Who Says Democrats Can't Reach the White Working Class?: The Case of Ohio

It's early days but Democrats have to feel good about what's going on in Ohio. Ohio swung sharply toward the GOP in 2016, supporting Trump by an 8 point margin. This was above all driven by a massive shift in his favor among white noncollege voters, who gave him a whopping 32 point margin.

Democratic candidates for Governor and Senator this year are turning this around. Incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown leads his opponent Jim Renacci by 17 points in the latest Quinnipiac poll and is actually winning white working class voters by a point. Even more impressive, Democrat Richard Cordray is leading former Republican Senator Mike DeWine--the early favorite--in the Governor's race by 2 points, with a relatively modest 10 point deficit among white noncollege voters. In Ohio, and especially recently, this is a very impressive performance among this demographic. If he can keep this up, his chances of winning are excellent. The white working class may not be as hopeless for Team Blue as many suppose.

About this article

VOX.COM

Polls: Democrats have a good shot at turning Ohio blue again in 2018

Richard Cordray has a surprising lead over Mike DeWine in the gubernatorial contest.

The Macron Illusion

When Emmanuel Macron was elected in France, many hoped he would be a bulwark against the rise of right populism in Europe. Well, certainly he was--and is--way better than Marine Le Pen but the sad fact is he is doing virtually nothing to deal with the fundamental problems of the Eurozone today. And it is precisely these festering economic and political pathologies that are the breeding ground for right populism, as we see very clearly in the ongoing Italian crisis. .

Thomas Piketty for one is outraged and he has this to say about his country's leader:

"While the political crisis deepens in Italy and in Spain, France and Germany are still demonstrably incapable of formulating precise and ambitious proposals for reforming Europe. All that is required however is for these four countries, who alone account for three quarters of the GDP and the population of the Euro zone, to agree on a common approach and the way to reform would be open. How can we explain such extraordinary inertia and why is it so serious?

In France, there is a tendency to lay the blame on other people. The official view is that our young and dynamic president has made innovative proposals for the reform of the Euro zone, its budget and its Parliament. But the unfortunate thing is that our neighbours are incapable of taking these into account and responding with the same Gallic audacity!

The problem with this superficial theory is that these notorious French proposals are quite simply non-existent. Nobody is capable of writing three simple sentences explaining which common taxes will fund this budget, who will be the members of the Euro zone Assembly who will exercise this new fiscal sovereignty, etc. If you want to make sure, just ask your favourite pro-Macron friend, or, if you do not have any – nobody is perfect – write to your favourite newspapers !

It is almost as if the revolutionaries in 1789, instead of setting up a National Assembly enabling all privileges to be abolished immediately and a new fiscal system to be set up, had only announced that it would be a good idea to pause to reflect on the setting up of a commission to consider a long-term plan to save the Ancien Régime. It is the difference between doing something and empty rhetoric.

The truth is that the French proposals are so vague that they are open to almost any interpretation. This is precisely the problem: all the nationalist and anti-European discourses can easily oppose them by putting what they want in it. Today, it is easy to criticize the reluctance of Angela Merkel and the fact is that her reply to the ‘French proposals’ is more than hesitant. The latest version is that she would apparently agree to an investment budget for the Euro zone on condition, however, that it be ridiculously small (less that 1% of the GDP of the zone.)...

But it is too easy to criticise Merkel’s reluctance. It is time that the French media understand that she is only responding to Macron’s timidity. The fact is they share the same conservatism. Ultimately, these two leaders do not wish to make any fundamental changes in present-day Europe because they suffer from the same form of blindness. Both consider that their two countries are doing quite well and they are in no way responsible for the ups and downs of Southern Europe.

By so doing, they run the risk of undermining the whole endeavour. After having humiliated Greece in 2015, whose ‘extreme left’ government was perhaps not perfect, but did at least have the virtue of promoting values of solidarity towards the poorest and the migrants, France and Germany now find themselves in 2018 with the extreme right in power in Italy. The only thing that holds this government together is hostility to, and active pursuit of, foreigners, all of which has been enabled by the effect of European rulings.

The difficulty now is how to get out of this impasse? The dilemma is that a fair number of the German and North European leaders have for years explained to their voters that all the problems in Europe were caused by the lazy people in the South. These populations were said to be jealous of their money and all that was required was to get them to start working and exporting like the Germans or the Dutch and all would be well."

A dilemma indeed. And I'm not holding my breath for Golden Boy Macron to lead Europe out of it. Someone else will have to step forward....but who?

About this article

PIKETTY.BLOG.LEMONDE.FR

The Transferunion fantasy

The Transferunion fantasy

The Profound Connection between Geography and Politics

Ron Brownstein, in a eye-opening, well-researched article for CNN asks: "Is the fundamental fissure in American life now demographic or geographic?" He goes on to say:

"The answer, a growing body of evidence suggests, is both. And that may point to a future of even greater distance -- and antagonism -- between a Democratic coalition centered in racially diverse, largely secular, and post-industrial metropolitan centers and a Republican coalition grounded in small-town and rural communities that remain mostly white, Christian and rooted in traditional manufacturing, agriculture and resource extraction....

One reason small-town and rural areas tilt so much more toward the GOP than urban areas is because their demographic composition leans so much more toward the groups that now most favor Republicans: older, blue-collar and evangelical whites. In an exhaustive recent study, the non-partisan Pew Research Center, for instance, found that non-whites comprised over half the population in the largest urban centers, about one-third in suburban communities, and only about one-fifth in small town and rural places. Whites without a college degree represented about three-in-10 urban residents, exactly four-in-ten in suburbs and nearly six-in-10 in rural places.

But...another key factor [is] widening the American divide: voters with the same demographic characteristics display very different political and cultural attitudes depending on their geographic location. Each of the electorate's three broadest groupings -- whites without a college degree, whites with a four-year college degree or more and non-whites -- bend steadily toward more conservative views as they move from the most- to the least-populated communities."

Brownstein cites a wide variety of data from recent Pew polls to buttress this point. I have noticed the same thing myself in work I have done analyzing other surveys, so I think he is on very firm ground.

Brownstein explores the meaning of this divide further at the end of his article and I will somewhat immodestly quote part of his discussion:

"These results all testify to the persistent power of place, and not just social and racial characteristics, in shaping political attitudes. In that way, they reinforce the argument that Ruy Teixeira, a longtime liberal electoral analyst, and author John Judis made in their landmark 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority." In that book, the two argued that Democrats had a better chance of reaching blue-collar whites who chose to live amid the diversity of urban centers than those who located in more racially and religiously homogenous communities outside the metropolitan core.

In an interview, Teixeira cited three reasons that could explain why voters with the same demographic characteristics are trending toward more conservative positions in smaller geographic areas.

"One is you hang around in an area where certain types of ideas are dominant and you tend to absorb those attitudes," he said. Second, he continued, in small places people are less likely to actually face personal interaction with the sources of so many cultural flashpoints. "There is a well known relationship about ... having certain attitudes about immigration or feminists and not encountering many," he notes.

Finally, he said, these impulses are reinforced by the growing economic gap between thriving larger metropolitan areas and smaller places that are struggling to hold population and jobs. "The fact is that a lot of these white non-college voters who are living in dense areas are living in areas that are working, where economic mobility is feasible, and that takes the edge off of their cultural conservatism," Teixeira says....

The November midterm election seems likely to further extend this crevice between what I have called the Democratic "coalition of transformation" and the Republican "coalition of restoration." All polls suggest Republicans face enormous risk in white-collar suburbs and urban districts crowded with college-educated whites and minority voters resistant to Trump. But the Democrats' prospects appear much more limited beyond those urban centers....

Teixeira agrees that Democrats are facing a much steeper hill outside of the largest metro areas, both in 2018 and 2020. But he sees a sliver for daylight for Democrats in the tendency of small-town and rural residents, including most culturally conservative blue-collar whites, to support federal entitlement programs such as Medicare and to view the economy as favoring the rich and powerful. In Pew's data, large majorities of blue-collar whites across rural, suburban and urban communities agreed that the economy favors the powerful; across all three areas, in fact, they were nearly as likely to agree with that sentiment as were minorities and college whites.

"The chink in the armor [for Republicans], such as it is, there is a conflict between these [blue-collar and rural] voters' views of the rich and powerful in general and their views of entitlement programs and the way Republicans really do approach policy," Teixeira says. "If [Democrats] can convince more people that it's a really top priority to help you and your community, they would look the other way on some of their cultural conservative views. But until and unless you can make that case in a way that is convincing to a lot of these people, I don't think they are going to change."

Hey, what that guy said! Anyway, I commend the entire article to you.

About this article

CNN.COM

Republicans and Democrats increasingly really do occupy different worlds

In Philadelphia, the largest television market in Pennsylvania, the five most-watched cable shows among viewers with at least a four-year college degree include CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," MSNBC's "Hardball" and reruns of the cosmopolitan situation comedy "Modern Family."

More on How Democrats Can Walk Down the Street and Chew Gum at the Same Time

David Jarman at Daily Kos Elections (don't read the site?; you should!) provides a comprehensive rebuttal to the loony argument that Democrats trying to turn affluent suburbs blue are biting into the poison apple.

Jarman's piece begins:

"Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a baffling and potentially harmful opinion piece by two history professors, Lily Geismer and Michael Lessner, titled “Turning Affluent Suburbs Blue Isn't Worth the Cost.” In short, they argue that affluent suburban districts, if they elect Democrats, are likely to elect centrists who won’t pass the kind of progressive legislation that will adequately address economic and racial inequality. The short-term benefits of winning races in those districts, they say, will eventually be outweighed by the long-term harm created from a Democratic congressional caucus that’s too heavy on economic elites and not enough “real Americans.”

I’m going to propose a counterargument that may blow some minds with how off-the-wall it is: Maybe Democrats should contest as many races as possible, and try to win elections in as many places as possible, regardless of income, education, or race. There are different aspects to the Democratic agenda that can appeal to different types of people, and historically, electoral success for one party or the other has generally relied on putting up a big tent that can house a broad coalition capable of earning and sustaining a majority.

Moreover, this isn’t the right time to be writing off any seats or any capable Democratic candidates because they’re too hot or too cold. Given the existential threats to American democracy currently posed by those in charge of Washington, DC, I can’t even imagine the level of detached privilege that would lead one to say that we shouldn’t try to target some of the seats that are likeliest right now to fall into our grasp, and instead focus on the groundwork for a purer and more perfect party at some point in the future."

He also notes:

[T]here’s been a lot of recent research showing that college-educated whites (presumably, the authors’ vision of who lives in these affluent suburbs) are now somewhat more liberal in their policy preferences than non-college-educated whites. This is a reversal from, say, the mid-to-late 20th century. You can see this if you look at the changes in county-level election results over the decades, broken out by education level. You can also see it if you look at long-term studies that track the electorate’s views over time.

Researcher Sean McElwee has been one of the main proponents of this line of thought; he’s used data from the American National Election Studies (a long-term polling project conducted by political scientists that asks a battery of demographic and policy questions) to show that college-educated whites are now more liberal on questions about progressive economic policies than non-college whites are.

For instance, college-educated whites answer “yes” at a higher rate to questions like “Favor millionaires’ tax,” “Government should reduce inequality,” and “More regulation of banks.” Similarly, Democratic primary voters have become significantly less racist in the last decade: The number of Democrats who “strongly disagree” with the proposition that “If black people would try harder, they could be just as well off as whites” shot up between 2008 and 2016."

After a very informative analysis of who currently represents these affluent suburban districts and who is now running in these districts, he concludes:

"[A]re people who’ve won the housing lottery via either privilege or simply by virtue of having gotten there first, but who are generally progressive in their values and policy preferences—who, at the national level, want a more equitable tax system, who want a higher minimum wage, who want more government involvement in providing health care to everyone, and above all, who want a non-embarrassing, non-threatening president, but who are NIMBYish in their beliefs about their own neighborhood—to be welcomed into the big tent, even though they’re imperfect? Or are they to be cast aside in pursuit of a Democratic Party unicorn that looks more like the one of old—when, it should be pointed out, they repeatedly lost presidential elections, under the banner of fellows like Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale, and George McGovern? I know which one I’d prefer."

Me too. And so should you.

About this article

DAILYKOS.COM

Turning affluent suburbs blue is a necessary part of winning back a Democratic majority

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a baffling and potentially harmful opinion piece by two history professors, Lily Geismer and Michael Lessner, titled “Turning Affluent Suburbs Blue Isn't Worth the Cost.” In short, they argue that affluent...

Democrats Should Be Able to Walk Down the Street and Chew Gum at the Same Time

The New York Times Sunday Review treated us to an article by two history professors averring that, for Democrats, "Turning Affluent Suburbs Blue Isn't Worth the Cost". They posit a sort of zero-sum game between reaching these voters and reaching poorer and nonwhite voters. Sigh.

Fortunately, David Atkins at the Washington Monthly has an excellent takedown of this ridiculous--and politically harmful--contention:

"In order to clamber out of the political wilderness, Democrats must....win over some Trump voters using economic arguments that many would like to dismiss as impossible, as well as continue to gain ground in many increasingly blue, well-educated suburbs that cause queasiness to many economic progressives. And they must do so simultaneously, while maintaining and increasing commitments to both social and economic justice through sentencing reform, jobs guarantees and much else.

How is this possible? It’s fairly simple, actually. The answer lies in the fact that most voters–and particularly most persuadable voters—are not pure partisans. They are often what political scientists call “cross-pressured,” which means they hold multiple strong views that don’t fit neatly within one political party or another and force them to choose what they might consider the lesser of two evils in a two-party system.

It is self-evident that Trump voters by definition didn’t see a problem with voting for a racist, sexist buffoon. But many Trump voters also proved remarkably indifferent to Republican economic orthodoxy, and many want high taxes on Wall Street, robust jobs programs and investment in domestic industry, and libertarian social policy on many issues like drugs. Neither party will give them everything they want, but a committed progressive economic agenda that rejects the muddled market-directed pabulum of education and retraining as a solution to all ills can be successful in winning many of them over, even though the progressive commitment to racial and gender equality might rankle them as just so much social-justice-warrior political correctness. This isn’t idle speculation: a very large number of registered Democrats are already just so cross-pressured. Appallingly, a full third of Democrats have a negative opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement, and a quarter of Democrats think millions voted illegally in the 2016 election. If they register as Democrats anyway, it’s a fair bet that economics are their top priority. It stands to reason their number could be increased to regain some of the voters who chose Barack Obama twice, and then flipped over to Trump.

So, too, can cross-pressured affluent suburban Democrats be won over by a stridently economically progressive Democratic Party in spite of their potential reservations about their tax bracket, mutual fund returns, McMansion values and budget deficits. Sure, these voters might not like the idea of transaction taxes on Wall Street impacting their dividends or affordable housing being built near their bungalows, but their commitments to social equality and their desire not to have jingoists running the country’s trade and foreign policy mean that they will generally choose the party of both Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders over that of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Republicans have understood this for decades. The three legs of their electoral stool (social, economic and foreign policy) don’t particularly like one another or mesh well together, but they have largely held together due to combined mutual interest.

A Democratic Party that takes seriously commitments to both social and economic justice can do likewise, even though some of the former may not be palatable to part of the white working class, and some of the latter may not be desirable among the well-heeled. It must do so if it wants to regain power."

Yup, that's why they call 'em coalitions! Time to move forward past pointless either-or debates.

WASHINGTONMONTHLY.COM

Does Winning Affluent Districts Require Selling Out The Poor?

Cross-pressured voters give Democrats flexibility to be good on both economic and social justice.

The Outlook for a Blue Wave

Matt Yglesias has a good article over at Vox summarizing "the outlook for a blue wave". He goes over many of the key data points and developments.

Interestingly, white the subhead of Yglesias' article is "The generic ballot is tightening, but Democrats are still narrowly favored", the generic ballot, per 538's rolling average, has actually been widening lately in the Democrats' favor. Something to keep an eye on.

Democrats Looking Good for House Takeover

The primary results from this Tuesday indicate that the Democrats remain in a good position to take back the House this November. They avoided the dreaded top two "lockout" in key California House races and now are positioned to compete in all the races where they have a chance to win. Primaries in other states like New Jersey produced strong candidates for the fall.

Ron Brownstein notes:

"Democratic candidates on Tuesday tallied significantly more votes in each of the crucial LA-area seats than their counterparts did in 2014, the last midterm primary.

For instance: Democrats on Tuesday amassed nearly 37,000 votes in the congressional district north of Los Angeles held by Republican Steve Knight. That compares to only about 20,000 votes in 2014. The overall increase was similar in Democrat Gil Cisneros’s win in the Orange County seat that Republican Representative Ed Royce is vacating. Democrats tallied nearly 56,000 votes in the seat straddling Orange County and San Diego that Republican Darrell Issa is giving up; in 2014, they polled just below 35,000. In Mimi Walters’s Irvine-centered seat, Democrats increased their vote from about 24,000 in 2014 to nearly 44,000 last night. And in Dana Rohrabacher’s OC seat, Democrats expanded from about 30,000 votes in 2014 to nearly 49,000 Tuesday. All of these numbers will grow as the final tallies drift in.

Though Republican candidates, at this counting, still polled more primary votes than Democrats in most of these seats, their numbers generally remained static or slightly declined from 2014. None of these LA-area districts are sure things for Democrats in November, and the primary results underscored the party’s continuing challenge of mobilizing young and minority voters in midterm elections. But the big Democratic-turnout gains around Los Angeles underscore how far the party can progress toward retaking the House just by channeling the resistance to Trump in the places that have been most dubious of him from the start."

Just how good are the Democrats' chances of taking back the House at this point? The Economist model is now at 68 percent. Another model (linked to below) from G. Elliott Morris' Crosstab site has Democrats' chances at 63 percent. The recently-rolled out CBS Battleground Tracker model has it close to even with a slight Democratic advantage. Ditto Nate Cohn at the NYT. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has it pretty much even-steven.

Hold on to your popcorn! But this Tuesday definitely keeps the Democrats on track.

THECROSSTAB.COM

2018 U.S. House Midterm Elections Forecast — G. Elliott Morris Uses Data and Political Science to Analyze Politics and Predict Elections

G. Elliott Morris Uses Data and Political Science to Analyze Politics and Predict Elections