The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Rethinking Working-Class Whites
August 25, 2008 3:56 PM
What's a working-class white?
In political terms it matters more than you might think. Barack Obama trails John McCain among whites who haven’t gotten through college, the definition that caught on during the Democratic primaries. But use another definition and the tables turn: Among whites with incomes under $50,000, our latest ABC/Post poll finds Obama slightly ahead.
That finding throws into doubt one enduring narrative of the campaign so far – that Obama needs help winning support among the “working-class whites” he lost so heavily to Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In fact it depends how you define them – and, for the general election, an income-based definition is the more sensible one.
That’s because income, not education, looks to be the driving factor. When we put both into the mix, looking at non-college whites by income level, Obama does best among the least well-off, while higher-income non-college whites shift to McCain. Certainly low-income less-educated whites are more “working class” than higher-income ones.
Some of the numbers: Non-college whites in our latest poll split 50-41 percent for McCain over Obama. Advantage McCain. But whites with annual household incomes under $50,000 split by 49-40 percent for Obama. Advantage Obama.
Put ’em together and look at the Obama-McCain figures. Among non-college whites with under-$50,000 incomes, 47-41 percent. Among those with $50,000-$100,000 incomes, 42-48. And non-college whites with more than $100,000 in annual incomes (tough to classify as working-class, since that’s at least double the median income) go heavily for McCain, 62-32 percent. (We’ve combined our last two polls for that last group to get an adequate sample size.)
The current narrative’s off-base because general elections are different from primaries – different voters, different dynamic. In the primaries overall, Clinton won non-college whites by 62-31 percent, while she and Obama split college-educated whites. Income was a bit muddier: She won under-$50,000 whites by almost exactly the same margin, 60-33 percent. But Clinton also won the middle income group, $50,000-$100,000, though by not quite as wide a margin, 54-39 percent. It was only among $100,000-plus whites that Obama caught up with her. That fuzzier income story made college/non-college an easier tell.
The reason the general election is different is pretty simple: Unlike primaries, general elections are driven by political partisanship. And income is a strong predictor of partisan affiliation (better-off people are more apt to be Republicans) in a way that college education is not – identification moves Republican among college graduates, but moves back toward the Democrats among postgraduates.
I’ve noted before that Obama’s problems in the primaries don’t necessarily foretell the general election; matched against McCain, he comes closer among non-college whites than did either John Kerry or Al Gore. (But not as close as Bill Clinton, who actually managed to win his elections.) Obama’s current slim edge among low-income whites, similarly, is better than Kerry’s 10-point loss of this group in 2004.
More to the point for these purposes, in the primaries we could talk about Obama’s trouble with “working-class whites” because it was apparent regardless of the definition. In the general election campaign, the story’s a different one.
August 25, 2008 in 2008 General Election | Permalink | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Exuse me. What did you just say?
What is working class? I thought most all work for a living.
Posted by: Thinking | Aug 25, 2008 4:22:18 PM
It is a fact of life you can't prove the negative. This means you can never prove you're not a racist. So, all of the people can do all of politically correct things, at the end of the day, you still can't prove you're not a racist. This is the case during Stalin's time when people were trying desparately to prove their loyalty, but in the end, it was not enough and they ended up with a bullet in the head. People can go lapping after BHO, but your actions might only buy you, for the moment, that you are not a racist. Wait a day or two, then you will have to do more to show you're "progressive." It's a sick mentality.
Posted by: Frustrated Voter | Aug 25, 2008 4:28:22 PM
The news it out if you are poor then you vote for Obama.
Progressive for McCain
Posted by: Al | Aug 25, 2008 4:34:17 PM
amenhotep_5 - you're not making any sense. A tax cut is not giving "them" money, it's taking less money from them. Money is owned by the private sector, not the government. It is the private sector that provides the capital needed for this country. If you don't believe me, check out why North Korea is on the ragged edge of extinction. Rather than being jealous or envious of others, I want a president who wants to take less money from ME!! I could care less if the next guy gets a tax cut so as long as I have a fair shake at it as well. If such a president exists where the tax rate is fair, then I don't have to fear succeeding. What? You never want to earn more? What will you say when the government says to you, "you earn too much and I have to take more (as a percentage) from you." To vote for that kind of government is to the same as voting in a socialist. Again, if you want a workers' paradise, go to Cuba, North Korea, etc...
Posted by: Frustrated Voter | Aug 25, 2008 4:59:22 PM
The truth is no one really knows Obama.
Posted by: DemocratNoMore2 | Aug 25, 2008 6:21:29 PM
The news is out that if you are educated, you vote for Obama and the Democrats.
Posted by: Skye | Aug 26, 2008 12:16:37 AM
Obama's tax cut is going to take less from majority of the country, and make sure that we provide a safety net for our economy. We are not living in a time where people are succeeding. After 8.5 million jobs already lost, rampid inflation, and spending that's out of control it's time for a change. Most of our economy is consumer spending today, and if consumers stop being able to purchase thngs it will continue to go south. People can't afford to get groceries, it's still a struggle to fill up, and you have to be rich to get proper healthcare. Most Americans have gotten all of that and are tired of the Republicans making these more-of-the-same proposals. It's time for change and Obama wins that argument hands down. Obama 2008!
Posted by: Marcus | Aug 26, 2008 7:40:09 AM
Marcus, you are right on the money. We have to get our economy moving in the right direction and that will only be done with Obama/Biden and the Democrats. John McCain only wants to buy himself seven more houses that he forgets he has as his senility and Alzheimer's gets worse. As old as he is he may not even live to serve out a 4 year term if elected. Do we really need another Ronald Reagan? Furthermore, John McCain can not keep living on his past military credentials which took place 40 years ago.
Posted by: sweet-melissa | Aug 26, 2008 2:00:46 PM
McCain must take an adult education, very important! You can´t lead this country when you lack education in all! Then McCain will realise we are not whinners and better off! And would no more have to undermine women and cutting their rights!
Latino,OHIO ,PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN, MINNEAPOL, Tex, CAL, FLORIDA AND ALL AMERICA for Obama! No time for another 8 years of McCain/Bush mess!
Posted by: junior | Aug 26, 2008 3:35:49 PM
the republicans have done all they can to make sure there is no working class only rich and very poor...just like most third world countries.
Posted by: tom | Aug 26, 2008 6:31:41 PM
Could some one conduct a poll on this question ??
which Candidate is Most likely to lead us into the Next War ???
Posted by: Steve Volis | Aug 27, 2008 9:47:38 PM
So, if you ahve a college education, you vote for Obama. If you are a high school educated and make money, you vote for mccain. interesting. or if you high school educated and poor you vote for obama. So obama does well with well educated folks and the poor. hmm. so his message of hope works for the poor and for folks who have more education they see something in him than folks who stopped their education at high school don't. tricky. I wonder how much just not liking smart guys plays into it. Too many folks who do not have a college educated have inferiority complexes toward folks who do. There used to be a time when folks saw someone who w as very intelligent in a leader a nd liked it. now, high school e ducated folks look for someone who 'down home' someone they could 'have a beer with' as though that makes a good president. We have dumbed down as a nation. we do not value intelligence as we used to. It has not bode well for us. How do you get people to value intelligent. McCain graduated fourth from LAST in his class. Clearly, the smarter guy is Obama. Maybe for some folks, that is seen as bad thing.
Posted by: mark | Aug 28, 2008 2:00:33 AM
For decades I've had discussions with friends and family about the ideal President. Instead of voting in an "old-time" who plays the game well, how about electing an intellectual who has savvy and good judgement; who approaches his adversaries with reason as opposed to false jibes and innuendo? Haven't we all questioned the sanity of allowing an imbecile to stay in the White House for 8 years? Why not try someone brilliant? Scary thought! Probably threatening to those who aren't able to think it through.
Posted by: jsmo | Aug 28, 2008 11:11:48 AM
If most americans just voted there gut feelings.Put hate out of this equation.John mccain chances would be zero compared to obama.If Mccain was twenty years younger.obama would still outshine him.It just sad to know. people is still looking at presdential candiates.Through the lens of hate.
Posted by: Johnblackstar | Aug 28, 2008 6:23:23 PM
Post a comment
