More

Ari Melber

Ari Melber

Posted: February 7, 2008 12:00 AM

Clinton's Super Tuesday Working Class Edge


Barack Obama narrowly bested Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday, but several primaries suggest a potentially crucial edge for her in the days ahead.

In a majority of Tuesday's primaries, Clinton beat Obama decisively among working class voters.

Set aside the candidates' home states and the six caucuses, where Obama ran up huge margins, and Clinton drew more lower and middle class voters in eight of fourteen primaries. That even includes three states that Obama won.

New Mexico was settled by less than a point, for example, but voters diverged sharply by income. Those making under $50,000 went for Clinton, while Obama did better among higher income voters. He won Connecticut by four points, again buoyed by voters making over $50,000, while Clinton bested him among less affluent voters by nearly ten points. Obama won Delaware by a decisive 11 points, but Clinton still drew more voters there earning between $15,000 and $30,000.

The fault line was even sharper in states that went decisively for Clinton. Her California margin was 10 points, for example, but she opened up a 25-point lead among voters making under $50,000. In fact, the only income bracket that Obama won there was in the six figures. The same was true in Massachusetts, where Clinton's 15-point statewide margin powered her from five-figure-voters to the poverty line. She won by about 30 points among voters making under $30,000, who comprised 16% of turnout. (The federal poverty rate is about $17,000 for a family of three.) Tennessee had a similar breakdown, with Obama only winning among six-figure voters.

These gaps were not uniform, of course. Obama posted solid numbers across income groups in many states, even when trailing Clinton. They largely split the working class vote in Arizona and Missouri, a pivotal bellwether for the general election. He won all income groups in Georgia, Utah and Alabama. And while caucus states are hard to compare, given very different turnout dynamics, Obama's organization mobilized and won across income levels in several of the six caucus states as well.

Yet after months of campaign hype about race and gender, Super Tuesday revealed that another atavistic divide within Democratic primaries is still here. As columnist Ron Brownstein foreshadowed almost one year ago:

Obama's early support is following a pattern familiar from the campaigns of other brainy liberals with cool, detached personas and messages of political reform, from Eugene McCarthy in 1968 to Gary Hart in 1984 to Bill Bradley in 2000. Like those predecessors, Obama is running strong with well-educated voters but demonstrating much less support among those without college degrees.... All of the candidates whose support fit that profile ultimately lost the nomination to rivals whose support was rooted in the blue-collar and minority communities where Clinton is strongest in early surveys.

Early polls have been wrong about most things in both parties this cycle. But voter turnout now shows that Clinton is holding onto poor and working class voters. And the Democratic nominee needs their support to win back the White House.

From The Nation.

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:54 AM on 02/08/2008
I continue to be surprised at how far out-of- touch the Obama liberals are with the working class democrats. I am a native of New Hampshire, and my family walked right out of Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickeled and Dimed". My 41 year old sister said to me, on the day of the NH primary, that she had NEVER cast a vote before in any election, but that she was sure going to do so in this election. She never thought twice about who her vote would go to, and it went right to Hillary. It was, as Cher said, a "no-brainer".

Obama's theme that "we're all going to do this together" doesn't appeal to people who work two jobs to make ends meet, ala Nickeled and Dimed. Blue collar folks want their elected officials to fix things, and expect them to know where all the levers are. They want them to be well studied, and they give their trust over very skeptically, but only upon proving your competence. They have very strong bullshxt meeters. Obama sprays the warm scent of change over the Starbucks crowd, this same segment of the population that are addicted to the internet. It is no wonder that his fund raising on the net beats Hillary's since many people in Hillary's corner can't afford an internet connection, so never mind a parting with a polical donation ultimately used to run a tv ad!

If Obama wants to appeal to the working class, he should move the money that he's raised from his $100,000+/year followers, and donate it all to a working class cause, rather than to run tv ads. Nothing bothers poor people more than spending large amounts of money on self promotion.

I feel like race and gender are not the most interesting issue any longer, but I am incredibly disheartened by the surge of a candidate that lands so flat with the blue collar worker, but apparently seems to satisfy the higher chakras of his bmw-ers hipsters.
08:13 PM on 02/07/2008
now that is interesting!!! all of a sudden hummin' the tune "working class hero" tune by john lennon.... i'll give 20bucks to hillary when i get a stamp!!! LOL from those numbers ari, it's looking like the "little poor working class america" is sending obama a HUGE message here!!! click here to donate to hillary if you can spare 5bucks :) https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=FIV6
i hardly think these people are being manipulated because if they were then they'd believe all the obama hype!! good for everyone to keep an open mind and check their potential candidates out!! glad to read that almost double the numbers of people came out to rock the vote!!!!!!
07:28 PM on 02/07/2008
This is the same "working Class" that is so easily manipulated as to support Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
Has'nt been shown time and time again that the "working class" usually votes against their best intrests.
04:50 PM on 02/07/2008
Nobody wants to mention it so I will: its not surprising that less-educated lower income white voters don't want to vote for a black man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
milo9
03:29 PM on 02/07/2008
Clinton's working class edge? You have to be smoking something. Her edge was her political machine and her ability to promise anything, no matter how unrealistic to those her vote for her.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:18 PM on 02/07/2008
By what measure has Melber decided that Obama bested Clinton on Super Tuesday? I'd like to see is evidence. Every reputable news source that I've checked gives the win to Clinton, both in the popular vote and in delegates.
01:09 PM on 02/07/2008
I have no idea why Huffpost has seemed to have lost this post. It is important and missing in action.
Please read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/senator-barack-obama-resp_b_85428.html
12:37 PM on 02/07/2008
Obama's Independent voter bloc, whom I assume are represented on-line here in droves, has no respect for the working class, older people, or the Democratic Party.

That's very clear.
01:16 PM on 02/07/2008
Don't be deluded sunshower7 Obama has taken his fair share of monies from pharmaceutical and insurance company representatives.

Also Michelle Obama worked for treehouse foods
on their board of directors. treehouse foods
works exclusively with Walmart.

Look, you don't get as far as fast as Obama
without selling out.

Go to opensecrets.org to look at candidates and where they receive their contributions
and google Treehouse and Michele Obama.
12:32 PM on 02/07/2008
Hillary is playing all you working class heroes for suckers

ABC News videotapes show that when she was a member of Wal-Mart"s board of directors, from 1986 to 1992, she never once rose to defend workers rights or American labor unions. as the world's largest retailer waged a war against their workers rights to unionize. – even when John Tate, Wal-Mart's executive vice president, ranted,
"Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."

Her lying campaign speech in New Hampshire, "Now I know that Wal-Mart's policies do not reflect the best way of doing business"

Yet ABCNews discovered $20,000 for her campaign from Wal-Mart executives.

May 20, 2007 New York Times, "Clinton maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives. Her husband speaks frequently to Wal-Mart's current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr. and held a private dinner at the Clinton's New York home in July 2006 for him."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1


Hillary talks about helping American families but her record shows that she. shunned families of 9/11's victims. Stephen Brill’s book "After 911: How America Confronted the September 12 Era," documents Hillary's attempt to peddle a falsified version of her role in the wake of 9/11.

She is no champion of workers unions, - her top strategist, Mark Penn is CEO of a union-busting P.R. firm.

She has received the most corporate money of any candidate, and would serve the interests Health Insurance corporations, not working class families. her universal healthcare plan would take money from worker’s salaries and seniors’ SS checks and owners small businesses

Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her health care plan.
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" (p. 20).

She has never chaired a Senate committee, has no executive experience, and is completely untrustworthy.

OBAMA '08
01:26 PM on 02/07/2008
Hillary Clinton was a thorn in their side when she served briefly for Wall-Mart on the board.

You know, if you ever get beyond sound-bites and dig, you will find out the truth.
07:24 PM on 02/07/2008
just a little proof that any of that is true is all I ask.
11:40 AM on 02/07/2008
The working poor women are the people that hillary trashed while on the board at Wal-Mart. Yet the working poor women are supporting hillary. Go figure?

Maybe they are still clinging to her promise to give $5K to every child and didn't get the update when she cancelled that plan three days after it was announced.

If you're poor and you vote for the candidate that trashes the poor, then I have to say that you got what you deserved.
11:36 AM on 02/07/2008
And yet, Obama has been the big winner in small donations, meaning he inspires a lot of passion in working class donors. He also won around 70% of the vote in red states like in Kansas, Alaska and Idaho, and I would assume to get 70% of the vote that you'd have to be polling well at all income levels.
11:42 AM on 02/07/2008
The size of a donation is not always indicative of income bracket. I am a professional fundraiser, and I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of donors whose gifts are not always in accordance with their giving capacity.
06:07 PM on 02/07/2008
No its not a definitive measurement. But it can be indicative in many cases. Also consider that 70% of Hillary's donors have maxed out there personal donation amounts ($2,300.. I think). While its not always true, I think we can safely say that in order to give such a large portion her donors are probably from a high income bracket.

Amir may have gotten the exit poll correct, more lower income families voted for Hillary. But as far as passionate supporters (willing to fundraise, organize, etc.) the trend may be reversed, considering the passionate support of student (a low income group) for Barack and the obvious large donations for Hillary.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pbarba1969
09:54 AM on 02/07/2008
I think Hillary will have a much better chance of beating the republicans in the fall. She is pulling the Reagan democrats back to the party and will draw more voters from the republican side than Mccain will pull from ours. The fact is Senator Obama will be portrayed as a darling of the extreme left and will be portrayed as "the most liberal senator in Congress" that won't play too well in battle ground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In addition John McCain has won several elections in Arizona with Mexican American support. Hillary has shown she can win the votes of Mexican Americans in the southwest. Senator Obama hasn't.

Senator Obama's supporters are simply ignoring all the signs from super tuesday that shows we will lose to the republicans in November if Senator Obama. I don't won't the left wing of out party to take us to another "glorious defeat" like they did with McGovern, Carter Mondale, Dukakais and Kerry. I want to win and fix what's wrong with America....
11:24 AM on 02/07/2008
On what planet does Hillary attract more Republicans? The Hillary supporters are now trying to scare us into believing that Obama is too risky. I'd vote for him even if he were guaranteed to lose, but that's just not the case. He has a very broad appeal. I personally have witnessed Republicans that are behind him 100 percent. I've Never seen that before from Any Dem candidate. It has become a real movement. Truth is I'd rather have John McCain than Hillary Clinton. He'd be awful, but at least I know where he stands. You can never tell what Hillary stands for.
09:53 AM on 02/07/2008
Hillary won more delegates so I don't see how Obama bested her?
11:10 AM on 02/07/2008
sonofloud to answer your question. Listening to Chris Matthews on MSNBC he says so. I think he is his campaign manager. I wanted to vote for John Edwards but now I am all for Hillary, however I will not give my hard earned money to people who have millions. After N.H. what women could do any different than vote for her? Think what Obama will do after the power of president if he gets there. That is why I will vote for Hillary.
11:25 AM on 02/07/2008
Not true. If you're looking strickly at delegates won in the Super Tuesday voting, Obama has a few more. It's close, but he's on top.
08:36 AM on 02/07/2008
I was in another site and read people boasting how they had donated 100 dollars to Obama the night before. In my family we both work and with bills and everything else i find it really hard to give 100 dollars to any campaign I wonder.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenDedalus82
10:09 AM on 02/07/2008
This is why the fundraising differences highlight Clinton's appeal to people with little money and Obama's appeal to more comfortable college types. Whose base of support has a finer appreciation of the problems this country faces?
11:34 AM on 02/07/2008
Wrong Stephen. What this highlights is the fact that Hillary's donations came from wealthy people that maxed out on the limit they can donate. Much of Obama's donations came from people who could only afford small amounts and have a long way to go before they reach the limit. Therefore, Barack Obama can go back to them and ask for another small donation. These are people who don't normally send money to candidates, but were moved to do so.

Another point is, Obama doesn't have 5 million to donate to his campaign. While he is a millionare, he has the smallest personal wealth of any candidate Dem or Rep, and only recently became a millionare with the sale of his books. So when you're talking about a finer appreciation, look no further than Obama himself. He has turned down lucrative jobs in order to do community service. I don't know where you get your cynicism, but Obama is the real deal.
11:37 AM on 02/07/2008
If you can't give $100, then give $5 to Obama.