The most powerful Democratic bloc of voters? A lot of theories have been advanced about this, but let's look at who really has power during a time of increasing economic turmoil... that would be the Democratic voters who are financially and physically secure.
Not necessarily the young ones. Not necessarily the ones from this or that state. Not necessarily the well-connected ones. Not necessarily the well-educated ones. But the financially and physically secure ones.
Not necessarily wealthy. However, decoupled from the vicissitudes of the collapsing housing bubble; not facing any major mortgage payments or student debt; maybe with just a sawbuck in their wallet today, and living in an unfashionable neighborhood or "just getting by" - but getting by on their own resources, more or less, not so much on borrowed ones.
More thoughts below...
The most financially and physically secure Democratic voter has either modest or more-than-modest assets -- but they're real assets, like a car that they own (that works), a house that they own outright (no mortgage), good health (which makes them physically secure), and living in a neighborhood that doesn't have high crime (physically secure again). They would have a stable job, or skills that would enable them to reliably find enough work to survive (either blue collar or white collar work); they wouldn't have a ton of student debt, either.
My question is, which candidates have the most supporters who fit this general description?
I can't help thinking of Obama's high support among students and college graduates, and wondering how much debt these Democrats are carrying. That's just one way of looking at one candidate; you could ask the same questions about Clinton's supporters as well, and McCain's.
We'll leave the very rich out of this consideration because we know the economic downturn will not impair their financial security (perhaps by design). This question is just directed at the middle class or upper middle class.
How secure (and therefore powerful) are these blocs of voters, REALLY?
My feeling is that this is a hidden Achilles' heel of Obama's constituency: not that they're in debt so much as they haven't really come to terms with it and have perhaps an overinflated sense of their political power because they're not really comprehending how financially underwater they are.
The anger of the poor does not produce meaningful and long-lasting change; it produces more turmoil that can be easily exploited by the very wealthy. Rather, the poor and disadvantaged are only able to mount effective resistance to exploitive forces when they have some degree of "real" security to fall back on, be it modest real assets (which can be pooled for the greater strength of the community), or physical health and strength. I'm not really sure that "college education" is a major factor when the system is set up to extract money from academic seekers and then not offer them jobs where they can quickly pay back the debt.
Obama has a big army, but when you look at it closely, it's kind of a tattered one, even though it appears to be young and fresh.
It's worth noting that many of Clinton's elderly supporters probably no longer carry mortgages and -- aside from health bills, certainly a HUGE consideration here -- probably carry somewhat less debt.
But as I said, there are many nuances to this situation to be considered - so what do you think? Considering all factors, which candidate has the most secure supporters?