Real World Event Discussions

The white working class and Obama

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Friday, September 28, 2012 04:47
VIEWED: 5068
PAGE 4 of 5

KPO
Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:58 AM

No, if you split the data up then you see more clearly where Obama's problem lies. It's not 'discounting data', it's separating two different types of data that tell two quite different stories.

The reality is staring you in the face: the South is not typical of the whole country, and skews the national data. Did you see the graphs?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
No, and this is important: it refers specifically to the white workings class in most of the country. In other words, 'not including the South'. Why else do you think the words 'In most of the country' are there? Those graphs of the four regions together make up the whole of the geographical USA. The article states clearly that Obama is 'doing just fine' IF you take away the numbers from the South poll. Why you are attempting to refute this by repeatedly INCLUDING the numbers from the South poll is beyond me. That's staggering illogicality.



Is Obama only president for certain geographical regions of the country?





Wait - are you suggesting that you shouldn't just write off certain groups of the population? Say, perhaps, some 47% of the people?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:26 PM

Was it suggested anywhere that Romney *isn't* doing "just fine" among working-class whites?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

The article refers specifically to "white working people".

No, and this is important: it refers specifically to the white workings class in most of the country. In other words, 'not including the South'. Why else do you think the words 'In most of the country' are there? Those graphs of the four regions together make up the whole of the geographical USA. The article states clearly that Obama is 'doing just fine' IF you take away the numbers from the South poll. Why you are attempting to refute this by repeatedly INCLUDING the numbers from the South poll is beyond me. That's staggering illogicality.



The problem with this is that the election is held in the entire country, not just the West, North-east, and Mid-west. It' sort of like saying "Candidate A is doing just fine with both female Jewish retirees and Muslims in Montana". That may be true, but it ignores that there are probably a lot more female Jewish retirees or Muslims other places in the country.

And even if you take away the South, Romney is doing better in two of the three remaining regions. While it's true he does not have the overwhelming lead he has in the South, it appears to be in the 4% to 5% range. So even in the "most of the country" that excludes the South, Obama may be "doing just fine" with the White working class, but Romney is still doing better.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

KPO
Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:31 PM

Quote:

The problem with this is that the election is held in the entire country, not just the West, North-east, and Mid-west.

As I told BDN, it's not saying that Obama doesn't have a white working class problem, it's saying that if you look closely you can reasonably say that problem is confined to the South. It's a much more pinpoint diagnosis, and a much more useful one.

Quote:

While it's true he does not have the overwhelming lead he has in the South, it appears to be in the 4% to 5% range.

I don't know where you got this from.

Quote:

So even in the "most of the country" that excludes the South, Obama may be "doing just fine" with the White working class, but Romney is still doing better.

Perhaps, but since Romney is actually white we might expect a slight advantage. If Romney had 45% of the black high-earner vote, say, we would surely say that he was doing very well in that demographic, despite trailing. Even much less than 45% might be described as doing fine...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait - are you suggesting that you shouldn't just write off certain groups of the population? Say, perhaps, some 47% of the people?


That is what I am trying to ascertain if KPO is suggesting. Do try to keep up.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Was it suggested anywhere that Romney *isn't* doing "just fine" among working-class whites?


This thread is about Obama's popularity among the white working class. Do try to keep up.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Was it suggested anywhere that Romney *isn't* doing "just fine" among working-class whites?


This thread is about Obama's popularity among the white working class. Do try to keep up.




That's what I thought it was about, but *somebody* keeps trying to bring up that Romney's doing just fine...

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

But in three of the four geographic segments listed, they like Romney more.

Looks like Mother Jones is spinning this article for the folks who only read the headline.



Do try to keep up.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:41 PM

Yes, Kiki, and well said. As I've said numerous times, I used to like and respect Geezer and have been confused as to why he's changed into a purely partisan, angry, unpleasant hack. So there's definitely been change...enough so that it's made me wonder if Geezer's been someone's sickpuppy all along, reeling us in by being nice, then turning around. Probably not, but it HAS left me puzzled, the change I've seen.

Just speaking for myself by the way, I have put up a number of threads dissing Obama or the Dems over time. Not many, no question about that, but I have, so that puts the lie to that. On the other hand, I don't recall ever seeing a thread put up by any of our righties that's at all negative about anything or anyone on the right. Just sayin'.

Also been quite happy to diss Fast & Furious, the Obama ad about the "cancer" patient, and numerous other things. As well as having said from the beginning that Obama didn't disappoint me nearly as much as others, since I feared from the start that he would be too much of a compromiser and wouldn't be able to work the system to get things done, which he has. Nor will I be voting for him, I'll be voting Green. Admittedly that's because in CA, he doesn't need my vote, but if he were some kind of "messiah", surely I'd vote for him anyway.

As to the rest of the argument, the title of the article in question is "In Most of the Country, the White Working Class Likes President Obama Just Fine" and it starts right out saying "Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, don't really have a huge "white working class problem." What they have is a huge Southern problem." The point of the article is that, while Obama trails Romney in all areas, he doesn't do so by that MUCH, except in the South. Not sure why the righties can't comprehend that simple fact...or is it that they just have to keep harping on the fact that Obama trails Romney nationwide AMONG WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTERS. Nobody has argued that, but the point of the article seems to have been totally lost among some.

And of course this is just white working class voters. If you count all the various other sections of the electorate, it's a whole different story. According to recent polls (for whatever they're worth), Obama leads Romney not just nationally, but among women, Blacks, Latinos and the young--and in almost all swing states. Just for some perspective, if we want to talk about something which DOESN'T have to do with the article in question (which some seem to want to).

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Yes, Kiki, and well said. As I've said numerous times, I used to like and respect Geezer and have been confused as to why he's changed into a purely partisan, angry, unpleasant hack. So there's definitely been change...enough so that it's made me wonder if Geezer's been someone's sickpuppy all along, reeling us in by being nice, then turning around. Probably not, but it HAS left me puzzled, the change I've seen.



Geezer has become so obsessed with Story and me, and the idea that we're somehow a "team", that he's gone over the edge and descended straight into troll country.


Quote:

Just speaking for myself by the way, I have put up a number of threads dissing Obama or the Dems over time. Not many, no question about that, but I have, so that puts the lie to that. On the other hand, I don't recall ever seeing a thread put up by any of our righties that's at all negative about anything or anyone on the right. Just sayin'.


For the record:

I have huge problems with Obama's stance on indefinitely detention, hit-list assassinations (especially of U.S. citizens without any due process), keeping Gitmo open, and military tribunals, among other issues.

Now, for the record, can someone please elucidate the key differences between Obama and Romney on these issues?

I also note for the record that I have no intention of voting for Obama. If it's a choice between the two of them, then sure, I hope Obama beats Romney. But my vote in Deep-Red Texas isn't going to help him, but it CAN help a third-party candidate and help send a clear message, so I'll be voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, and I honestly don't yet know which one.

Quote:


Also been quite happy to diss Fast & Furious, the Obama ad about the "cancer" patient, and numerous other things. As well as having said from the beginning that Obama didn't disappoint me nearly as much as others, since I feared from the start that he would be too much of a compromiser and wouldn't be able to work the system to get things done, which he has. Nor will I be voting for him, I'll be voting Green. Admittedly that's because in CA, he doesn't need my vote, but if he were some kind of "messiah", surely I'd vote for him anyway.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the "cancer ad" really an Obama ad? Was it put out by the campaign, paid for by them, and did it include the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" tagline that's legally required?

Also, did that ad ever actually run as a paid advertisement? I was under the impression that it was leaked to the media who played it over and over and over, so it never really had to be aired as an actual commercial. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but it was definitely brought up during the controversy about it.

Quote:


As to the rest of the argument, the title of the article in question is "In Most of the Country, the White Working Class Likes President Obama Just Fine" and it starts right out saying "Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, don't really have a huge "white working class problem." What they have is a huge Southern problem." The point of the article is that, while Obama trails Romney in all areas, he doesn't do so by that MUCH, except in the South. Not sure why the righties can't comprehend that simple fact...or is it that they just have to keep harping on the fact that Obama trails Romney nationwide AMONG WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTERS. Nobody has argued that, but the point of the article seems to have been totally lost among some.

And of course this is just white working class voters. If you count all the various other sections of the electorate, it's a whole different story. According to recent polls (for whatever they're worth), Obama leads Romney not just nationally, but among women, Blacks, Latinos and the young--and in almost all swing states. Just for some perspective, if we want to talk about something which DOESN'T have to do with the article in question (which some seem to want to).



Exactly ri

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME