves the argument that there's been a long-term decline in turnout.
Here's a summary of the report's findings if you don't have time to read the full 43 page paper" :
"Conclusions:
* Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites--and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era--itself a holdover from the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
* Has the white working class become more conservative? No. The typical views of low-income whites have remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years. (A pro-choice shift on abortion in the 1970s and '80s has been partially reversed since the early 1990s.) Their positions relative to more affluent white voters--generally less liberal on social issues and less conservative on economic issues--have also remained virtually unchanged.
* Do working class "moral values" trump economics in determining voting patterns? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites.
* Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues."
To read the paper for yourself: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf
What I find interesting is that, among the bottom third of income distribution (among white people), the percentage voting Democrat has risen from 46% to 51%. It is in the middle and upper third, especially the upper third, where Democrats have lost ground.
What bothers me is that we are still only getting 51% of the lowest group. We should be getting 60% or more. As far as the upper portion: they are more or less hopeless. So long as there is gas for their SUV's (even if it is expensive) and it isn't their kids that will be getting killed in wars, they aren't about to sacrifice their tax cuts for the common good.
Next we have a fun "anti-Bush rant" by Bill Maher, which I was made aware of by the Daily Kos.
http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20051007.html
It reads, in part:
"New Rule: George Bush must meet some new people.
When Americans see their president giving every job to the same old cronies, they use words like "loyal to a fault" and "stubborn" and "close-minded." "Lives in a bubble."
"Sock-puppet." "Asshole." "Worst president ever."
But they're missing the point. The problem isn't his political philosophy---kill people and animals and take their gas---the problem is he has to expand his circle of friends beyond his mom, Karen Hughes and the House of Saud...
[Last] week President Bush had to nominate a Supreme Court judge, and he picked the most qualified person within 30 feet of his office. Her qualifications: well, she is a lawyer and former commissioner of the Texas State Lottery. And she's seen every episode of "Judging Amy." Abortion, affirmative action, separation of church and state? Yeah, let's ask the lady who peddled scratch tickets to liquor stores...
You know, Mr. President, when you got elected, we all figured you were no genius, but smart enough to hire qualified people. But it turns out you're just a dimwit who enjoys feeling superior. And the only way to accomplish that is to surround yourself with the likes of Mike Brown and Harriet Miers: Goober and Aunt Bea. Unspectacular souls who make you feel comfortable and unthreatened."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051011/cm_thenation/728262&printer=1
"In a fascinating paper called "What's the Matter With What's the Matter with Kansas?", Princeton professor Larry Bartels uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis." (that the poor white voters are now routinely voting against their own self interest). "He examines class-related patterns of issue preferences, partisanship, and voting over the past half-century. Bartels concludes that the white working class hasn't moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican.
Moreover, for the most part, voters' economic and cultural attitudes are either both liberal or both conservative rather than the bifurcated split Frank sees. Bartels also disproves the argument that there's been a long-term decline in turnout.
Here's a summary of the report's findings if you don't have time to read the full 43 page paper" :
"Conclusions:
* Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites--and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era--itself a holdover from the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
* Has the white working class become more conservative? No. The typical views of low-income whites have remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years. (A pro-choice shift on abortion in the 1970s and '80s has been partially reversed since the early 1990s.) Their positions relative to more affluent white voters--generally less liberal on social issues and less conservative on economic issues--have also remained virtually unchanged.
* Do working class "moral values" trump economics in determining voting patterns? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites.
* Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues."
To read the paper for yourself: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf
What I find interesting is that, among the bottom third of income distribution (among white people), the percentage voting Democrat has risen from 46% to 51%. It is in the middle and upper third, especially the upper third, where Democrats have lost ground.
What bothers me is that we are still only getting 51% of the lowest group. We should be getting 60% or more. As far as the upper portion: they are more or less hopeless. So long as there is gas for their SUV's (even if it is expensive) and it isn't their kids that will be getting killed in wars, they aren't about to sacrifice their tax cuts for the common good.
Next we have a fun "anti-Bush rant" by Bill Maher, which I was made aware of by the Daily Kos.
http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20051007.html
It reads, in part:
"New Rule: George Bush must meet some new people.
When Americans see their president giving every job to the same old cronies, they use words like "loyal to a fault" and "stubborn" and "close-minded." "Lives in a bubble."
"Sock-puppet." "Asshole." "Worst president ever."
But they're missing the point. The problem isn't his political philosophy---kill people and animals and take their gas---the problem is he has to expand his circle of friends beyond his mom, Karen Hughes and the House of Saud...
[Last] week President Bush had to nominate a Supreme Court judge, and he picked the most qualified person within 30 feet of his office. Her qualifications: well, she is a lawyer and former commissioner of the Texas State Lottery. And she's seen every episode of "Judging Amy." Abortion, affirmative action, separation of church and state? Yeah, let's ask the lady who peddled scratch tickets to liquor stores...
You know, Mr. President, when you got elected, we all figured you were no genius, but smart enough to hire qualified people. But it turns out you're just a dimwit who enjoys feeling superior. And the only way to accomplish that is to surround yourself with the likes of Mike Brown and Harriet Miers: Goober and Aunt Bea. Unspectacular souls who make you feel comfortable and unthreatened."
posted by Harriet at
10/12/2005 06:35:00 AM
1 Comments:
"What bothers me is that we are still only getting 51% of the lowest group. We should be getting 60% or more."
Ollie, I think there are probably a couple of bad assumptions here. Dems have tried to frame everything as class warfare for so long that it is easy to miss.
Let’s assume that the difference is even as the democrats have painted it. They are for helping out the less fortunate with more welfare, more social security, higher minimum wages, free health care, and every other program they can finance by taxing the rich. The republicans are just greedy, rich, Christians who want keep their own money and not help their fellow man by paying their fair share.
Now, if my plan is to always be poor, clearly the democrats offer a much more comfortable option. But if I have dreams of something more, suddenly those who claim to be on my side become hostile toward my goals. If my goal is to work hard and become wealthy, maybe I’m better voting republican now.
But more important are probably the individual’s own economic views. You are probably more swayed by the democrat’s economic position because you believe it is right than because there is any financial benefit to you. I stopped voting republican while trying to provide for a family as a full-time MBA student because I felt their economic policies were too liberal creating corruption and dependence. Since I was only making about $800 a month between the GI Bill and my assistantship at the time, I fit into that bottom group of poor you are talking about.
If the democrats want to make progress with people on economics, they should talk responsibility and abandon the class warfare. The liberal spending of the republicans has opened a door. Talking about the “tax cuts for the wealthy” only holds it closed. It indicates to those who are economically conservative that they have nowhere else to go but the republicans. Speak of responsibility, tough choices, and debt we are leaving for our children. I don’t actually expect those to stay priorities once they are elected, but those traits are consistent with both democrats and republicans.
I should also tell you how I feel the door is open to reach conservative Christians, but I’ll save that for another time when it’s not so late.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home