Maybe it is more about race than many of us think at times. Sure, the tea partiers seem to be full of white racists, but what about other whites? The House races in November show interesting results:
Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling.
snip
Exactly 75 percent of minority voters said they approved; only 22 percent said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35 percent approved of the president’s performance, while 65 percent disapproved; a head-turning 49 percent of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)
National Journal, White Flight
Ron Brownstein has an excellent, five blog-page article regarding the 2010 data and the 2012 presidential election. It's worth reading in its entirety. I am only highlighting the overall argument as a starting point for discussion.
Minority voters did not turn out enough in November for Dems to win:
After two years of a punishing recession, minority support for House Democrats sagged in this election to the lowest level recorded by exit polls in the past two decades, according to calculations that Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, provided to National Journal. The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60 percent, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 (although some Hispanic analysts say that other data indicate a better showing for Democrats last year). But even so, a solid 73 percent of all nonwhite voters—African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others—backed Democratic House candidates in the midterm election, according to the new analysis.
National Journal, White Flight
This data suggests to me that Barack Obama's race, rather than policies, underlies the response of many whites. Obviously, many whites voted for Obama or he would not be president. But among some of those whites, the economy, the role of government (whatever that really means) and race is playing a role in opposition.
The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70 percent to 22 percent, minorities said yes; by 61 percent to 34 percent, whites said no.
National Journal, White Flight
This does not seem to as much left and right as it is black and white, with many other minority voters identifying more with Obama.
The irony in these results is that minorities expressed more faith in both the future and the government than whites did, even though the recession has hit minority communities harder.
National Journal, White Flight
Here's where Ron Brownstein, the author, thinks this data leads to in political strategy for 2012:
These emphatic 2010 results represented another shovel of earth on the grave of the New Deal electoral coalition, centered on working-class whites, that long anchored Democratic politics.
snip
Despite that decline, Democrats have survived, and at times thrived, by building a new coalition. They have won the overall popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections, and they recaptured Congress in 2006 with a coalition that now revolves primarily around young people, minorities, and college-educated whites, especially women. That so-called coalition of the ascendant offers Democrats long-term advantages because all of those groups are growing as a share of the population.
National Journal, White Flight
Brownstein mentions that polls show that many whites blame government for hard times, not corporations. The reverse is true with minorities. In my view, the role of government has become a proxy for race with many people. The Republican code words have worked over the years with many whites.
Many whites are alienated, and race seems to be what it's really about (to me anyway):
According to veteran conservative strategist Jeff Bell, all signs suggest that Obama has permanently antagonized much of the white electorate (nearly half of which this year identified itself as conservative in the exit poll). ... "It’s significant if you have more voters who are willing to vote with the conservative coalition regardless of what’s going on with the economy."
David Axelrod disagrees, arguing that many working class whites will support Obama if the economy improves and that Obama will be running against an actual Republican candidate. But Axelrod also seems to see the 2008 coalition as a way to win:
Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, where the exit poll found that Bennet lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than 2-to-1. Yet he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities; holding his deficit among college-educated white men to single digits; and routing Buck among college-educated white women. A similar formula, Axelrod suggests, could be available to Obama in 2012, especially if the Republican presidential primary process, as he expects, tugs the eventual GOP nominee toward the right. "The Bennet thing was particularly instructive," Axelrod said. "They made a big effort there not only among Hispanics but women. The contrast he drew with Buck was very meaningful. That’s why I say the gravitational pull of those Republican primaries is going to be very significant."
White Flight
If I read this right, the data suggests that blue collar (and many other) whites have an antipathy toward Obama based on race that they might not have had with similar policies by a white Democratic president, although there would be some with the "big government" = race connection that I am drawing.
Axelrod disagrees and argues that some white working class voters can be won back, and I think he's right that an improving economy will do so, at least with some.
But a coalition as defined for Bennet in Colorada is a socially liberal, economically centrist coalition with whites, and economically liberal (and sometimes more socially centrist) coalition among minorities.
I don't know what it means, if the data is just transitory based on 2010, or if too many in the white working class will choose race over class. That's why we have elections.
Regardless of these racial attitudes, I believe working class concerns should be the concern of the Democratic Party. Hispanics, African Americans, and other minorities constitute the working class as much as white folks do. Until many white working class people let go of the disability of their own racism, the struggle will be harder for working people as a whole. White bigots are holding working people back. Unions are working hard and I think there is less racism now than ever before among union workers. But most of the working class is non-union.
And all those who sell their labor (excluding perhaps CEOs (who get stock anyway also) and other high, high earners) really are members of the working class.
Until we can change the minds of these bigots (or their chidren), corporations will continue to impovrish working people.
The election of Barack Obama brought many of these issues to the fore because of his race, but it also broke down so many barriers and will help so much in the long run to marginalize these racists.
This data suggests to me that the road to lessened gross economic inequality (not necessarily economic equality, just less gross inequality) is through changing racist attitudes.
Read the entire article and let me know what you think. There's a lot there.
AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka on Racism and Obama
Update I. Excellent points by fladem
Brownstein is wrong (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:TomP
about minority turnout in 2010. Turnout in 2010 among African Americans was 10% in 2010, and it was 10% in 2006. Latino turnout was 8% in 2006, and 7% in 2010.
African Americans voted in the same % in 2006 as they did in 2010 for Democrats (89%). Latino support did decline from 69% in 2006 to 60% in 2010.
White support dropped by 10% from 2006 to 2010. But where did it drop?
In 2006 Democrats won those making under 50K 60-38. In 2010 Democrats still won that vote, but the margin was reduced to 54-43.
But the same shift occured, however, among those making more than 100K. This group split 49-49 in 2006, but the GOP won it 58-40 this time. Note, however, Obama actually won this group in 2008.
Arguing that the White Working Class revolted against Obama ignores the fact that the rich revolted against him in larger numbers. Moreover, much of Brownstien's argument is based on cross tabs from 2010 that are not available for 2006. Unless he has cross tabs that are not publically available, I am more than skeptical about some of his conclusions.
The right comparison to make is to 2006. Off year elections see predictable declines in key Democratic groups (ie the young). Comparing '08 numbers to '10 numbers is therefore problematic in the extreme.
Having said this, I agree that Democrats have to connect with White Working Class voters.
Links to the numbers are here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee
by fladem on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 08:44:35 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
If the data is wrong, the conclusions are quite suspect. I leave it to poll experts to discuss that.
Very good points indeed.
Does Brownstein have an agenda? I don't know, although I do know he is no friend of unionzed workers. He likes the "creative class."
This is why the discussion is important.
Update II: Another exccellent comment. There are many in the threads and I hope people join the discussion. This one by jfromga responds a bit to fladem.
Its crucial (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:TomP
when dealing with statistical comparisons using percentages to make sure that the underlying figures against which the percentage is caluculated are in some rough degree equal.
FLADem is right to note that the rich moved away from Democrats in the midterms in larger percentage, but remember, the loss of the under 50k income group probably still represents the greater number of votes defecting. And it probably represents defections in areas that hurt Democrats more, suburban, exurban areas. Major urbanized areas probably remained solidly Democratic. I haven't been able to find detailed listings behind the reported results that are broken down by income group as to actual numbers of voters.
Nevertheless, I will try to explain, based on some numbers I pulled out of thin air, but given relative disparities in income distributions nationally, but accounting for lower turnout in lower income groups (though seniors still tend to turn out more than young people which actually makes things worse for Democrats. Nationally, 71% of Americans make less than $50,000. If you have for example, 10% of the whole voting population in the the midterms above $100k income, and 30% of the whole voting population in the distribution under $50k, then since votes are still counted singly, you are much more damaged by a one percent shift in voting in the under $50k group than a one percent shift in the over $100k group. Its the whole point of one man, one vote. In voting its absolute numbers that count ultimately. The statistics are interesting, and certainly have value when comparing each subgroup to their prior performance, but not across categories of grossly unequal numbers.
The data may be correct, but the analysis has to be rational, and the use of statistical measures appropriate when we attempt to draw conclusions.
If we want to regain votes, we need to concentrate efforts on whites making less than $50k more so than whites making more than $100k.
More importantly, low income and young people need to show up in larger numbers in non-Presidential year elections. We have enough people that don't associate their futures with Republican values eligible to vote, we need them to vote.
All that technical mumbo jumbo beside the point, I have always believed race has a great deal to do with this. Voting patterns of suburbs vs inner city areas which down south and to some extent everywhere there are significant minority populations have shown this disparity for a long time. An African American president and the right wing media lie that everything he does is a socialist plot aimed at income and wealth redistribution exacerbates the problem. But the problem is real and has been present for a long time. Further, rich people, regardless of race, at least have a logical interest, keeping the Democrats from raising their taxes. The reasons for defections among the majority of Americans who have benefited from the legislative changes, are less rational and probably do have more to do with race and the propaganda and fear spread by the main stream media that plays on those underlying and in many cases probably not usually expressed racial fears and resentments.
by jfromga on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 10:11:33 AM PST
[ Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
My bold added.
Update III: dopper0189, writing under the Black Kos tag makes an excellent point about what needs to be done: progressive non-racist white working class institutions:
Tom on Dems problems with working class whites (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:TomP, Lost and Found
the biggest problem Democrats have is that we don't have strong institutions that counteract the Talk Radio/Evangelical Church/NRA message pulling them rightwards. This is a major problem with the destruction of unions. No this THE major political issue with the destruction of unions.
Conservatives haven't made gains with blacks because of a combination of a social justice church, civil rights groups, and black talk radio. Latino have civil rights groups, talk radio (outside of Cubans-Americans Latino support Dems in the 70% range). The LGBT community have human rights (civil rights) and LGBT media. Social liberals have blogs like Daily Kos. Feminist who also fall into a number of these groups, have their own groups, blogs, and media figures.
But we as progressive and Dems don't have any strong institutions that still connect to working class whites. This is the big hole in the Democratic coalition. It's why we started losing a state like West Virginia as the union brand and membership starts to fade.
Outside of Unions can anyone name any? I'm speaking on a national level. Ed Shultz aims at this group but I don't think his demographics are mostly this group so I wouldn't say he qualifies.
We need to pass the Employee Free choice Act, but we also need to design a long term project to build institutions focussed on this group.
If we don't when times get bad and folks are looking for the WHY they get 20 hours a week of rightwing propoganda from talk radio, white evangelicals, and the NRA. To what maybe 2 hours from the left. Is it any wonder they vote the way they do?
In the "old days" even if they got a rightwing message, they would also get a counter message from their union halls. Civic groups which have fallen out of favor also build a strong sense of solidarity and community, while they weren't leftist, they did foster a "leftist" understanding. Remember unions provided most of the while folks you saw at civil rights marches in the 60's, even as working class whites as a whole provide the bulk of the racial backlash voters. Even today unions in Ohio and Pennsylvania did and outstanding job helping racially reluctant voters pull the lever for Obama in 2008.
Without building more strong white working class institutions I can see more of this coming.
by Black Kos on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 12:11:00 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
The above comment was from dopper0189 (1+ / 0-)
by Black Kos on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 12:11:57 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
He's right. We have nothing to combat Rush, country music (which is not necessarily racist but does not celebrate diversity either), and other right wing voices.
That is what must be done. Unions are very important, but so many are not unionized now. We need blue collar whites to help create institutions that combat Rush and we need to aid in that creation.