Kathianne
02-04-2015, 03:46 PM
Jim Geraghty (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jim-geraghty) thinks so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397850/obamas-middle-class-losers-jim-geraghty
FEBRUARY 4, 2015 4:00 AM
Obama’s Middle-Class Losers (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397850/obamas-middle-class-losers-jim-geraghty)
Americans suddenly realize the Democrats’ agenda doesn’t really help the middle class.
By Jim Geraghty (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jim-geraghty)
In the world of political journalism, this is about as big as it gets: a big-name political theorist and analyst looking back at his signature work and conclusions about the direction of American politics and concluding, “Nope, I think I got it wrong.”
Back in 2002, John B. Judis, senior editor of The New Republic and long-time left-of-center journalist published The Emerging Democratic Majority (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0743254783) with political scientist Ruy Teixeira. The much-debated book argued that demographic changes would drive Democrats to bigger and bigger political victories, powered by a “strengthening alliance between minorities, working and single women, the college-educated, and skilled professionals.” In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the book appeared astute and prophetic.
This week, in National Journal, Judis effectively renounced his theory (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-emerging-republican-advantage-20150130) that changing demographics guaranteed a strong wind at the back of Democrats, citing two trends:
The less surprising trend is that Democrats have continued to hemorrhage support among white working-class voters — a group that generally works in blue-collar and lower-income service jobs and that is roughly identifiable in exit polls as those whites who have not graduated from a four-year college. These voters, and particularly those well above the poverty line, began to shift toward the GOP decades ago, but in recent years that shift has become progressively more pronounced.
The more surprising trend is that Republicans are gaining dramatically among a group that had tilted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008: Call them middle-class Americans. These are voters who generally work in what economist Stephen Rose has called “the office economy.” In exit polling, they can roughly be identified as those who have college — but not postgraduate — degrees and those whose household incomes are between $50,000 and $100,000. (Obviously, the overlap here is imperfect, but there is a broad congruence between these polling categories.)
The defection of these voters — who, unlike the white working class, are a growing part of the electorate — is genuinely bad news for Democrats, and very good news indeed for Republicans. The question, of course, is whether it is going to continue. It’s tough to say for sure, but I think there is a case to be made that it will.
Judis points to 2014 victory of Maryland governor Larry Hogan as the perfect example of the trend. He quotes several middle-class voters who voted in the past for either Barack Obama or Democratic governor Martin O’Malley, but who voted for Larry Hogan last year. These voters cite a sense that their taxes have gone up considerably with no improvement in state services; they laud the idea of “reining in spending” and dismiss the idea that Hogan is an extremist on abortion. One adds, “The number of young people living on entitlement programs is overwhelming to me.”
The political scientists — and admittedly, a big chunk of that demographic — are only now starting to realize that despite Obama’s incessant invocation of the “middle-class economics” catch-phrase, the modern Democratic party doesn’t have that much to offer those $50,000- to $100,000-per-year voters.
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397850/obamas-middle-class-losers-jim-geraghty
FEBRUARY 4, 2015 4:00 AM
Obama’s Middle-Class Losers (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397850/obamas-middle-class-losers-jim-geraghty)
Americans suddenly realize the Democrats’ agenda doesn’t really help the middle class.
By Jim Geraghty (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jim-geraghty)
In the world of political journalism, this is about as big as it gets: a big-name political theorist and analyst looking back at his signature work and conclusions about the direction of American politics and concluding, “Nope, I think I got it wrong.”
Back in 2002, John B. Judis, senior editor of The New Republic and long-time left-of-center journalist published The Emerging Democratic Majority (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0743254783) with political scientist Ruy Teixeira. The much-debated book argued that demographic changes would drive Democrats to bigger and bigger political victories, powered by a “strengthening alliance between minorities, working and single women, the college-educated, and skilled professionals.” In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the book appeared astute and prophetic.
This week, in National Journal, Judis effectively renounced his theory (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-emerging-republican-advantage-20150130) that changing demographics guaranteed a strong wind at the back of Democrats, citing two trends:
The less surprising trend is that Democrats have continued to hemorrhage support among white working-class voters — a group that generally works in blue-collar and lower-income service jobs and that is roughly identifiable in exit polls as those whites who have not graduated from a four-year college. These voters, and particularly those well above the poverty line, began to shift toward the GOP decades ago, but in recent years that shift has become progressively more pronounced.
The more surprising trend is that Republicans are gaining dramatically among a group that had tilted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008: Call them middle-class Americans. These are voters who generally work in what economist Stephen Rose has called “the office economy.” In exit polling, they can roughly be identified as those who have college — but not postgraduate — degrees and those whose household incomes are between $50,000 and $100,000. (Obviously, the overlap here is imperfect, but there is a broad congruence between these polling categories.)
The defection of these voters — who, unlike the white working class, are a growing part of the electorate — is genuinely bad news for Democrats, and very good news indeed for Republicans. The question, of course, is whether it is going to continue. It’s tough to say for sure, but I think there is a case to be made that it will.
Judis points to 2014 victory of Maryland governor Larry Hogan as the perfect example of the trend. He quotes several middle-class voters who voted in the past for either Barack Obama or Democratic governor Martin O’Malley, but who voted for Larry Hogan last year. These voters cite a sense that their taxes have gone up considerably with no improvement in state services; they laud the idea of “reining in spending” and dismiss the idea that Hogan is an extremist on abortion. One adds, “The number of young people living on entitlement programs is overwhelming to me.”
The political scientists — and admittedly, a big chunk of that demographic — are only now starting to realize that despite Obama’s incessant invocation of the “middle-class economics” catch-phrase, the modern Democratic party doesn’t have that much to offer those $50,000- to $100,000-per-year voters.
...