Much has been made of Obama's supposed increasing problem in securing the white working class voters. I believe that this problem is greatly overstated and is mainly connected to white voters in particular areas rather than white working class voters in general. In particular Obama seems unable to compete with white working class catholics in the northeast as well as in Appalachia. Further, his performance among this group has been hidden due to the use of caucuses in the areas in which he did particularly well. In addition his difficulties with these demographics are not becoming worse as the Clinton camp would like us to believe.
First from dreaminonempty's diary with the latest maps:
Ignoring Florida and Michigan we find several strong areas of Clinton support. These are:
- New England and in particular Eastern New England.
- Appalachian voters in a strip from PA through AR as well as adjacent areas in which there is a strong Appalachian influence including OK, parts of TX and MO.
- Hispanics
- The New York, New Jersey area (likely due to the home state effect).
Numbers 1 and 2 above seem to be largely as a result of white working class voters and those I intend to discus below.
First lets examine the situation in New England. Examining the map above one notes that Clinton's support was especially strong in Eastern MA and Rhode Island, weaker but still significant in CT and NH, and much weaker in ME and VT. It was noted that much of Clinton's support came from working class voters in these states. However, it was also noted that much of her support came from Catholics. Consider the following map:
Percent Catholic by County
Note the correspondence between percent Catholics and Clinton support. RI voted much later than the other states and shows support consistent with the surrounding states and thus there appears to be no significant increase in support from this demographic. Thus, the problem here for Obama is not working class voters in general, he does fine among those in Vermont and in the caucuses in Maine and holds his own in CT and the less Catholic central MA but Catholics in general. The lack of primary support from this group doesn't seem significant from an electoral vote standpoint as these voters will likely vote in large numbers for Obama in the general. However, it does begin to create the misconception that he is unable to draw support from white working class voters.
A similar but deeper problem exists for Obama in the Appalachian region of the country. These are voters who in all likelihood will not vote for Obama in the general election. Clinton will have you believe that the recent results in PA and WV indicate a decrease in support from this demographic. However, examining the map above shows that results from the more recent states are entirely consistent with the surrounding states of VA, MD, SC, TN, and MS. Her support among whites is not increasing, we are merely seeing more states that touch upon this region lately. I suspect her support here is largely cultural, that her more aggressive campaigning style and connections to the region appeal to her supporters more than Obama's message of hope in which they are suspicious.
One might question the effect of this lack of support in Appalachia would have on Obama's electoral chances. AR and WV are states that Clinton could win but Obama's almost certainly would not. Most of the other states will likely be lost by both. Clinton is polling slightly better in OH and PA but I believe that Obama can win those states but might do it somewhat differently than Clinton. Obama is likely to win more of the moderate republican cross over voters and turn out a larger number of young people and african americans. I believe that together these could lead to a good result in both states for Obama.
Outside of these regions Obama's results among white working class voters has been considerably better. On the southern coastal plain he held his own among the whites, despite getting blown out in the largely Appalachian western counties. It is difficult to gauge exact support as the exit polls do not break down by race, income and region thus it is hard to separate out the working class whites from non-appalachian counties. The western appalachian counties serve to exaggerate the difference in performance among the black and white voters.
The biggest indicator of Obama's performance with this demographic is shown in the west from the mid-west to the pacific northwest. This region largely consisted of caucuses which leads many to discount the results. A recent diary by ROh70 discussed these results. In this diary he shows that the support for Obama in these areas is real support that will likely carry over into the general. I believe this can be attributed to much more than Obama's superior organizing ability: the white working class voters all across the western united states are very much drawn to Obama's message of hope and unity. Numerous caucus night stores discussed large number of republicans in these largely white working class states showing up to switch parties and participate on Obama's behalf. His increased support here could help balance any weakness he has in the appalachian region.
One datapoint we do have is the largely white working class Wisconsin in which a primary was conducted. In that primary Obama did quite well with the white working class vote, to the surprise of many. It is interesting to note that in this region he does quite well with the largely German Catholic population. Thus, it appears Obama's problems are with the Irish and/or Italian Catholics in New England. Clinton would argue that Obama's performance with this demographic has declined since WI voted. She would cite the performance in WV and other Appalachian states as evidence. I would argue that these voters are not equivalent and that Obama's problem is with Appalachian voters in general and not with white working class voters in general.
Michigan would probably be a good state to judge support among the demographic, unfortunately we do not have a credible result from this state. Clinton supporters would argue that it would likely show results consistent with working class voters in places she has done well, I believe it would be more likely to show results similar to Wisconsin. Ironically the lack of results from MI might be helping Clinton in her arguments regarding this demographic as a good Obama result here could put to rest a lot of the questions. Obama constantly does better here in matchup against McCain.
I believe Obama has been able to win many white working class voters. However, his performance with this demographic has been hidden by other effects. These include support among working class Catholics in New England (a region in which any demographic will win in the general), and white voters in the Appalachian region as well as caucuses across the west which have received less attention due to distrust of the caucus system to accurately represent the views of the voters. This leaves very few states in which support among this demographic can be accurately gauged. In addition there is no evidence that support for Obama is declining among these voters. The coming primary in Oregon as well as the coming primaries in SD and MT will hopefully help to show the level of working class white support he has been able to obtain and put to rest this argument.