Wow! This report is interesting

[TayTay]

I will read it tonight during 'Town Meeting.'

http://www.princeton.edu/%7ebartels/kansas.pdf

What’s the Matter with
What’s the Matter with Kansas?
Larry M. Bartels
Department of Politics and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University
[e-mail]
• Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle- and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites – and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era.
• Has the white working class become more conservative? No. The average views of low-income whites have remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years. (A pro-choice shift on abortion in the 1970s and ‘80s has been partially reversed since the early 1990s.) Their positions relative to more affluent white voters – generally less liberal on social issues and less conservative on economic issues – have also remained virtually unchanged.
• Do working class “moral values” trump economics? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues are, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites.
• Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. The partisan attachments and presidential votes of frequent church-goers and people who say religion provides “a great deal” of guidance in their lives are much more strongly related to their views about economic issues than to their views about social issues. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues.

Prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4, 2005.

********************************

Ahm, this is what Kerry said after the election. Really!

Town Meeting: The reason people idolize small New England towns. Also the reason why people leave small New England towns, never to return. The Horror! The Horror!

[ginnyinWI]

1. whoa--43 pp!

But I'll have to read it too. I have been thinking that Lakoff seems a bit too eager to write and sell books to emotionally vulnerable Dems. Good to see another view.

[TayTay]

2. Bottom line:

John Kerry was right, we don't need another Republican Party, we don't need to move to the right. We do have to accept the fact that we lost* last year based on the issue of keeping America safe. (And the bin Laden tape the last weekend didn't help, it hurt.)

* fraud not withstanding.

[ginnyinWI]

3. When Randi Rhodes was on cspan last weekend

She brought up the fact that radio in the Mid-West is all conservative. And it's true: Air America is slowly making inroads into the larger cities (Chicago, Minneapolis) but besides that, it's all RW.

This is big: we have to show suburban and rural people that ordinary people can be Democrats, and that Dems have sound reasons for what they believe. Now is a good time to invite people to take a closer look at Democratic principles, now that they see the corruption in the other party.

And we have to get out the vote even more than in 2004. Many in larger cities didn't vote, thinking that their state was blue already.

[TayTay]

4. I finsihed this. It's really, really interesting.

Please don't make me go sit at the geek table again. (I get so lonely.) It really is interesting reading and supports what Sen. Kerry was saying this year on the stump. (It also validates his campaign last year and his take on what the issues are for Dem candidates. Honest.)

Anybody? The geek table has pizza and charts and, ahm, cheetos. We consume mass quantities of diet Pepsi and talk about percentages and how the real decline in Dem voting patterns really does center in 11 states that could be called Southern. Ahm, did I mention the pizza? You know, Kerry is very wonkish. You can't really appreciate the man without a dip in the wonk pool every now and then. Anyone?

[Mass]

5. I am in the process of reading it and it promises to be very interesting

I had read other analysis showing that Kerry won the great majority of his votes of the low income population (so I guess that they were able to understand him, contrarily to what some elitists think), but that some studies get confused between income level and education level.

They would, for example, take a business man who does not have a college degree and $ 100,000 as working class and a white-collar worker with a college degree and $40,000 of revenue as middle class, hence the confusion in some of the news reports.

I have to read further to see where this report goes, but this really seems interesting.

[TayTay]

6. Thanks!

I feel validated. It is interesting. The biggest flaw is that the charts and tables are at the back and I have to keep flipping pages.

Thomas Frank did propose that the Dems were losing the 'lunch-bucket' Dems. This report says that is true, over a long period of time, in the South and can be traced to the Dems embrace of civil rights. (We have noted that in this group before.) But, outside of the South, the Dem vote is pretty steady. Kerry got slightly more of the lower-income vote than Gore did.

This report does bring up the whole question of election fraud again, as the numbers mentioned therein don't jibe with the election results. (Which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

Btw, thanks. Have a slice of pizza and a diet Pepsi.

[Mass]

8. This report is fascinating. It contradicts all the basis of

the "moral values" issues.

I find particularly fascinating (though not that surprising if you think) that, during the 04 election, low-income people gave a dramatically more important place to economic issues than to social issues.

May be one of the issues is to make sure than more low-income people are able to vote (make Election Day a holiday, for example, so that people have time to wait, or allow people to vote during several days) and see that voting Democrat can make a significant difference for them.

[TayTay]

11. For all that some in the Dem PArty want to marginalize...

Michael Moore, he is right. The growth aspect in the Dem vote is to go into that segment of the population that hasn't been showing up at the polls. Those are *our* people out there.

This one is a bit of stretch simply from the data, but Kerry was also right to argue against another instance of outsourcing the GOTV operation. (Kerry recently noted that although organizations like ACT are worthy and wonderful in and of themselves as registration vehicles, they are awful for the Dem PArty GOTV effort because 'we can't talk to them legally.' We can't do that again, ever.)

The Democratic Party's message *is* getting out there. People *do* recognize that there is a real difference between the two parties and they do vote in their own economic interests. (Well, that's sane.) But we need to recruit better within states. (This goes back to the '50 State Strategy' that the Dems are now aggressively pursuing. They are so right to do so. We have to get to the great mass of potential voters that are not voting. We have to 'grow the electorate.' But we also have to get better recruiters. We can't have Massachusetts people going into Ohio and into neighborhoods they aren't familiar with and doing GOTV and registration. IT doesn't work.)

There are fascinating implications from this. (And this is the disputed Mitofsky data. All the election fraud disputes center around Mitofsky underplaying the DEm numbers, so the actual picture may be even stronger for the Dems.)

[whometense]

14. Okay, you got me.

Now I have to go read it. You've awakened my inner wonk. Save me some diet pepsi.

[TayTay]

15. As a side argument

All the reporters are in the uppermiddle class range. They no longer are the 'ink stained wretches' who were blue-collar workers. They report what they see and the see a very limited segment of the population. (Why was poverty rediscovered in Katrina? Poverty has been with us throughout the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years. The press is not doing their jobs.)

We need more ways to break through on this and we definitely need to concentrate efforts to register the poor. It will be more difficult, but that is the way to getting more Dem voters. (The press won't help. They don't see the poor. They buy into the simplistic idea that Dems are alienating 'their' class.)

Here's the Diet Pepsi. Cheetos? Pizza? Nachos with, ahm, cheese. Lipitor after all that cheese?

[Island Blue]

17. You bring up a good point about modern day reporters

being in the upper middle class range (with most national television reporters falling into the upper end of that range). I think they are very out of touch with the world around them (oddly enough) and only report on what is easiest to report on. Part of this I think is due to the explosion of television "news" and the corresponding death of print journalism. Back in the day, almost every town or city of any size had a morning paper and an afternoon paper. So much can be reported in a print article than can be reported on a one minute (if you're lucky) segment on television. It's impossible to explain the everyday consequences of poverty on the evening news, but it is possible in a good newspaper article. (And yes, many of the reporters were gritty newsmen with working class roots, thus more in tune with issues like poverty, workers rights, etc.)


Eventually Tay Tay, I promise to post something about the original intent of your original post and stop talking about Cheetos and newspapers. I have read it now that I'm awake.

[whometense]

13. Did you know that's the story

of Kerry's whole career? His entire career he's been labeled an elitist by journalists and talking heads, and his entire career his largest appeal has been to the lower and middle class working people.

It is a measure of how superficial political coverage is in this country that this myth is still in existence at all. And it's difficult for me to believe that any journalist who has attended a Kerry rally and seen the way people react to him could still write that crap.

Easiest thing in the world - if you'd never had the good fortune to see Kerry in person - would be to swallow all those lies that were dished out day after day after day.

[TayTay]

16. Completely true!

Mr. KErry has always done wel in blue-collar areas. He has no problem relating to people in lower-income brackets. The' he doesn't relate well to others' is not true. Never has been true. (And I have the geeky stats to prove it.)

[Island Blue]

7. Are they crunchy Cheetos or puffy Cheetos?

[TayTay]

9. Both. This is an equal opportunity cheetos zone.

Zome times I feel like a crunch, sometimes I don't

But the cheese residue does get all over my fingers. Want some?

[Island Blue]

10. Sure, I'll take some puffy ones

but can I get a Diet Coke with that instead? (Not trying to be difficult.)

The report looks very interesting but I'll have to read it in the morning (just glanced over it) because my brain has officially shut down for the night and the Cheeto question is really about the most difficult thing I dare contemplate right now.

[TayTay]

12. No prob on the diet coke.

IF you start requesting the vanilla or lemon Diet Coke, then I got a problem. The Lemon one tastes like floor wax. Yuck!

Talk to us in the morning. Really, this is interesting stuff. And Kerry knew this way back in Nov. (Or else I don't think he'd be contemplating another run. Like any good pol, he knows his numbers cold.)

[TayTay]

18. Okay, anyone who promised to read this report, get to it!

It's really interesting. And it supports the idea that we don't need two Republican parties. We need to stay 'on-message' about the issues that Kerry brought up last year.

Health Care
Jobs
Outsourcing
Small Business funding
Education

You know, Kerry got at least 59 million votes. This was way, way more than either Gore or Clinton. What did he do right that engaged 10 million more Dems to come out to the polls? How do we get more Dems registered and out to the polls?

This race was not based on 'moral values' as framed by the media. It was based on economics as much as anything else. This is a program that has legs and we need to stick with it. (The 'felt needs' thing is right. Very, very right.)

Also, going a little more liberal seems to run in 12 year cycles and '06 and '08 is an up cycle.

[karynnj]

19. I finally read the report

It does do a very good job in showing that Frank's hypothesis may be inaccurate. (One observation in and of itself from the Figure 1 that may dispell the idea that the poor vote social values is the 1996 data point. Clinton actually took LESS of the Upper class vote but greatly increased his percent in the lower class - in spite of Monica)

I agree with you that Kerry's felt needs might be right - especially if he can break through the media with it. From other sources, the 80s started a period where the upper class share of the pie started expanding (most seriously in the mid 90s through the most recent data). This might explain why the difference in lower vs upper became more significant roughly around the same time. What I wonder is, with the reduction of employer provided health and defined benefits pension plans, will the political actions of the middle third start to look more like the lower third? In the earlier times, it might be that for both the middle and upper class their economic needs were being very adequately met, so they could vote social issues.

The other factor that was interesting was that it was just abortion as opposed to other issues that seemed to have much significance. The analysis of this variable over time is interesting as it seems to have become a less accepted as the time as passed from when it was illegal. I wonder if the impact going up in 2000 and 2004 might have come from both the likelihood of Supreme Court justice picks and a strong campaign by both fundamentalists and the Catholic church. The real question is whether they will fight as hard in 2008. (It's good news that this is not as big an issue as Franks states as I really don't think the "we can frame that we don't LIKE abortion, but we need to keep it leagal" of Hillary etc is more convincing than 2004 to those who want it illegal.)

The suggestion that we can look to get more middle and upper class people who agree with us on the social issues seems good - especially if they feel the Republicans are causing them to lose things they want. But as Bush moves to shred the security net and the economy changes causing more middle class to become concerned about their future, there may be more people gained by the Democratic positions on the economy.

Kerry may be totally right that we are right on the issues. Any major change would probably be negative because things are naturally shifting in our direction. On the economy, a compassionate fiscal moderate like Kerry may be what we need because Bush has so destroyed the economy. Also, the income gap between the rich and poor is at a historic high and should be perceived as not good for America. On social issue, a move to pretend to be what we aren't may lose us the upper income people scared by the shift to the right without gaining us the social conservatives.

[TayTay]

20. Ooh Karyn, this is great

I can't reply at length. Will do so later on.

Wonderful analysis. (Not just because it agrees with me either. Really!)

[sandnsea]

21. Well shit Tay Tay

I read it. But estrogen deficiency has kicked in and now I've forgotten what I read!! lol.

[TayTay]

22. It goes with all the recent "Who are we and what do we believe"

posts about the Democratic Party. Should we shimmy to the 'middle' and adopt centrist views? (What are centrist views anyway?) Should we go left and proclaim, "I'm lib and I'm proud."

This paper presents statistical data to show that Thomas Frank's assumption that the poor are voting against their economic interests in order to vote for conservative social stnads is not correct. Lower income people are NOT deserting the Democractic Party. This is true, except in the South and is due to the positions the Democratic Party made to support civil rights.

I found this so fascinating because I have heard Kerry say, repeatedly, that we don't need to rethink our values. (I heard him say this in August at the Faneuil Hall speech. Others have heard variations of this throughout the year.) I think he would concur with the report in question. I think this is the conclusion he came to at the end of the 2004 race.

I agree with Karyn, we need to get some pickups in the middle and upper class which have drifted from the Dem Party.

In other words, it was partly the loss of the Catholic vote, it was the 'security moms' who didn't want to change horses in mid-stream and all that. Kerry didn't lose last year because he didn't come out strongly enough against the war. He didn't lose because lower-income voters thought he was less virtuous than the Prez.

Food for thought.

[karynnj]

23. I also think that we will be getting more votes from the upper class

As the upper class is defined in this paper as the top third - my county is clearly heavily upper class. Last year, Kerry did better than Gore here. Kerry won the vote in the high school (only Juniors and seniors voted). The reasons I heard from a few dyed in the wool Republicans were that the religious right scared them - so these were pick-ups based on liberal social values.

This year, the two Democratic Assembly candidates in my district actually have a chance. (You vote for 2 in the district) The Republicans have had the 2 seats as far back as I can remember. Usually the Democrats don't even seriously run candidates. This year, they have 2 candidates who actually have the Republicans concerned. A few weeks ago, they were within single digits of the Republicans. (This is a district that normally can go 65% Republican.)

One thing the report doesn't consider is that the voting population is not static. Last year Kerry won the youngest age group. If the kids who were 14 - 18 last year are more like their slightly older peers - that alone could shift things to the Democrats favor. (This group should be bigger than the people who won't make it to 2008 - who might also be more Democrat vs Republican.)