Working for the Working Class Vote

the New York Times Magazine has a cover story this week about Barack Obama's efforts to reach working-class voters. The headline writers did it no favors by tagging it "Will gun-toting, churchgoing white guys pull the lever for Obama?," which makes it sound like the worst sort of demographic electoral college nonsense. The actual article, though, is much better than the title suggests.

It's not perfect-- it's still got a lot of pundit-class chin-stroking about whether Obama is actually connecting with working-class whites, written in a manner that suggests that these elusive creatures are like ultra-massive black holes, able to be studied only from a great distance with powerful telescopes. Yeah, yeah, plural anecdotes aren't data, but I can't help thinking that somewhere between visits to well-connected Democratic politicians and their cousins, Matt Bai might've made time to talk to, you know, some voters.

Still, it avoids the most obvious trap of these pieces, which is the odd suggestion that Obama needs to "win" the working-class white demographic in order to win the election. He doesn't, and most likely won't (as the Ron Brownstein analysis piece referenced in the Matthew Yglesias link makes clear, even Clinton in 1996 only managed around 36% of that group). The article makes clear that that's not the real point of his effort to reach out to them-- it doesn't hurt, but the real goal is to try to build a broad base from which to govern. It quotes Obama saying he doesn't want to be a "50 + 1" president, supported by only half of the population, plus one vote.

That's an audacious goal, and I have to give him credit for thinking big. It's a nice break from the last eight years. This also makes it especially depressing to watch the McCain campaign go into this scorched-earth mode in which their strategy appears to be aimed not at winning, but at poisoning their base to the point where they'll never accept Obama, if he wins, as the legitimate President.

More like this

This is going to be a bit of a rant, because there's a recurring theme in my recent social media that's really bugging me, and I need to vent. I'm going to do it as a blog post rather than an early-morning tweetstorm, because tweets are more likely to be pulled out of context, and then I'm going to…
Stories and Stats: The truth about Obama's victory wasn't in the papers: Our story of the 2008 campaign confirms some parts of the journalistic narrative and refutes others. Yes, the economy was important; yes, young voters swung to Obama and the Congressional Democrats; yes, Obama did particularly…
Yesterday, Barack Obama won all three contests (Maryland, Virginia, and DC) in the "Potomac Primary", all by sizable margins. This means that he has won all eight contests that have occurred since Super Tuesday. He now leads the delegate race--even when superdelegates are included--and he…
Or more accurately, it's the revolt of the liberals. Personally, it's none of my business whom Republicans nominate for president, but, to me, Romney seems to be a strong electoral candidate (albeit one disliked by the Tea Party/theopolitical base). Why? Liberals. Hunh? Let me explain. I've been…

Holy smokes, Chad. And the left supported George Bush as a legitimate president?

Because of the role the Supreme Court played in 2000, many on the left felt that Bush had not been legitimately elected. Chad Orzel is talking about something completely different: a significant portion of the electorate being driven to see Obama as illegitimate simply because of who he is, no matter what his margin of victory.

By Michael Glenn (not verified) on 20 Oct 2008 #permalink

Holy smokes, Chad. And the left supported George Bush as a legitimate president?

No. However, the center-right party - the Democrats - did support Bush as a legitimate president, long after it was obvious that he'd lied to them about nearly everything related Iraq or terrorism. The Democrats were played for fools, and the left was not.