He's usually smarter than this

Said Ezra Klein today:  "Look at Iowa or Indiana or South Carolina or Arkansas. In some, Obama won slightly more low-income voters than high-income voters, and in some, it was reversed, but the margins were always close. There's just not much evidence -- at least that I know of -- that Obama built his candidacy on the back of affluent voters. That's why, unlike Hart or Bradley, he won."

In actuality, with the exception of African-American voters, then candidate Obama did not win the working class in any primary.  Klein's own examples don't support his case.  Iowa was a caucus.  Hillary won the working class in Indiana and Arkansas, and South Carolina's primary was mostly influenced by a heavy African-American vote.  In actual primaries in the heartland of the working class--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas--Clinton swamped him.

The Democratic Party has a "traditionalist" wing, and an "activist" wing.  The "activist" wing, made up mostly of so-called "wine track" voters, is usually capable of pulling about 25% of the vote in the nominating process.  Think Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, or Bill Bradley.

Yes, candidate Obama did considerably better than that.  He expanded beyond the "wine track" because he was able to pull in 90% of African-American voters, who, under normal circumstances, would be in the "traditionalist" wing.  If you move African-American voters from the "traditionalist" to the "activist" camp, the "activist" camp suddenly becomes viable.

Comments

[Hypatia]

It's Obamamania. Damages the synapses. I don't have to point out how Obama's weakness with traditional Democrats has hurt him in the health care fight.

[John Petty]

Yep. The anti-democratic wing of the Democratic Party looks at the working class and they think, "Shrinking market." The democratic wing looks at them and sees the Democratic Party.