Could the Dems win the white-working-class vote by getting more aggressively progressive?

That is the thesis of this article. It seems to go against the conventional wisdom, but:

The author then proceeds to tick off how little the Dems have done lately on each of those issues the WWC cares about.

Well, let’s assume a way can be found around the above obstacles – if the Dems actually started dishing out some progressive red meat for the WWC, would that win their votes?

I don’t know… based on my experience, a lot of white working-class people probably self-identify as middle class, and have a perception that the Democratic party wants to redistribute their wealth to the poor (which means blacks and Mexicans to them), and they want no part of that, even if in reality, they would probably benefit from a lot of the same policies.

IMO, if the Democratic party wants to win the hearts and minds of white working class people, they need to concentrate on positioning themselves as the party for the white working class people as the largest single group in the US, and quit emphasizing the support for minorities and fringe groups. They also need to emphasize that they’re for the white working class group as opposed to the Republicans, who are for the upper middle and upper classes.

That’s how I’d try and spin it anyway, even if I didn’t actually lessen the material support for anyone.

I’m not sure this would win them move votes and it would cost them. And how are you proposing they do this? Phrased this way it sounds like it would get very racist.

Perhaps, but, whenever they vote their pocketbooks, they will do so based on working-class realities.

You misunderstand. The article is about nothing to do with spin. When I spoke of “progressive red meat” I meant policies, not messaging.

I agree with this assessment. A typical WWC is highly HIGHLY attuned to the poor nipping at their heels. This is one reason the GOP has been effective in courting these voters - they have provided the racial wedge that separates and (in their minds) builds a wall between them and the poor. Of course, in the process, the GOP is willing to throw the poor/blacks/hispanics under the bus.

If the Democratic party can find a way to fill that base need with these voters, then they would have a chance. But it would really take a genius to come up with a message that satisfies the WWC need for a wedge, as well as not alienating the poor/blacks/hispanics. The WWC really doesn’t want to hear “we are all in this together”, to them that just sounds like you want their daughter to marry “one of them”.

It’s not about what they want to hear, it’s about what they want to have. From the same article:

There’s your ready-made spin right there: “We’re not offering programs aimed at helping the poor, but the working class.” (“White” being implied between the lines, just as “black” is ineluctably implied between the lines when they speak of “the poor.”)

As you can probably tell by my other thread, I’ve been reading a lot about European politics lately. And the lesson that seems to come from there is that there are a lot of votes to be won by an anti-immigrant, economically leftist party. Since there already exists a leftist party that is pro-immigrant in every European country, and yet they are still bleeding white support, it looks like democrats are going to have to choose what their coalition is going to be.

I’d also note that the more economically progressive you get, the more you lose the middle class. They are the ones that have to pay for all these ambitious ideas.

No, that would be the ruling class. The working class does indeed have to pay (too) for all those ambitious ideas, but also benefits from all those ambitious ideas, which the ruling class does not.

That cost/benefit analysis has to be made by the individual taxpayer, and the way US politics is right now, raising taxes on even the upper middle class is political suicide. You can’t fund the government right now, much less pile on more benefits, without taxing the middle class more. Which will result in massive losses for the Democrats. Which is why they don’t do it.

I think the better question to ask in this thread is could the Democrats win white working class voters by persuading them that a more economically progressive agenda is better for them? Because you’re putting the cart before the horse. Campaign on that agenda and they’ll lose, badly. It would be like conservatives trying to campaign on a Tea Party platform in 1964.

No. Several times in the last couple of years Democrats have tried to raise taxes on people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and Republicans have rejected the concept time and time again. That’s not the upper middle class, and it’s not political suicide, it’s politically impossible.

I’m not sure hundreds of thousands, as in $200,000 or more, is upper middle class. Nor can you get very much revenue from that group. Not enough to fund the government’s current obligations anyway. And BrainGlutton is talking about doing MORE. That’s going to take middle class tax increases. No way around it. And that can’t be done without persuading the middle class to support such an agenda. You can’t campaign on something you haven’t laid the groundwork for yet, at least not successfully.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

OK, I’ll admit this was unfair. I knew as soon as I said this that you were going to quote the Republican talking point and all I’d have to do is quote the facts to show that it’s ridiculous. Median annual household income in the U.S. is around $53,000. $200,000 a year puts your household in the 95th percentile. In fact calling that upper middle class is kind of crazy. If the middle class extends above the 95th percentile the term means nothing at all.

What is your basis for saying this? I think it’s possible that those kinds of revenue increases and other spending cuts could go the job. And of course that other big contributor to the deficit, the Great Recession, is fading from view.

If the Democrats want to be more progressive, the smart direction to go would be to push for a true universal health care system. Health care costs are a pocketbook issue that working class and middle class voters care about.

yet they exist. There is nothing inherently contradictory between economic progressivism and being anti-immigration. Immigration and trade are basically the same issues, and economic progressives have never seen a problem in the US with being anti-trade.

According to the CBO, rescinding the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000 would have generated $950 billion in revenue over 10 years, or $95 billion per year. Even after the recession has faded away, that’s less than a fifth of the deficit we have right now.

Even if I grant that with full employment plus eliminating the remaining tax cuts for those making over $250,000, you’re still not getting extra money to do even more. You’re basically stuck just defending the status quo.

I can think of nothing more awesome than for Democrats to campaign to repeal and replace ACA.

In that case, it would be “improve”. The Republican version is, and would continue to be, simply “repeal”; “replace” is a massive lie and has always been one.

But you know that, don’t you?

Me neither, depending on what replaces it.