Comments on: The Bitter Truth

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:34:48 +0000

I used the GSS to respond to a neocon commenter at Sailer’s on race and attitudes toward gun control here. Of course, that commenter at Sailer's seems to be trying to contribute as much as possible to making the word "neocon" meaningless. Larry Bartels had more on this in the Times today. The problem with the thesis is that it's nearly backwards. The relationship between social beliefs and voting is much stronger among the rich and the urban than among the rural and the poor. Church attendance, beliefs on abortion, etc. all have much more predictive power the wealthier and more urban you go, not the reverse.

By: berger

berger — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:01:25 +0000

In wonder what was going on around 2000 that made that number spike up…hmmm…….

By: TGGP

TGGP — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:17:01 +0000

Reihan Salaam has a pretty good diavlog with Mark Schmitt on the issue. Unfortunately, though they reference Stephen Rose's "The Trouble With Class-Interest Populism" they don't hand out the link. I used the GSS to respond to a neocon commenter at Sailer's on race and attitudes toward gun control here.

By: Jacob T. Levy

Jacob T. Levy — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:50:33 +0000

The word “white” is conspicuously missing. If all rural poor broke 50% GOP in 1980 and flirted with 50% in 1984 and 2000 (and probably 2004), then white rural poor has almost certainly broken 50% GOP every time the GOP has won the White House 1972-2004. That makes them the relevant swing voters that people are running around assuming they are.

Without knowing how the class variables are defined, I’m also suspicious about the omitted middle class. They might be fluctuating around 50%, and really be part of the relevant pool– depending on how the class boundaries are defined. If rural poor just means “rural below the poverty line,” then that doesn’t exhaust the category of people Obama’s talking about as potentially bitter.

By: McL

McL — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:14:52 +0000

I’m not so sure that the (awfully worded) statement was directed at “the poor”, per se. he was referring to the marginalized, and not all of those are “poor”. Just those facing stagnant or negative growth in dead end industries.

also, the size of the group nearly doubled in 5 years which is at the point where this data stops. Now. I don’t think I’d be going out on a limb here in saying that an upward trend most likely continued for at least another 4-5 years (and it probably hasn’t dipped too much since its peak).

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:41:01 +0000

Well, “steady” seems like a bit of an overstatement (how about a bit more resolution with midterms?). And Obama wasn’t necessarily claiming that the rural poor wouldn’t vote Democratic (after all, “anti-trade sentiment” runs rampant in the Democratic party). And I’m not sure “poor” was as operative as “rural poor” in the “Bittergate” comment. I don’t think he was comparing the rural poor to the rural rich as much as the rural poor to the urban poor (or one of his most supportive groups, the urban rich!). Lastly, he was talking about those who have had looooong unemployment spells, which isn’t just the rural poor. It’s an interesting and informative figure, but as far as claiming that it proves Obama not only made a major political error, but also a major factual one, that might be a little presumptuous.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:36:13 +0000

Indeed, there’s a fair case to be made for the opposite argument as to the “bitter” one:
Rural voters do tend to be socially conservative, rich and poor alike, but only feel free to vote according to social issues rather their pocketbook when they’re doing well, as opposed to when they’re doing poorly. It applies to non-rural voters as well.