Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernie Has Had To Find Bigger And Bigger Venues, Even In The South... Two Articles To Consider.
How the Democrats Could Win Every ElectionThe Democrats are getting populist, which is nice. But will it be enough to lure the millions who don’t vote to the polls?
Monica Potts - DailyBeast
1/15/15
The Pew survey asked people questions about their overall financial security, including whether they’d ever received food stamps or Medicaid and whether they had retirement savings, and then about political preferences.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/how-the-democrats-could-win-every-election.html#
*******************************************************************
How socialist Bernie Sanders offers Democrats a shot at the white working class
By Alan Chin - Reuters
July 8, 2015
<snip>
...
...
...
New Hampshire isn’t racially diverse — it’s 94 percent white — but Sanders’ audiences otherwise encompass a broad cross-section of society: teachers, cops, food-service and healthcare workers, small business owners. Watching them listen intently, the burning question arises: Can Bernie be the guy who brings the white working class, especially men, into the fold of the progressive left?
Despite — or because of — persistently stagnant income and lack of social mobility, voters once called “Reagan Democrats” continue to feel betrayed by a Democratic Party they consider elitist and out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Americans. In casting their votes for Republicans, they cite cultural and emotional connection over tangible benefits like Obamacare, which has reduced the ranks of the uninsured by more than 10 million.
Sanders upends those expectations the moment he steps up to a microphone. Barack Obama was a rock star on the campaign trail, handsomely cool and elegant. Bernie couldn’t be more different. He’s older. His clothes are ordinary. He doesn’t offer much charm or soaring inspirational rhetoric. Instead, he launches right away against what he calls “the idolatry of money” and how the United States has “become an oligarchy.” His indictment is searing. At the Governor’s Inn in Rochester two weeks ago, he asked, “Did a terrible tornado rip through America and destroy our infrastructure? No. The greed of the billionaire class has got to end or they are going to destroy this country.” And the crowd rose to its feet with a standing ovation, as they did many times through his hour-long stump speech.
At New England College in Henniker the afternoon before, he called economic inequality “the great moral issue of our time. It’s not an issue that people feel comfortable with. But there is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much as the bottom 90 percent.” His menu of solutions is ambitious: break up the large banks, free tuition at state universities, raise the minimum wage, expand Social Security and the Affordable Care Act, guarantee paid maternity, parental leave and vacations, and fund it all by increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing the military budget.
Scott Philbrick, a 52-year-old police officer retired on disability, voted for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the last election but said, “I want to hear” Sanders “because he’s not going to lie or candy coat. He’s going to say what’s on his mind, no matter what.” Mr. Philbrick waited patiently with a bound 1937 copy of the U.S. Constitution in which he collects candidate autographs. During the question-and-answer session after the speech, he asked a question on a lot of people’s minds: “How will you get your platform passed? There’s complete dysfunction in Congress.”
The senator warmed to his answer, one he annunciates in one form or another at every stop. Evoking populist imagery by addressing his audience as “brothers and sisters,” he asked them to “reach out to working-class and middle-class Republicans who continue to vote against their own best interests,” and change their minds. “They should not be voting for people who are cutting the legs out from under their kids,” he said, in reference to Republican cuts in Pell Grants. And then he singled out David and Charles Koch, Sheldon Adelson and the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart — the country’s largest employer — for spending more on their causes than the entire Democratic or Republican parties have on theirs. He views that as antithetical to democratic values and ordinary citizens.
Call this a new variation on...
<snip>
More: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/08/how-socialist-bernie-sanders-offers-democrats-a-shot-at-the-white-working-class/
Don't Tell ME... This Is Some Sort Of Pony !!!
GOTBV
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
From First Article.
