According to a Gallup poll done today, Obama's support among white voters is similar to that of John Kerry's in 2004. He can only improve on that. And he does better against McCain with college grads and post graduates than Kerry did with Bush. So, I wouldn't worry too much Billy, Obama will seal the deal with blue collar voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

Could you specify what you mean by working class?

Sorry for the cut off sentence was deleting and hit send by accident.

Hi, Hilary.

Definition upthread.

While Senator Clinton generally does better than Senator Obama against Senator McCain, polls indicate either of them can beat McCain for the popular vote. When the electoral vote is considered, however, some models show Senator Clinton beating McCain but Senator McCain beating Senator Obama.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

We think the difference can be attributed to Senator Clinton's appeal among working class voters, many of whom are so-called Reagan Democrats who align around candidates instead of Parties. We think it is these voters that Senator Obama need to connect with to win the general election.

Senator Clinton needs to hold on to her votes. Senator Obama needs to find some more support before November. According to these models at least.

It's true that democrats are in a much better climate to win right now than they have been in recent memory but considering how close the last two elections were we can't take anything for granted. We won't win if the party isn't healed, if a segment sits this one out or spite-votes for McCain. Obama will continue to run a brilliant campaign. Here's hoping that the transition from Primary to General will go smoothly for us Dems.

What are you proposing, Billy? Start the primaries all over again? Really, what's the next step? What would you have us do?

Oh, and did we mention that a fair number of the people qualifying as "working class" in your definition probably wouldn't perceive enough of a personal investment in the race to make them give up vitally needed pay to get to his/her local district polling station?
Hell, my mother works from home, and she still has trouble finding the time!

I think he could turn white and join the KKK.

Billy,

I think your headline is telling: The Vast Majority Of Working Class Americans Will Not Vote For Senator Obama In The Fall

The Vast Majority you're talking about is the white majority, isn't it? Now, come on. Don't dissemble. Drop your mumbo-jumbo about "We don't think of working class voters as white or black." As the acting communications director for Hillary, you must realize it's important to stay "on message." And your candidate's message clearly is that Obama can't win blue-collar WHITES.

There's a difference between "can't" and "hasn't since Hillary and Bill began using race as a wedge."

Go back to South Carolina and Bill painting Obama as just another marginally successful Jesse Jackson. Or revisit Hillary's insistence that "reject and denounce" Farrakhan. Or just read her remarks a couple days ago.

As long as Hillary makes race an issue in the Democratic Party, some Democrats (regrettably) will find her more appealing than Obama until the whole board is reset and Obama and McCain clash on core principles of greater weight to white, working class Democrats than Obama's skin color.

Shame on Hillary for running a racially divisive campaign in the first place.

I appreciate the way you have tried to frame the issue in a race neutral manner. By doing so, you perhaps spare us the trolling (first time I've ever used the term, so forgive me if it's not appropos) of the faithful whose accusations of race baiting on the part of the Clintons regularly shoot to the top of the "recommended" list. But let's not avoid the issue. There are deep divisions in the Democratic party, including class and education, but race has to be at the top of the list. It's no secret that during the past several primaries, Obama has overwhelmingly carried the African American vote while Clinton has won whites by fairly substantial margins. It's also no secret that Clinton has done well among the so-called "working class whites." Thus we have the ballyhooed made-for-tv confrontation between Donna Brazile (who needs those white blue-collar voters and hispanics anyway?) and Paul Begala (you can't win with African Americans and eggheads).

You can't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without some commentator talking about Obama's difficulty in connecting with working class whites. (One can quibble with the extent of the phenomenon, but it's hard to deny its existence). When Hillary does so, however, she is vilified as race-baiting and divisive. But even her supporters should concede that she has made some terribly clumsy (to be charitable) pronouncements on the subject and by hyping this strength may be widening the divide.

Hillary's argument has some truth. Her strength among blue collar white democrats - including many of the swing voters a/k/a Reagan Democrats - may have made her a stronger general election candidate. But she couldn't convince enough primary voters/caucus-goers to vote for her. The only scenarios under which she could win the nomination would leave her so damaged it's hard to imagine her winning the general.

Ironically, Obama, who began as the post-partisan candidate, is the one who has had trouble broadening his base. There is no question that he will need to win over the working class voters who have supported Hillary if he is to have a chance in November.

How to do it? Well, after all these observations, I don't have much in the way of solutions. I'll borrow a few from Paul Krugman (I know, someone's going to call him a Clinton shill).

1. Let's start by not claiming that Clinton supporters are motivated by racism.

2. On a similar note, it's not helpful to constantly heap scorn upon HRC - the media does a good enough job of that as it is. It also undermines Obama's post-partisan message.

3. Obama needs to focus on his economic message. While things have a way of changing quickly, at this point, the economy appears to be the biggest issue of the election and potentially the greatest benefit to the Dems. Although in the primary, Obama talked about the economy under Clinton and Bush in the same breath, he needs to draw the distinction between the Democratic and Republican records.

4. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary - yes, that's right, the devil herself - and she must actively support his campaign to reassure voters who are anxious about the relative newcomer.

That's about all I can muster at this late hour.

Oh, yeah, and you can quote me on this...

McCain is going down this November like Bob Dole did stumbling off the stage a campaign event in 1996. Maybe McCain can retain some millionaire self-sufficiency after losing the election by hawking ED pills on TV.

Think about it. This is 1996 all over again, except this time with ginormous historic significance for the winner. I further predict it will be a win well beyond 50+1 and the closest thing this country has had to a mandate in quite some time will actually come to pass to the benefit of the US and the world.

time will tell.

Billy;
There are additional calculations to add to the mix. The last few elections have been decided by less than a million votes. We now have evidence that there are about 3 ½ million new democratic voters. Also-I am certain from closely following the primaries that many of those people have never watched Obama first hand. They are only going by HRC’s and the media’s input.

Obama has real roots in the working class. That along with the fact that he was reared by a single white mother and white grandparents will go along way to excite the working class voters as well as to nullify the fears about Reverend Wright. Then there is the added fact that entire party will be very focused on getting Obama into the White House.

I have expressed for some time that after we have a winner AND a looser we will get a better picture of leadership. The ability to rally their followers behind the other candidate will say volumes about how good a leader that candidate is as well as how loyal their supporters are.

My final concern is how well we handle the swift boating. I think we are going to see vile ads the likes of which have never occurred in mainstream politics before. And we will need to thrust and parry them. In the end I think that is what will decide the election. On that same issue I think we-that is, the internet supporters Are going to play the biggest role ever. I think it may well be up to us to handle the swift boaters because the Democratic Party has not been very good at that for the last many years.

And the Supreme Court is going t come into play as well. There are many swing voters who are also Pro Choice. In short, I think this election is ours to loose. And I have faith that we will all come together because this is truly a rare and defining moment in our history. We have a chance to get back onto the path of national righteousness. To be that shining beacon that Reagan always spoke of-that is what this election will be about.

Ok, lets be honest here. Clinton also has a problem with college educated voters, youth voters, and black voters.

Also just like racism exists and will be a problem for Obama, so too does sexism which would be a problem for Clinton.

It's funny how Clinton supporters are so willing to say the demographics she has problems with will fall in line, but it's so impossible for Obama to sway working whites against Mcain.

So why? Why is that so impossible?

There is only one reason I can think of here.... He's black. So is this not what is being suggested? Do we as Democrats say no to the first viable black candidate because some racists might not vote for him.

If Clinton won would we take it from her because some misogynists might not vote for her?

Why don't we just hand it to Edwards to be safe?

Why don't we just keep sending out the boring white guys to get slaughtered? Why don't we just keep being cowards and sending people out based on there supposed "electability" and watch them get gunned down by the republicans?

I think the real connection with Clinton and electability is really just a trick of the mind. We all now Bill was the first Democrat to hold the white house in a long while, so we see Hillary and our minds make this connection. We believe that a Clinton can win every time. However Obama has proved that's not true. They can be beat.

He will be our nominee, the people who need to buy the argument aren't buying the idea that he has MORE negatives then her. I think they see the negatives as equal.

Billy,
You make great points. All of them. I appreciate the sound and reasoned stands you make here.

Good morning all.

I did a little number crunching this morning to see what the overall numbers Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have been getting from voters making under $50,000. Using CNN exit poll data, Senator Clinton has garnered 50.11% of voters making under $50,000. Senator Obama has garnered 49.89% of voters making under $50,000.

Additionally, these numbers do not include data from Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, District of Columbia, Hawaii, or Wyoming. It should be noted that each of the states not included in the tally are states that Senator Obama won, some of them quite handily.

Related thoughts.

Dear BG,

I've never had the pleasure of reading a series of your straightforward, non-cryptic comments. This was terrific. I'd like the opportunity to discuss this issue without interruption. I'm at johnhughmcfadden@hotmail.com

My teaser is that I agree that trust is the problem for Obama. It's not his policies. It's his differentness as amplified by the Wright stuff and bitter gate, much less his rhetorical flights. More later

Dear BG,
Obama's strength is his empathy. He doesn't have to drink beers or sit on tractors--please no allusions to "rat-a-tat-tat." He has to understand their distrust, cop to his insensitivity, his lack of familiarity, how his skin color is part of his differentness, all to make the point that he understands why they might think he can't passionately pursue their interests. Then he can refer back to a series of quotes of him in 1995 that demonstrate his passion to bring all of us along together toward fulfillment of our dreams, how he believes that we can't serve interest groups to the exclusion of other groups. He can do that terrifically if he could get the idea that he is most genuine and persuasive when he expresses this core passion that he has demonstrated in his work as a community organizer.

While I do not support the thesis of this post fully, I believe that many posters on TPM have been rude to Hillary Clinton in a way unnecessary and unkind. Serving no purpose other than anger, I suspect that many people here can't get through the day without experiencing something inside them that is not about Mrs. Clinton, but something else-- an inner demon of insecurity, often recognized through a mob violence of speech. That such invective has only increased at a time when Mr. Obama has apparently secured the nomination proves the point. I wish it were not so.

Many if not most people are pretty easily lead. They can be easily lead by fear, bigotry, custom, culture, or by what their family, friends and neighbors tell them to do. I know my 87 year old mother would by inclination not vote for Obama and whether she would admit it or not, it would be because of his race. I also know that she can be influenced and if my brother and I and others tell her we are voting for Obama she may well go along and overcome her natural inclination.

What is appalling about the Clinton campaign is how they have affirmed people in their cultural fears and customs and in effect told them that it is A-OK to choose not to vote for Obama and to choose not to vote for Obama because they are white and he is black. Since the Clintons are party elders and do have considerable influence as opinion leaders, they could have taken the opposite course.

I’m no political analyst. I consider myself to be an ordinary citizen who responds to common sense issues.

Here’s my answer to the defense of something I find indefensible.

So many say that Hillary was merely quoting facts when she said yesterday:

“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college are supporting me and in independents. I was running even with him and even doing better with Democratic leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a coalition on.”

I guess I just disagree with those who say might say Obama has run his campaign as the black candidate, as Magister implies upthread.

I’m not familiar with the example give by Magister -- “A full year before the SC primary, Sen. Obama was addressing African-American groups by trying to draw a line from overcoming slavery to his candidacy, but supposedly, it was the Clinton's who interjected race into the contest.”

Let’s say Barack did this a year before his campaign (and I still would like to have the complete context) it does not mean he has run his campaign as the black man. He has resisted this context at all costs.

In fact, every time he has been asked to describe the wins Hillary has had, in terms of racial lines, he has refused to do so.

Why couldn’t she do the same and just leave it to the pundits to dissect the electorate? No, she did it for a purpose. I’m still pretty stunned THAT she did it. But there you have it. I still don't see the purpose.

But Billy, I will still be laughing next week about your "wiping your ass with the Obama newsletter" comment from yesterday.

That's the kind of irreverence I have to bow in respect to, being the girl from the bronx that I am.

Bush's disapproval rating maybe 80%, his approval ratings are in low 20's

Liam - good comment. I dont understand why these Clinton supporters dont GET this.

Bob Herbert summed it up best in his NYT column today:

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

Hi! No High School Diploma, Middle Class, white guy here. I also live in Texas.

The people who complain about Obama around me, on a day to day, non-internet fantasy world, basis are grey haired republicans, and religous right wing types (many in my extended family. Rush types). Neighborhood, work and friends, those I know cover the working class spectrum.

Those that are not die-hard Rush types, are swinging Democratic this year. They are energized to vote, to play a part in the process because they now see what happens when you don't.

Some see both Obama and Clinton as the same thing, with the same chance of doing anything different to truly correct the course of our Country. More of the same both ways is how they feel, but they also see both Clinton and Obama not as hell bent on destruction as the Republican party.

Many see Obama as a fair chance to alter the course our country follows moreso than Clinton. The way he's run his campaign, the issues, his biography, they feel the hope.

Some fear Clinton would extend the divisions in our country (remembering the nineties) and the ongoing us v them mentatily of politics. Some people really want the divisive politics to become more subdued on the political stage.

None of them would vote for McCain. Even those I've argued with in an Obama v. Clinton fashion. None of them would vote for McCain. His best chance is the media. If they paint him as they did Gore, that's a problem. But Obama is not Gore, and his charisma and character count in a media-driven society. That's just the world we live in.

As a progressive and liberal, who is often disappointed in the Demmocratic party, Obama seems a fair choice. I was originally for Edwards. I don't know if Edwards is the most electable, because that is not how I vote. I support the person who best represents my views, and has a good chance to win the election. Bush was run in Texas because he had the name, and could probably win the presidency. That was the dialogue at the time. He could win. I hate that kinda shit. It preys on a base element of our culture. Elections and representatives are about policy, character and intent. Obama wins over Clinton for me. He's won the primary.

I disagree with you. He can when working class people. I am one. Those are the people I know, and live with. He's very capable.

Poll and model all day, but get on the street. talk to people. No one is excited about a McCain presidency, but McCain. The republican base is even lukewarm for him.

Hillary, however she worded it, is still wrong. The America she knows is gone. Even after Obama has whooped her at the ballot box, in places like Maine and Virginia of all places, she still firmly believes that this is 1988 America.

She and her boomer cohorts are just out of touch. They still insist, even after losing to Obama, that white people won't vote for him and young people won't turn out.

Newsflash: They have turned out and white people have voted for him. That's why you lost. Obama knows today's America much more than Hillary, or the ancient McCain, who is still living in Reagan's America.

Frankly, I hope McCain and the MSM keep spouting their out of date myths, about how the big bad GOP will use race and patriotism to win, Lee Atwater style. I really hope McCain drinks the Hillary koolaid about young people not voting and how effective racism will be against Obama.

Go ahead and try that. It worked sooo well for Hillary. I can't wait for them to learn the hard way in November.

Billy, I would like to know, have you always followed the electoral map based on current polling thing? Just curious here, I haven't and I would be interested in knowing how it looked for Kerry at this point in time 4 years ago.

Was he winning? Losing? Not meant to be any type of insult, I just don't put a lot of faith in current polling for the general.

Here's why.

I'm in Washington, if they called me right now to poll me and asked me who I favored in Obama vs. Mcain I would say Obama. However if the question were Clinton Mcain I would say Mcain.

I would never actually vote for Mcain, however from what I have seen going on I know this is how many Clinton supporters are answering. So I would say this just to make sure that those people answering that way don't have too much effect on making Clinton look stronger to the super delegates.

Also, and this once again isn't meant to be an insult to you, your reasoning sounds great. However, if Clinton is referring to working class voters whether they be black or white, wouldn't that suggest she believes that only 10% of African Americans, the ones voting for her, are hard working? P.S. I don't think she believes this, but if she was talking non racially then that would be what she is suggesting. So I do think she meant what she said, however you are right, she didn't seem to want to say what she said.

Finally, and this is directed more at your style here. If you actually want to convince anyone that your idea's are correct it would be helpful to respond to our actual points more often instead of being flippant, it's insulting, and in no way convincing. It really makes it look like you have no argument to the contrary so you pick a tiny part of the post to pick at to try to invalidate the whole thing. Are you a politician of some sort? You should be.

Oh, also why do you trust the polls that say what you want, that Clinton will win in November, but not the ones that don't like her trust levels being extremely low?

and since when did the nominee get chosen on the basis of electability rather than on the basis of EVERY voting metric, particularly the ONE THAT COUNTS?

he's won the votes of the people. i'm so sorry that you disagree with the will of the people. sometimes democracy sucks. suggest another system in time for the next round of elections, and then you can insert whatever white candidate you want.

perhaps rather than wasting your time fighting the inevitable, you could use your energy convincing these white working class people that obama is worthy of their votes. if you don't think that he is and you would prefer to see a mccain administration, then start talking to these same white people and tell them that the black man is scary.

this is such a waste of everyone's time.

TO HILARY M.

Request: with a little more background on how you crunched the numbers, your analysis of income vs. candidate is worthy of a stand alone blog.

Please post!

All these responses with just 15 recommendations tells me that most people on TPM know Billy is fulla shit.

You're bitter, hopelessly in love with the wrong girl and can't come to terms with the fact that you're wrong.

You're Tanya Harding. You're Wile E. Coyote. You're Soliere to Obama's Mozart.

When even the most conservative Republicans are saying that Obama's going to win and it's still a Democratic year, there's something to be said about it. Both Hillary and Obama were essentially fighting for the presidency despite John McCain. Of course there will still be some white voters who will never vote for a black man, but working class will rally around Obama.

When John Edwards, Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats start full-throated support of Barack Obama, while the sad and sinking Republicans remind Americans why they deserve to stay in the minority and lose the presidency with their support of the richest 1%, those voters will come to their senses.

You seem like you're in Liebermanland and are going astray. That's fine. We'll miss you and would like you back, but being in love is tough. Dream on, Mr. Billy Glad.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about Barack Obama, he'll manage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4

It seems insane to that working class white(hard working) would vote against their own economic interest if Obama is the nominee. The hardest hit by the Republican policies are the working class(all races). Would working class whites rather pay high gas prices, have their homes foreclosed on, not send their kids to college, spend trillons rebuilding Iraq, continue to allow Corporate insurgents to loot the government. If only the current Admin was that loyal to them. Liberal is sounding pretty sweet to my hears.

Gee, one gets a couple hundred comments by posting hyperbole that skirts overt racism. Nice strategy.

I might concur "a majority" of these supposed working-class voters would be slow to vote for Obama, especially if we could agree on a definition. Mainly since a majority of working-class, if that means ignorant, have been voting for the fear-mongers since Nixon. Fortunately, their children are mostly less ignorant, and are now energized.

"A vast majority..."? Nope.

my white, Clinton backing, 53-yr old sister has no problem voting for Obama.My brother, 48 blue-collar,no college,Big Barack Fan.The Pundits and advisors can breathlessly spin this shit any way they want to but it won't change a damn thing. Americans of all stripes will vote for Change in November. Yes We Can.

Maybe you haven't looked today but Hillary LOST.
The race for the Democratic nomination IS OVER.
Obama improved his numbers in Indiana (from Pennsylvania) & has been making his case to working class voters & has support from all walks of life. I appreciate the fact that you point out his weaknesses (from the standpoint of being a Hillary supporter). At least you're honest about where you're coming from. Now that the nomination race is over what's the point???
You want everyone to stop & take another look???
We did. Then we did again & again & again...
At every turn in every measure that counts in this race Obama's come out on top. Democracy dictates that majority or representative majority rules. Now supers have only to ratify the will of the people. If we're all wrong (they certainly were with Bush) then we'll pay. However Obama is about as opposite of Bush as we can get. We can afford to take a chance on Obama the Country's already screwed. What's he gonna do, Screw it up??? Spare US the fake concern (in hopes of squeakin' out a victory for Hillary).
Time to figure out how to beat McCain & then help Obama have a successful Presidency so we can turn this cart around...

He flicked the ash from his cigarette. Intelligent none response, he said.
He turned on his heel and left, leaving behind the smell of cheap, Jockey Club cologne, mixed with the smell of sweat and cigarettes, and one small typographic error.

Does it matter anyway? By November there may be no working class voters. Bush will have made them all unemployed.

I think we need to delineate this to white working class Americans. We already know blacks of every demographic, including working class, support Obama by over 90%. We should not shy from speaking of race if its the truth and not attribute racism to anyone who only speaks of the truth.
The question is can Obama still win without the support of the majority of white working class Americans? And what about if, they not only not vote for Obama but also vote for McCain. what is the calculus of Obama still winning the election?
Democrats should absolutely learn from the result of the primaries and use them to its advantage. The democrats have only themselves to blame if they lose to McCain.

It's not apples to oranges. It's more like apples to tulips.

Hillary is behind by every conceivable metric. Just over 100 days ago, where was Obama in the race? Where is he now? Enough said.

Democrats arguing that Obama isn't going to win working-class voters rather than arguing how Obama's presidency is going to help working class voters aren't doing the party any favors. Maybe they mean not to, I can't say.

Passions are high and the battle for delegates has been long, hard-fought, and close. The nomination battle is over now though and the general election looms. It's time to send the Republicans out into the electoral wilderness and that's not going to happen until the primary's divisiveness is put to rest.

It's either that or a 3rd Bush presidency. Seems like a clear choice to me.

Mr. Blow has always wondered how Sen. Obama appeals to so many low-information, low-reading-comprehension bloggers. This demographic seems to have been Obama's secret weapon against Sen. Clinton.

He wonders how these LILRCB voters match up against McCain's FOX News voters in the fall. Should be divisive.

Billy Glad, get some Prozac and take it.

If Obama can't win the votes of working class Americans, then he will lose the election. But that won't change the fact that he is the nominee. Deal with reality, OK? Your girl lost. It's over. If Obama loses, he loses. But Hillary already lost.

hrebendorf you may be wrong about Indiana. have you seen how many Dem votes were cast vs. Repub? Not just in the presidential but downballot races too.

Bunny. Let me ask you this. Let's say that Obama and Mrs. Clinton run on the same ticket. Let's say that Clinton is going for V.P. You decide to go to a rally with both of them speaking. Obama says "yes we can." Clinton says "yes we can." You yell "go fuck yourself." You make the evening news and better, you get on youTube. Well, you're famous.

Not as funny, bunny as "don't taze me bro, " but you'll be the F.... star that day.

Mean guy. Don't let them get out here where the hunters can see them. Target shooting.