There's no way in hell the Obama campaign is 'abandoning working-class whites'

[bigtree]

this is from the Thomas Edsall article that's circulating today: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/?hp

and this one in the Daily Mail UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067223/President-Obamas-2012-campaign-abandons-white-working-class-voters-favor-minorities-educated.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The upshot from the articles, without any more of a source than 'Democratic strategists', is that the Obama campaign will bypass states where the vote is traditionally dominated by working-class whites.

Specifically, Edsall's claim that, "preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."

I don't see any sign of that at all. In fact, Vice President Joe Biden has already been tasked with drawing that 'blue-collar' vote out for the campaign in states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

But let's be clear who these columnists are referring to. This isn't some concern being expressed by these writers for unions, because, overall, unions aren't just made up of white voters. The President has been a solid supporter of unions and has already garnered several endorsements from several high profile organizations. He'll lean heavily on union organizers to get out the vote and his message. Don't let anyone tell you this is about unions.

What they're really talking about is the President's appeal (or lack of) to white republicans and independents. That isn't something I personally believe he should spend his time on.

From the time of Clinton's run for president, conservative Democrats have argued that the party needs to woo white voters. At the time, there really weren't enough minority voters participating who could make up the difference needed to bridge the electoral gap. There was a mostly successful attempt to posture as more conservative on issues like guns, god, defense; while downplaying other core Democratic issues.

That was straight from a fresh and energized DLC. Jesse Jackson and others argued, successfully, for a more inclusive outreach that didn't ignore, shortchange, or take for granted traditionally Democratic states in the primary process. Instead of narrowing the scope and shutting down the process we got what we experienced the last election with a full-length voting process in which most states got a serious hearing and vote in the primary.

That's not likely going to change.

Moreover, the only other evidence the articles cite is the outreach the Obama campaign is making to "minorities, young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic . . ."

Whoa! So the reason these writers are sounding the alarm and tooting their dog-whistles is because the Obama campaign is looking to energize traditional Democratic constituencies which have traditionally shied away from the polls in numbers that would make a significant difference in the balance of power, which, until the early '70's and '80's, didn't see but a handful of blacks, women and other minorities elected to Congress.

The false line that these writers have drawn between the elevation of these Democratic voters and the diminution of working-class whites isn't a new tactic. It's the same defensive reaction folks who warn ominously about the elevation of minorities in the workplace as some threat to white workers seek to engender among insecure and struggling individuals most susceptible to such an appeal. It won't be the first time conservatives have tried to label the Democratic party as the 'party of blacks, Latinos' in an attempt to drive white voters away.

The elevation and heightened participation of these traditional Democratic voters will ultimately benefit all Americans, not just the select few whose influence these writers want voters to fear. Don't expect them to admit that, however, as they work to make their opportunistic, invented reasoning the conservative mantra.

[vi5]

1. Agreed that it's ridiculous....

I don't agree about the President's support of unions, although it's clear that the unions themselves have resided themselves to continuing to support the lesser of two evils when it comes to supporting unions. But in terms of that article, that's not what this is about you're right.

It is about a group of people who will never, ever, not ever vote for him or a Democrat, no matter what. I don't agree that he's abandoning them, even though it would not be unreasonable to do so and save his efforts and money.

That being said I feel the same about "independents" who he conversely is spending too much time putting too much of a weighted effort into when in most of those cases the same thing applies: These people are Republicans who will never vote for a Democrat, but are too enamored of their own maverick status to just outright admit that they are Republicans. Yet far too many of Obama's efforts and policies are directed at these. They are the David Brooks of the non-pundit world.

[bigtree]

2. ah, so you feel he's focused too heavily on that group

perhaps . . . that outreach to non-traditional groups (republicans and independents) was a staple of his politics when he was a Senator.

At any rate, it can only help if we bring more traditional Democratic voters into the fold and encourage them to the polls.

(trying to argue politics and not as much policy here)

[Demit]

8. I'm curious. Isn't policy what gets people to the polls? The politics is how, but policy is the why.

And I've had it up to here with elected officials paying more attention to political strategy, that gets them reelected, than they do to policies, that help ordinary people once they're back in. And that very much includes Obama.

Who, as you might recall, still hasn't found his 'comfortable shoes'.

[bigtree]

12. at this point

. . . there's isn't much chance to advance progressive policies and initiatives through the republican gridlock.

The presidential election season is a perfect place to advocate and generate support for our ideals and initiatives. That's the politics I speak of. It's no triviality to advertise what we stand for and work to generate the necessary amount of support to advance them into being or law in our political system.

In this political process, candidates propose and we endeavor to hold them accountable if they're ultimately elected. I really don't know of any other system which is available to transform our ideals into action. We will always need to work our political system to build the necessary coalitions to succeed and to reconcile the many disparate and diverse opinions and interests that arrive at the Capitol from around the nation. We shouldn't be ashamed of or shy away from that political process.

[AlbertCat]

28. a group of people who will never, ever, not ever vote for him or a Democrat,

I know so many of these people. They absolutely hate their Repug Rep, or Senator, or Mayor, or whatever.... but they vote for them again anyway. God forbid anyone of the other "will never vote for a Dem no matter how awful it gets with a Repug" crowd finds out they voted for someone that might help them and others regardless of party.

[Marrah_G]

3. He's just abandoned the working class of all nationalities

[bigtree]

4. I don't believe he abandoned me

I'm working-class, 29 years UFCW

[Marrah_G]

5. I'm very glad for you

I'm happy for anyone doing well these days.

[bigtree]

7. where did I say I was doing well?

the President's housing initiative did save my home -- no small thing.


I was one of the fortunate ones to get a permanent loan modification offer under the president's plan - Got through trial period without a snag and got a reduced loan payment.

Made three monthly payments under the trial period got the okay for a permanent modification.

The interest rate dropped from 6.5% to 2.25% for 5 years then rising every year for three years to 4.875% in 2017. All of it amounts to about $300 less a month, brings my account current, and wipes out all of the late charges. Thanks to President Obama.

[jaxx]

6. No, he hasn't.

Statements like that are puzzling.

[woo me with science]

15. +1000000 nt

[bigtree]

20. -10000000 nt

[pam4water]

27. +1000000 nt

[upi402]

32. ^ I hear THAT dog whistle

loud & clear

[nxylas]

33. Hardly surprising coming from the far-right Daily Mail

There's a reason the Mail was the only British newspaper allowed to be sold in Mussolini's Italy, you know.

I'm a little more surprised to see it in the New York Times.

[EFerrari]

34. Yup. Over and over. But he didn't do it alone

Remember what Dennis said about Congress, "Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

[woo me with science]

9. Negative press! Corrective action required!

Wish they'd correct the real problem. :eyes:

[bigtree]

11. worse

racially-based propaganda . . . dog whistle.

I don't suppose you see any value in speaking out against that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. "Does not expect a majority among" and "has abandoned" are not the same.

If you read the Edsall article, all the evidence he cites is to support "Obama is resigned to the fact that the majority of working class white voters will vote Republican", not "Obama will not be trying to get as many working class white votes as he can, even if that isn't 50%".

[MADem]

13. Cui bono? Whose palms has Romney been greasing? nt

[boomerbust]

14. Maybe

There's a few in Wisconsin that might feel a little bit snubbed by Obama.

[FedUp_Queer]

17. Exactly.

There's this...

“If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/flashback-from-candidate-obama-ill-walk-the-picket-line-with-you/

Then there's the abandonment of the EFCA. Oh, and we can't forget proposing cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security. Where are those unemployment benefits? Gone after 12/31/2011.

[bigtree]

19. None of that is on a level that Wisconsin Democrats should feel compelled to not support him

He may not have walked their picket line to protest their STATE issue (ridiculous proposition), but he did publicly express support for their collective bargaining rights.

The rest of what you outlined is squarely in the republicans' lap, not the President's.

[FedUp_Queer]

29. Typical response.

It's always the Republicans' fault. Forget the fact that the Democrats controlled it all for two years. The big bad Republicans are all-powerful. Where exactly was he out there on the bully pulpit talking about this? Were this man ANY kind of leader, he would have been bullying and brow-beating Scott Brown nearly every day. Again, the typical response...it's a "state" issue. Of course, technically that's right. However, the trend Is nation-wide. Look all over at what is happening with the decimation of collective bargaining rights. Where has this corporatist milquetoast been? Proposing cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid. Sending more troops to Australia. Proposing to indefinitely detain people at Gitmo (even those whom a "military commission" acquitted); expanding and torturing in Bagram; bombing more civilians with unmanned drones; coordinating the crackdowns of the Occupy protests; handing the PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES 40 million new customers; granting BP a drilling permit in the Gulf of Mexico; granting Shell a permit to drill in the arctic; suspending implementation of better smog standards (that would save over 7,000 people PER YEAR); oh and let's not forget these great new "trade deals" with South Korea and Columbia. No...you're right. He hasn't abandoned the middle class. And, OF COURSE, the Republicans would be SO MUCH WORSE!!!!

[bigtree]

36. we were all here watching. Typical of critics to not know what was actually proposed

. . . and blocked by republicans. Filibusters stopped most Democratic legislation, even when we had the majority.

Almost none of what you listed is even relevant to the administrations efforts on behalf of working-class Americans. Also, NONE of the reported proposals to 'cut medicaid, ss, etc. EVER made it into ANY of the President's budgets he sent to Congress. Not so with republican budgets.

Blurring the issues and conflating them into the mismosh you've provided here is something we've been defending against from the opposition. Sad to see the shorthand distortions presented as truth on a Democratic board.

[FedUp_Queer]

45. Again, more typical blather.

He proposed it; he continues to propose it. You know...never mind. People who can't see beyond the Democratic/Republican garbage aren't worth a response. Cue the: "See, you can't answer because I'm right response." Fact: Obama is a pro-torture, pro-indefinite detention, pro-war, corporatist, pro-national security state, anti-environmental, anti-middle class Republican president. Perhaps if the evidence weren't in such plain sight; perhaps if so-called Democrats would hold him to the same standards as they did Cheney/Bush, they'd see that, but, alas, it's easier to use faith rather than reason. Slainte!!

[bigtree]

48. anyone can thow those labels around

makes you feel soooo superior to everyone else.

[FedUp_Queer]

51. Not at all.

I'm not superior to anyone else. However, I can also face reality.

[FedUp_Queer]

46. But there IS this.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1703884.html

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/545011/CDBG-cuts-a-concern.html?nav=5061

[bigtree]

49. how do you have an honest conversation

with someone who openly regards Duers as 'shills' and 'monarchists?'

[FedUp_Queer]

52. I see you don't dispute Mr. Obama's efforts to cut funding for the poor.

One who supports a person, whether it be this president or any other, without any reservation and continually merely parrots the administration line no matter what is a shill. I had one person in mind when I wrote that. As for the monarchist comment, I stand by it 100%. The person identified asserted that the president could declare an american citizen susceptible to extrajudicial killing without accusation or trial. That same person asserted that the president could unilaterally take away a person's citizenship. In other words, that person imputed the power to be judge, jury and executioner to one man, the president. That person imputed the power to take away a person's citizenship to one man, the president. What would you call a person who finds no problem with one person, the president, acting in that way? That is, by its very definition, a monarchist. In that case, the president IS the judiciary; the president IS the legislature; and the president IS the executive.

[bigtree]

18. he did vocalize support for the union protests

and their cause of collective bargaining. Anything more than that may have been even more polarizing. But, the President has always supported unions' collective bargaining rights. He's not what they've been fighting against.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. They are saying a white teacher is not a "white worker"?

[bigtree]

21. or even 'working-class'

Edsall writes (without any evidence presented at all): http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/?hp


"All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."


amazing that he feels free to write this in a national blog

[certainot]

22. limbaugh amplified this today- one of his main functions, while left emphasizes his personal crap

he melded this with his racism, separating white working class from obama's all out mission to turn the US into a nation of welfare kings and queens.

this is what RW talk radio does so well- take stuff like this and think tank crap, and amplify it.

[bigtree]

24. that was the intention of the writers, spread the racist bullshit, make it a mainstream mantra

. . . no matter how much of a lie it is.

Countdown to one of the republican candidates echoing this . . . one, two, three . . .

[bigtree]

23. yet another conservative dog whistle echoing this bullshit claim

. . . this one from the WSJ, also claiming DEMOCRATS have abandoned the working class (as if the republican businesscandidates are embracing them):

Obama Abandons the Working Class
An opening for Romney, if he's smart enough.
By WILLIAM MCGURN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203802204577066640654042360.html

[bluestate10]

25. I 100% agree.

"What they're really talking about is the President's appeal (or lack of) to white republicans and independents. That isn't something I personally believe he should spend his time on."

If the people mentioned in the sentence above can't see that Obama is the best choice, screw them.

[jaysunb]

26. Good post . K & R

[applegrove]

30. Just the fact that it has broken on the news and is talked about means

a small % of working class whites will hear it and think it is true. The medium is the push pole.

[bigtree]

38. right

. . . that's why three different writers advantaged themselves of the original report and did their own embellishing to drive the point home. I fully expect to hear this from one of the republican candidates.

Even here, on this Democratic board, there are folks just itching to use this openly in their own rhetoric against the President. For now, they'll just have to settle for pretending that this is about just the 'working-class' and not about conservative operatives working to convince white voters that the Democratic party and the President are 'abandoning them'. Sad that some folks can't resist using this report and are content agreeing (even partway) with these would-be conservative subversives just to stick it to Barack Obama.

[DonCoquixote]

31. Dog whistle

A) they want to convince working class white that it is ok to abandon Obama, as he was never one of them. Note they are also pushing Hillary to take over, trying to revive all the dog whistles that sadly, were mixed in with her campaign.

B) they want to trick the unions into slashing O's throat. While many Union people will be bitter, they have no illusions about what a Mitt or Newt will do the them.

[bigtree]

39. it's clear enough where these republican businessmen stand

. . . regarding American labor. Their greatest fear is that the demographics have already changed to marginalize the centuries-long advantage and influence the majority of white voters have enjoyed and benefited from. They're hoping to make folks so cynical and discouraged that they don't repeat the last amazing demographic shift which ushered in the nation's first black president.

[Edweird]

44. If 'union members' are bitter Obama has no one but himself to blame for that. Not "trickery".

[DonCoquixote]

50. really

so they would support the GOP? Classy.

[TheKentuckian]

35. That is correct, please disregard "white".

[bigtree]

37. that would be convenient

. . . for folks who like to conflate and distort issues just to attack our Democratic president.

Nice to know you're prepared to disregard this clearly racist appeal and focus on the part that serves your own critical narrative against this president. But, you know what? You don't get to parse this racist appeal for your own benefit -- not unless you're prepared to have your objections married with their racist own.

[TheKentuckian]

40. I don't give a fuck, the party is geared toward the comfortable to affluent in the burbs

and kicks down dusty crumbs to some of the poor.

I certainly don't feel the administration has even the most distantly remote problem with white folks since about every proposal and policy is designed to attract and soothe the comfortable, affluent, and wealthy while maintaining existing profit centers and underlying structure then it is safe to guess he super cool with whites.

The top 20% have done well and the bottom 40% have become poorer. More trade deals pushed and signed. Wealth funneling, job killing tax cuts reupped. Federal workers bargaining rights scaled back. Teacher attacked hammer and tongs. Mandate reversed on, supported, and signed.

Working class folks are an afterthought, at best. The desires of capital and the votes of the independents (at least the ones with the same general desire of capital) are the whole game and if a boon or two that won't upset the target audience then they will be considered.

Duncan, Salazar, Geitner, Summers, fucking Rubin on speed dial, Immelt, and Daley haven't been around to advance workers as they are doing for those with the most.

Working class folks are under greater assault, not a retreating one.

[bigtree]

41. you can't credibly measure the President's and party's policies and proposals

by what Congress has produced.

It's not surprising that most of the legislation is geared toward those groups because there's a republican filter that's the product of the cloture rule. You can argue around that all you want, but policy proposals from this Democratic President and Congress have been overwhelmingly progressive. That doesn't mean there aren't glaring objections to be made over this policy or that compromise, but there are many, many proposals that don't even get a hearing, much less a chance at an up or down vote. Republicans sure like to pretend it's all in the President's hands, but when an individual Senator can block legislation indefinitely, you end up with the miserly pittance that the obstructionists will allow.

But, go on, continue to foist the blame on the Democratic legislators and our Democratic President. That's about all anyone seems up for these days around here.

oh, yeah. Nice to know you don't give a fuck.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Not about being "marred" with racism when it fails to jibe with my case (disagree or not)

and is unlikely enough in terms of reality to be humorous.

If you choose to give a pass to PROPOSALS then you have no measuring stick other than one you imagine. I grant constraints on the actual outcomes but outcomes are a part of my judgment bad and counter-productive law should not be passed for the sake of "getting something done".

I blame the TeaPubliKlans plenty, the lion's share. I have no additional tools to back that blame with accountability. All I can do is combat their agenda because their personalities and organization exist only as to be defeated and destroyed. What they do is done without my votes, work, time, money, good word, positive vibes, good will, or even tolerance.

I place them below Al Queda on my acceptance meter.

To fight the opposition agenda, far to often I'm left combating folks on "our side" and more often stuck trying to reel "our" folks in from going the same way and they actually want me to work campaigns, donate money, and vote for them and I give them which creates a dynamic which increased expectations and means of some accountability on my end at least with my resources, effort, endorsement, and ultimately votes.

[Bake]

43. He has abandoned me ...

But I'll still vote for him. The alternative is just unthinkable.

Bake

[Safetykitten]

47. Uh, I think he is leaving everyone at the platform, except for comfortably employed

upper-middle class Democrats.