I have had people on Welfare in my office, who call themselves "Middle Class", I have seen multimillionaires call themselves "Middle Class". Today, the term "Middle Class" means everyone and no one and thus like the term "American" means NOTHING when used in a speech.
That is the problem, no one defines "Middle Class" and thus it includes "working poor, homeless, hungry and unemployed (and no longer eligible for benefits) people in this country" AND everyone one else, i.e. millionaires, billionaires, everyone.
Yes, when the term was first invented in the Late Middle Ages, it meant people who were NOT peasants/working class, but also not Nobility/Royalty but today both peasants/working class people and the old Nobility/Royalty are called Middle Class. At that time period (and up to WWII) it meant the 10% of the population below the 3% of the population that are the super-rich.
In 2005, the top 3.87% of the population earns more then $200,000 a year, 13.6% earns between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.
Thus in 2005, the Middle Class, under traditional definition, would be someone earning more then $100,000 a year, but less then $200,000 a year. I know this is 13.6% of the population instead of the traditional 10%, but given the 10% number is an approximation, the income of between $100,000 and $200,000 a year is still a good reference point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
The definition of the Poor, is the lowest 10% of the population and 12.18% receives less then $15,000 in income. Thus anyone earning more then $15,000 a year, but less then $100,000 a year is neither "Poor" or "Middle Class" under the Traditional definition for "Middle Class".
Some polls use $50,000 as the cut off, but that is the poll's taking cut off NOT what the people themselves think as to being a member of the "Middle Class".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/obama-problem-white-working-class-americans
Yet, polls taken in 2011 says 51% of the population call themselves "Middle Class".
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/22/the-lost-decade-of-the-middle-class/
Now, when the term Working Class is included in any pole on the subject, the people who call themselves "Middle Class" drops in half, the half opting for "Working Class" instead of "Middle Class". In an ABC Poll this is reflected in 45% of the population calling themselves "Middle Class" and 39% of the Population calling themselves "Working Class".
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1106a1MiddleClass.pdf
Average incomes for people who call themselves middle class are about $55,000 a year, versus about $35,000 for those who call themselves working class or lower and about $95,000 for those who say they're upper-middle class or better off.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/abc-world-news-poll-us-middle-class-concerns/story?id=10088470#.UElwj8FmQwM
People who call themselves "Upper Middle Class" is about the same percentage as the traditional definition of "Middle Class" but the people who call themselves "Middle Class" tend to just be high earning (and collage educated) working class people if we use the traditional definitions.
I can't find on line any report about HOW self reporting "Working Class" people, report themselves as "Middle Class" if "Working Class" is NOT an option OR if just asked (i.e. When a pollster ask a working class person, what "Class" he or she is in, the person will say "Middle Class". That person will only report "Working Class" if it is one of the option given to him or her.
The above has been known since at least the 1960s, I first read about it in a Economic Text in the 1970s. I just can NOT find a reference to that fact on the net (And I have NOT run across anything that says it does NOT occur).
My point is that the Candidates KNOW THIS, thus they use the term "Working Class" for its fits everyone self image of themselves. The INTERNAL Polls for the Candidates do make the distinguish between "Working Class" and "Middle Class", but only to see what is working with whom (i.e. is what the Candidate is saying effective on the people the speech was aimed at? AND did it offend anyone who the Candidate was counting on for votes).
Obama's biggest problem, in my opinion, was he has none NOTHING that clearly shows he wants to help the "Working Class". I.e. he did NOT support Card Check (i.e. the ability to form a Union with just a Majority of workers signing off on a card, instead of going through a Vote), Obama did NOT fight for Single Payer, something that had wide appeal for the Working Class, Obama gave in to the demand to extend the Bush Tax Cuts in exchange for a temporary cut in Social Security Taxes, the working class would have preferred him to FIGHT to end the tax cuts AND then Fight for the Social Security Tax cut. IT would have made it clear which side Obama stood on, instead he appeared to stand on the side for the rich for the Bush Tax Cuts. OBama should have fought for the largest Stimulus package possible, even if defeated, show that he was willing to fight for it.
In many ways, Obama's habit of giving in, before he is defeated has NOT shown to the Working Class that he is out to protect them. FDR faced defeat with his New Deal Legislation, and the working class supported FDR even as those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court. The mere act of PASSING THE LAW, was enough to show the Working Class, FDR was for them. Obama has NOT followed that pattern. He is NOT been defeated, he did get his stimulus packages (But Obama gave in to GOP demands that much of it be a tax cut as opposed to spending), Obama was NOT defeated in his plan for Universal Health Care, instead he proposed what the GOP was willing to accept, instead of having a Universal Health Care Law proposed, passed by the then Democratic House and then holed up by the Filibuster in the Senate. Yes, that MAY have lead to a defeat of the Single Payer proposal, but it would have shown he was willing to do all he could for the working class.
This refusal to Fight, when the chances of winning was slight, has lead the working class think Obama does NOT really care for the things, the working class think is important. This is Obama's big problem with the Working Class, but the Working Class is NOT enthralled by Romney either, for similar reasons:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/106370/obama-isnt-the-only-candidate-whos-got-problems-the-white-working-class#
Thus the non-mention of the "working poor, homeless, hungry and unemployed (and no longer eligible for benefits) people in this country.". Obama has done nothing that the working class can see as benefiting them. The Working Class knows it needs to fight, and thus like a fighter NOT someone who counts before the fight begins and when the numbers are not in his or her favor backs down. Labor will accept defeat, but they want to go down all flags flying and drums beating, not like a rat escaping into a hole. Obama has forced them to run like rats into their hole when it comes to the attacks on the income of the Working Class and the Working Class does NOT like running into its hole when it can fight.
= new reply since forum marked as read
. 
