Why does Clinton do so well with blue collar whites?

[PM7nj]

All the media talks about is how Hillary does so well with blue collar, less educated voters, as proved in Ohio. But why? Is it simply because they are more familiar with the Clinton brand and want to go back to the 90s? I have heard that they identify with her more, but I don't really understand that. How do they identify with her? She grew up in a wealthy suburb, went to 2 of the country's most prestigious colleges, became a high powered lawyer, became First Lady of Arkansas and then the United States, and now is a senator who lives in a mansion in one of the country's richest towns.

Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't really connect for me. I am assuming it is because the Bill Clinton years were good and they think she can bring us back to that prosperity. Another thought I had is that she is perceived as a "fighter."


P.S. I hope no one thinks I am trying to bash her or her voters by asking this question, it is just something I don't understand and wanted someone to explain to me. Thanks.

[stellanoir]

1. mere familiarity

it breeds contempt or so I've heard

[rug]

2. If the choice is between making a living and vague hoping, hope loses.

[QC]

20. BINGO! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

39. That's a great retort, but meaningless.

She supported NAFTA which has severely hurt the blue collar workers of America.

I'm with the OP. I don't get it.

[rug]

54. NAFTA is only one part of it. Overall, Clinton has a good history supporting labor.

In any event, Obama's rhetoric on hope, change and ethics in government is itself meaningless with many working class people, especially these days.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Eh. Whatever.

[rwheeler31]

3. Pssst he's black.

[Nia Zuri]

16. No he's colored

[JoFerret]

60. Not the reason

Silly racist comment

[enid602]

4. media

I think it's mostly just a media perception. Most white collar types I know are all Hillary supporters. I think the media's been apt to stereotype and categorize supporters of both candidates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Brand Name And HIllary Is Seen As More Program And Results Oriented

~

[jackson_dem]

12. Yes and Clinton has a proven track record. Obama has just words

You can't rely on mere words if you are struggling to make ends meet. This is why Obama does best with those who will be doing well economically regardless of who wins. They can take the gamble. Working folks can't.

[Middle finga]

48. What track record? Did she stimulate the economy and

create jobs as a first lady? I know she promised a whole lot new jobs for NY when she first ran as senator but it didn't happen? So where is this track record you guys seems to always talk about????

[BklynChick]

6. combination of positive association with the name, and discomfort with idea of a black president

[jackson_dem]

7. Ah, typical Obamite classism on display again

They aren't smart enough to know what to do like the affluent latte crowd that loves Obama? :eyes:

[PM7nj]

11. Yea, I thought about the race thing...

but I didn't want to put that in my post because I'm sure someone would find it offensive and accuse me of stereotyping or race baiting or whatever.

[Bake]

49. No, you're doubtless correct.

And that's a problem for your candidate. But calling a huge chunk of the Democratic base "racist" still won't win the election. Note that I'm not saying that's what YOU'RE doing, but it is what many Obama supporters are doing.

Bake

[nxylas]

8. I think they see her as being like them

When she talks about her job sliming fish in Alaska, they recognize themselves in her. John Edwards talked a lot about his humble origins, but I suspect blue collar whites couldn't get past the "pretty boy trial lawyer" image and the $400 haircut. That's my theory anyway.

[PM7nj]

13. But she really isn't like them, as I stated in my OP

I hope I'm not oversimplifying things, but I don't understand how they see themselves in her.

[nxylas]

19. Perception is everything

It doesn't matter if she IS like them as long as they THINK she's like them. I dunno, I'd have to find a blue collar, white Clinton supporter and ask him or her. That's going to be quite a feat in South Carolina. Most blue collar whites where I am will vote McCain, cuz he gonna kick Ayrab butt and stop killing the babies.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Right, but why did so many similar people vote for Bush in overwhelming numbers twice in a row?

Why would someone vote against their best interests?

[CTLawGuy]

9. they tend to be less informed (on average)

about politics and know the Clinton name very well, and Obama not so much.

[Bluzmann57]

10. I don't know for sure

I'm blue collar, white, and backing Obama. But I suspect the reason is racism.

[jackson_dem]

15. Yes, whenever Obama loses it must be because of racism

Working folks, seniors, whites, Latinos, Asians, GLBT, Jews, etc. all must be racist! :sarcasm:

[Bluzmann57]

33. Now I know why I don't post in here too often

I merely advanced a theory, right or wrong. If you aren't able to accept it, then that's your problem. Now, I can get nasty better than any of you keyboard commados out there, but I have chosen not to. Good luck with your life, I suspect you'll need it. I'm done with this shit.

[jackson_dem]

36. Don't take it personally

I was making a general comment about the common use of this excuse by Obamites whenever Obama struggles. It doesn't matter which state, which race (Latinos too have been tarred by Obama supporters, or which income group is being questioned. If Obama is losing the Obama supporter response often is the cop out of blaming race.

[maddiejoan]

14. pragmatic and solution oriented

[Upton]

17. It's race and I think everyone here knows it

or at least suspects it, whether they want to admit it or not.

[nxylas]

22. I was trying not to go there

To automatically assume racism on the part of any Clinton supporter is as patronising as the assumption that anyone who doesn't support Clinton must hate women.

[PM7nj]

26. Me too

Thats why I didn't even mention it in my OP

[totodeinhere]

25. If that's true then we need to tell it like it is and call them out for being racists.

[maximusveritas]

45. But there's no way to prove anyone's a racist

so you can't call them out with proof.

All we have is conjecture.

And it most likely applies to only a portion of that group and is not be the only factor in their decision.

[totodeinhere]

47. Remember I said "if that's true."

[GarbagemanLB]

18. NAME RECOGNITION. Race might play a SLIGHT factor, but it is really just the Clinton brand, which ha

s a 12+ year start over Obama in the national news.

[jackson_dem]

38. Obama has 97% name recognition

[roseBudd]

21. I think it is residential segregation, data supports the idea that we not only worship, & educate

amid people who look like us, we live very segregated lives.

[NC_Nurse]

23. Didn't a lot of this demographic vote for Bush? nt

[PM7nj]

24. Yea, they wanted to have a beer with him...

[NC_Nurse]

28. I thought so.

[jackson_dem]

41. Ironic to hear that from an Obama supporter...

[jackson_dem]

40. No. This is about blue collar white Democrats

[AllentownJake]

52. Bush did carry alot of them

The Reagan Revolution was totally based on them.

[mattclearing]

27. Because everyone did better when Bill was in office.

Why would anyone try something different when it worked so well the first time? That's the logic.

Unfortunately, it went so well the first time at the expense of now...a lot of Clinton policies came back to bite us in the ass, including NAFTA, the Telecom Act, Three Strikes, etc.

[MichiganVote]

29. Because of her health plan people

[blonndee]

30. Good question! I have continually wondered about this.

Given her support for big corporations, NAFTA, the IWR vote, the RW characterization of her with "radical feminism", etc., plus her "socialist" healthcare reform (which is an unfair, RWish characterization IMO) I've never understood this appeal. I'll read the thread to gain some insight as to this, though.

[Butch350]

31. I guess...

1. A lot of people were and still are infatuated with the Clintons - especially Bill. Most people I believe
just want to see Bill back in the White House, one way or the other. I know I really liked Bill Clinton.
(But Obama has captured my attention with the offer of something new).
and...

2. I believe many blue collar people would not vote for a Black Individual. And they are not necessarily racists.

[blonndee]

35. If they wouldn't vote for a "Black Individual," how are they not racists?

Seriously.

[Cha]

32. The mediawhores manipulate..they get orders

from headquarters for the day and that's that. What about the blue collar workers in Virginia, Wyoming, Washington, Texas, Idaho, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska..ect, ect, ect?

[jackson_dem]

46. Exceptions and even there Obama did worst among working folks

Nationally he loses working folks, especially white and Latino working folks badly and he consistently does better as folks go up the income ladder. His worst groups are the poor and working folks; his best groups are those making $100,000 or more and $200,000 or more.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. I think it is because of Bill Clinton

and maybe these people are not in tune with modern times

[okasha]

37. Maybe because they have trouble identifying with a guy

whose wife talks about spending $10,000.00 a year on piano and dance lessons for her kids.

[PM7nj]

44. But they easily identify w/ a woman who..

...wears thousands of dollars worth of clothes and jewelry every day?

[okasha]

67. Reference?

Got a link for that?

[fujiyama]

69. LOL, Stanford wasn't a state school..

Neither was Sidwell Friends or whichever DC private school it was that Chelsea went to.

[okasha]

70. If you think really, really hard

I'll bet you can come up with a good reason why children of Presidents don't go to public schools.

[Barack_America]

42. Bill Clinton.

Many people honestly feel they're electing Bill to a third term.

There is no great love for Hillary among blue-collar white males, believe you me. And there is also no small amount of prejudice in these communities as well. They're for Bill and against the black guy. (in large part, as with any large group, there is substantial deviation)

I say this as someone who grew up in a solidly white, blue-collar family and community. I have dozens of family members and family friends that I am prepared to throw under the bus, if necessary. lol.

[AllentownJake]

51. It's complex

As Ohio showed for 25% of them it was "race" so saying that for a minority of them racism isn't an issue you can disregard. That was 25% that were unashamed to tell a pollster that so the number is probably 10 points higher.

If Edwards was still in it I think he'd be carrying them 1st with his story his Dad is one of them and 2 the know of him from last time and and for a minority it would be because he's a white male. I Love John Edwards and if it would have been him coming out of Iowa instead of Obama I'd be for him so don't go flaming.

People know the Clintons they aren't sure of this new fellow yet. Plus Obama hasn't really spoken to their issues that much yet. He tried in Ohio but he needs to expand over this who thinks Nafta is worse nonsense and talk about the issues they care about. Fair wages, illegal immigration (there is a perception they are losing jobs to illegals) etc.

[Historic NY]

50. Cause they are scared of the black guy, even my own brother...

they think Hillary is more experienced, at what Lord only knows.

[kennetha]

53. Because Blue Collar Voters are looking for more than a pose

of novelty and authenticity, which is really what Barack's main self-presentation seems to be about. Not to deny that he does have some liberal/progressive policy prescriptions, similar in spirit and often in detail to Hillary's.

But his self-presentation is that he is "new" and "fresh" and promises "hope" and "change" and racial transcendence and a kumbaya-everybody-will-get-along-and-sing-in-perfect-harmony-new-politics. You don't really think of him as a fighter for things that matter to ordinary people in their ordinary lives -- at least that's not predominantly how one thinks of him.

When it comes to schools, jobs, the economy, making college more affordable, dealing with national health insurance, etc. Hillary SEEMS much more detailed and specific. She doesn't give speeches full of soaring rhetoric about abstract themes. She gives speeches that leave you with the impression that you've been treated to passionate wonkishness, filled concrete specific policies designed to address and solve real problems.

I'm not saying that Obama in fact has no details to offer. But he's big events haven't mostly been about trying to communicate or even to appear to communicate the details of his policies and how concretely they will matter. They've been mostly about communicating the big themes. He is mostly sort of top-down thematics. She is mostly bottom up details. For him the details follow from the thematics, sort of. For her, the thematics are emergent on the many details, sort of. (this is a slight exaggeration of both sides, but I do think there is a difference in tone and emphasis.)

Why does this matter? Because I think Hillary tends to appeal more to voters who have a sort of "what have you done for me lately" or a "what are you going to do for me and mine?" approach to politics and politicians. I think that blue collar democrats are much more likely to be moved by calculations of self-interest and/or extended self-interest than they are by broad thematics like "hope" and "change." They aren't looking for "new politics" or a new kind of politician. They are looking for somebody that they believe fundamentally has the back of them and theirs.

I'm not saying that blue collar voters could anymore recite in detail any particular concrete specific policy of Hillary's that they feel so strongly about. It's just that she somehow conveys that she has done the hard thinking about public policy, is a partisan infighter, and is completely on their side.

I've said this before and I'll say it again now. Obama is sort of a biracial version of Gary Hart, Howard Dean, or Jerry Brown (circa his first presidential run). He's running basically against "old idea" "old politics." None of those guys made any serious inroads into blue collar electorate. They were, like Obama, candidates of the young, the educated, the wealthy among democrats. The difference between Obama and those guys is that Obama has something going for him that those didn't. He is winning overwhelming support among African American democrats. This is a HUGE difference between Obama and earlier would be apostles of a new politics. Without that AA support, Obama would certainly have been toast by now.

But the paradox is that the BASIS of Obama's AA support has, I think, very little to do with his new politics mantra. In that regard I think AA voters are much more like blue collar whites. They want to know what have you done for me lately and what are you likely to do for me and mine. THey are for Obama largely despite his main self-presentation, not because of it.

Or so it seems to me.

[PM7nj]

63. I actually agree with you somewhat

Obama's message of hope and change are what really drew me to him. But I do wish he would publicize his plans for change more. He has them, he just needs to talk about them more often. We saw him do it in Wisconsin, and he tried in Ohio. I hope he does it again in PA and doesn't get the kitchen sink thrown at him again.

[Middle finga]

55. I thought all the racist migrated to the republican party in the 60's

I'm shocked to find there are still so many racist still in the party. This Primary season has really opened my eyes. It may be time for black people to quit the democratic party, register independent and let the two racist parties compete for our vote..

[ikojo]

57. I don't know why any working class person would want

to return to the 1990s. Studies show that the increasing disparity in wealth started to take root in the 1990s, under Clinton led policies such as NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. Let us also not forget welfare "reform" which forced a lot of unskilled workers into the workforce and caused a further decrease in wages.

While thousands were in the streets of Seattle in 1999, Bill and Hillary were in the suites massaging the corporate executives and WTO leaders.

[QC]

65. "started to take root in the 1990s"

That would be the 1980s, under Reagan. Read The Politics of Rich and Poor, by Kevin Phillips, and see how incredibly strongly the scales were tilted during that time against everyone who was not wealthy.

For anyone who did come through the very long and dark Reagan years, Clinton was a real breath of fresh air, if not everything we ever dreamed of. He was a vast improvement over what came before him, and infinitely better than what came after him, and blue-collar workers are well aware of that.

[crankychatter]

58. Media mythology and Clinton spin - EVEN IN MISSISSIPPI

He's won mostly white and very blue collar states by landslides.

Texas and Mississippi were skewed by many thousands of votes.

Mississippi, 25% of her White vote were Limbaugh Crossovers... factoring that in, EVEN IN MISSISSIPPI THEY WERE ALMOST EVEN.

Don't you worry about the General Election either.

After Bush there is NO SUCH THING AS A REAGAN DEMOCRAT.

There are however, a lot of damn freepers here pretending to support Clinton that keep restating the corporate media, race and gender HYPE...

AD FLIPPIN NAUSUEM

sorry I can't recommend this... enough is enough

[crankychatter]

61. oops r u a poser 2?

hm?

[Sensitivity]

59. Gov Rendell: PA voters "not ready" to elect a Black President

He clarified that he was referring to just "some" voters -- i.e. less educated, lower income white .. blah blah blah

WHY ARE WE PLAYING GAMES WITH THIS ISSUE????????

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/12/pa-gov-ed-rendell-some-white-voters-not-ready-to-elect-black-candidate/

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black

[elfin]

62. She changes her grammar before these audiences

Gunna for going to, goin for going etc. Lots of dropped g's. It masks her intelligence -- Obama just lets his shine through, which may make them feel "left out" by him.

[TragedyandHope]

64. Joe blue-collar interviewed on the national news:

"Well, the economy was pretty good under Clinton."

[QC]

66. You mean Obama talks like a faith healer in a tent all the time?

LOL! All speakers--good ones, anyway--tailor their way of speaking to their audience.

[SoCalDem]

68. If you are scared and lack advanced education (and the ability to be upwardly mobile)

you favor the norm..what's comfy.. They feel like they know her and very possibly many of them have never gone further than Atlantic City . These are people who should have every reason to take a chance, but they won't. When your job life is in a familiar rut, as is your homelife , it's probably easier to settle for what you think you know..

Once the election is over, she's gonna breeze on out of there and never look back, but they will feel good knowing that she promised them help..

The higher education one has, the more skeptical one becomes..and the more likely to actually research some cold hard facts..

It's why some people like "My Name is Earl" and some people like "Bill Moyer's Journal"..

[anonymous171]

71. Fear and familiarity. If they knew about her "garnish" plan, they would flee from her ranks.