For Obama, Another Blue-Collar Challenge

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: ELECTION DEMOGRAPHICS
For Obama, Another Blue-Collar Challenge
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 8, 2008; Page A10


Iraq war veteran Paul Scott gets a fist-bump in Springhill, W.Va. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Sen. Barack Obama did all he could to win over white working-class voters during the Democratic primaries -- shaking hands at factories, downing beers, bowling a few frames -- but it was largely in vain, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trounced Obama with the group in most states. Now, the senator from Illinois must do it all over again. Even as the electoral landscape expands for his general-election matchup against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), white working-class voters will remain a pivotal group, particularly in important swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Democrats hope that discontent over the economy, high gas prices and the war in Iraq will lead working-class voters to their side. Yet they are marching into battle with a candidate who, against Clinton, faced cultural barriers with blue-collar voters, whether in Manchester, N.H., or small towns in Appalachian Ohio. Some expressed reservations about voting for a black candidate. Obama's comments that working-class people are bitter and cling to their guns and religion as a way of dealing with economic uncertainty did not help his cause.

The McCain campaign has begun targeting the group in earnest, believing Obama's problems appealing to these voters put Democratic states such as Michigan into play while leaving some would-be swing states, such as West Virginia, securely in their column.

But some analysts say Obama's challenge has been overstated. For starters, many of the working-class Democrats or independents who voted for Clinton had not voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections, which means that it would not necessarily be disastrous for Obama if he did not win a majority of their votes in November. In 2004, President Bush won white voters without college degrees by 23 percentage points over Sen. John F. Kerry, a bigger margin than he enjoyed over Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Democrats whittled that deficit to 10 points in the congressional elections of 2006, when they retook both houses of Congress. No Democratic presidential candidate has won the group since 1980, when pollsters started tracking the demographic....

***

But hackneyed as the bar and bowling photo-ops may become, Obama needs to keep pursuing the white working class, said Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress. Obama might squeak by with big margins among other voters, but if he wants the clear majority and national mandate that he often daydreams aloud about, then he will need to get his deficit with the group into the low double digits. "If Democrats want to not just hang on for life by their fingertips, but win a nice solid victory, they need to do better than Kerry and Gore did" with that group, Teixeira said. "And it's not that hard."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/07/AR2008060702168.html?hpid=topnews

[babylonsister]

1. Mom, GD is fair game now-just saying. And you are

a peach for being so fair to the point where/when you pissed me off! :hug:

[DeepModem Mom]

5. I didn't think it was safe in there until next week? Did I miss something?

Have been offline until late tonight.

(You're the best, b-sister!)

:hug:

[babylonsister]

10. The primaries are over, but for whatever reason, there's a limit. nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. Gephardt Predicts Obama Will Win Working-Class Vote in November

Story here.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6308745

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Thanks, FrenchieCat! nt

[MrSlayer]

3. I really wish they would say white, blue collar, NON-UNION, working class.

All the union people are for Obama.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Good point! nt

[madeline_con]

4. I don't get this....

"But some analysts say Obama's challenge has been overstated. For starters, many of the working-class Democrats or independents who voted for Clinton had not voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections, which means that it would not necessarily be disastrous for Obama if he did not win a majority of their votes in November."


Doesn't this mean they would normally vote Republican, and probably will, now that Hillary's out?

[DeepModem Mom]

8. I think that is what it means -- but I think a Democrat has to get some of these votes....

or make up for them with others --

"Obama could carry Michigan while doing little better with this group -- or even a little worse -- than Gore and Kerry did, especially if he gets a larger turnout from African Americans and young voters. But he has to keep the losses within limits, analysts say.

'Gore and Kerry have shown you can win Pennsylvania without that group coming to your side in a big way. But it's a much easier road if you can keep some of those folks in the fold,' said Muhlenberg College political scientist Chris Borick."

[FrenchieCat]

9. I think it means that some voted for Hillary in the primaries as mischief.....

and yes.....those are the Reagan Democrats, who have since become Republicans.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I would say that anyone that is considered a Reagan Democrat

is no longer a Democrat. And were probably just on the edge.

[LiberalFighter]

11. They probably wouldn't had voted Democratic in the General

even if Clinton had received the nomination.

They were just trying to screw with our primary.

[iquiring mind]

13. John F. Kennedy

I haven't been on hear long enough to start a thread, hopefully somebody will take this and start one with my question to get everybody's attention. Hopefully, with enough responses I will receive an education. My sincere question:
What makes John F. Kennedy such an iconic figure? What did he do/accomplish that makes people hold him is such high regard? So many influential organizations hold him in such regard. What did he accomplish to warrant such adoration?

[FreeState]

14. You mean besides paying the ultimate sacrifice for his country...

Here is the US Governments biography - its a god place to start:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jk35.html

"His Inaugural Address offered the memorable injunction: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." As President, he set out to redeem his campaign pledge to get America moving again. His economic programs launched the country on its longest sustained expansion since World War II; before his death, he laid plans for a massive assault on persisting pockets of privation and poverty.

Responding to ever more urgent demands, he took vigorous action in the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation. His vision of America extended to the quality of the national culture and the central role of the arts in a vital society.

He wished America to resume its old mission as the first nation dedicated to the revolution of human rights. With the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, he brought American idealism to the aid of developing nations. But the hard reality of the Communist challenge remained."

Much more at the link

[rasputin1952]

15. Well...for starters, he stared down Kruschev during the Cuban

Missle Crisis, someting even Conservatives grudgingly give him credit for.

He also gave us hope that we could live in a world where we coould all get along, if we tried.

With his assassination, her reached a status that few have acquired, but we also got Johnson, who if he hadn't had VN around his neck, would have gone doenw ans a damn good president, often forgotten were his domestic programs; Civil Rights, Voters Rights, and educatioanl opportunities.

Compared to Coolidge, Harding and Hoover...Kennedy was a saint...and compared to bush, Kennedy might look like a god.

[iquiring mind]

16. Style over substance

I know this is off the original topic but I am new and still unable to start a new thread. If you have the ability, please move this to a new thread. This will give this topic more exposure and not upset those interested in keeping the original topic at hand.

JFK was assassinated while in office and should be honored accordingly. However, that does not warrant the level of adoration he receives.
Information on JFK:
Read links 1,2 & 3 for information on Kennedy’s role in the Cuban Missile Crisis
1 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/
2 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Read links 4 & 5 for information on Kennedy’s role in the Bay of Pigs
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/baypigs/pigs2.htm
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
5 http://americanhistory.about.com/od/johnfkennedy/p/pkennedy.htm

Read links 6 & 7 for information on Kennedy’s role in Viet Nam
6 http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkennedyrole.htm
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Foreign_policy

Read link 8 for a quick summary of JFK’s foreign policy. Surprisingly it includes a link to Iraq and the Baath party, including Saddam Hussein.
8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Presidency_.281961.E2.80.931963.29
His Domestic Policy information can be found on links 8, 9, 10 & 11
In link 8 above, under Domestic Policy-Civil Rights, Kennedy shows more concern for politics than for Civil Rights. Many Civil Rights leaders even viewed Kennedy as un-supportive. In fact, the FBI’s investigation of MLK Jr. was largely superficial until 1962 (under Kennedy's adminstration). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr. - under "King and the FBI."
9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy (looking under “Early Political Career” I was surprised when I read the 4th paragraph)
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (I was again surprised to read the 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, under “Political Repercussions”)
The above two links suggest JFK’s support for Civil Rights legislation was lukewarm, though his Executive Orders clearly show a strong support.

NOTE: Though JFK may have initially proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it clearly would not have passed with the aggressive support of Lyndon Johnson and the support of Republicans in Congress. Republican - 80% in favor. Democrats – 69% Senate, 61% House. Give credit where credit is due.
Of interest: Al Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright (Clinton’s self proclaimed mentor) and Robert Byrd all voted against.

The only uncontested successes of JFK that I could find was the Revenue Act of 1964, his establishment of the Peace Corp and the Alliance for Progress. However, the Alliance for Progress was not an Earth shattering, ground breaking idea. It was essentially an extension of Eisenhower’s and Truman’s policies. The difference was instead of Europe or the Middle East, JFK focused on Latin America.

A comparison of the Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) is enlightening
11 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

Amazingly, 69% of people say his Presidency was Great or Near Great!?! Believing in the image rather than facts! Please help me to better understand.
http://americanhistory.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Famericanhistory.about.com%2Flibrary%2Ffastfacts%2Fblffpres35.htm&poll_id=6556376022&poll=4&submit1=Submit+Vote

[rasputin1952]

17. Not many people consider JFK a "great" president; what he

represented was hope, a new nation reborn with the hopes and dreams of youth.

After years of war, (one which Eisenhower began in NV), we looked to a new and better nation. JFK, his youth his vigor and his vision seemed to fit the bill.

On a rare occasion, a minor official made the statement that if Kruschev was "given a way out with saving face", the Missile crisis would end, Kennedy had the foresight to take that advice. And, FWIW, Kruschev was making moves toward normalizing relations between the the US and the USSR. Something the Hawks did not like.

We shall never know what might have become of the situation, but JFK was a thinking president, and I think Bobby would have made a fine president as well.