Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters

Remember how Barack Obama was supposed to be uniquely weak among "hardworking Americans"? Well apparently that's just not the case.

According to a new poll from The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University, Obama leads by a whopping 58 percent to 28 percent margin (.pdf) among voters under the age of 65 working at least 30 hours a week for $27,000 or less per year. Obama's performance within this demographic is almost exactly the same as Kerry's in 2004; although the breakdown of subgroups in exit polling from that fall doesn't exactly line up with this survey, Kerry appears to have brought in about 59 percent of the vote of those earning $30,000 or less per year that November -- not tremendously far off from Obama's showing.

How about John McCain's numbers? How do they stack up? McCain's 28 percent showing among this demographic is significantly less than the roughly 40 percent of the vote George W. Bush received from those earning less than $30,000 per year back in 2004. Unless Bush carried the votes of those earning $27,001 to $30,000 per year by an overwhelming margin, or unless those in this income demographic over the age of 65 were tremendously Bush-leaning (and Bush only carried the overall over-65 vote with 52 percent of the vote), it would certainly appear that McCain is seriously underperforming among the lowest wage workers in the country. McCain's showing is even poorer than that of the House Republicans in 2006, when GOP candidates pulled in about 34 percent of the vote of those earning less than $30,000 per year.

This graf from the write up of the poll would garner some attention as well:

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate. [emphasis added]

These numbers sure seem to knock down the idea that Obama can't win the vote of hardworking Americans, or White low-income workers, in particular -- and in fact begin to raise questions as to whether it is McCain who is too weak among this subset of the electorate. It's little wonder, then, that the exceedingly wealthy McCain, whose family owns several homes and who has been seen campaigning in $520 loafers, a wannabe celebrity in his own right who has earned more Hollywood screen time since 2000 than "the rest of Congres combined," is now trying to play class politics and stir up the backlash against Obama in the hopes up narrowing the wide margin by which he trails among this key voting demographic.



Display:


Thanks Jonathan (2.00 / 1)

The polls bounce up and down as they always do, but the fundamentals are there.

Don't quite see how this fits into Jerome's contention that Obama is "the weakest democratic nominee this decade", but I don't expect an answer from that quarter.

Happy Birthday Barack


by duende on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:15:25 AM EST

Re: Thanks Jonathan (2.00 / 1)

It doesn't. It's about trying to push for a particular VP choice. I think there are arguments to be made for Clinton but the one's being used aren't often credible.


by bruh3 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.00 / 0)

But surely the worst way to push for a certain VP candidate is to say: "You're incredibly weak without him/her"

I've actually come round to Hillary as VP, but don't want to hijack this diary on that subject


by duende on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks Jonathan (2.00 / 2)

I agree. Obama is out-performing Kerry in every demographic group.


by msw4477 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (2.00 / 1)

Strange, off-point post.

The long-lasting problem for Dems isn't how the perform among the lowest income earners of all races but how they perform among white blue collars workers--generally defined as those with no education past high-school. (If income is used, the cut-off is usually 50,000 dollars.) This was Obama's big vulnerability against Hillary's, and last time I poll I saw that checked for this, Obama was down by high double digits against McCain--which actually isn't all that bad for a Dem, although he could be in trouble if it gets much worse.

The subset you've selected, Jonathan, is the working poor--is it really a surprise that a Democrat is doing well among the poor?

All of which is to say that this post does nothing to address the argument that Obama will underperform among white working class voters.


by david mizner on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:35:34 AM EST

If you back our black voters, (none / 0)

what are the numbers among white working poor?
That was the dog whistle of "hardworking Americans".
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST

ie, is the reference to white voters (none / 0)

white poor or overall or some other subset?


John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

White low-income workers (none / 0)


by conspiracy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0)


John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ie, is the reference to white voters (none / 0)

Obama leads by 10%


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0)


John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:35:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sidebar: New Ad - gas prices McCain tax (none / 0)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link /bcpid1185304443/bctid1709838907


by dearreader on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:25:04 AM EST

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (none / 0)

If Obama is up by 30 points amongst the working poor, and if the tracking polls showing a dead heat are to be believed, then McCain is way ahead amongst those earning more than the working poor.  Why is this, and what can Obama do to close the gap?


by oakparker1 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (none / 0)

Or maybe the tracking polls are not accurate. They use a different method than stand-alone pollsters. They don't call interviewees back, for example.


by elrod on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Ras has McCain ahead by one with leaners (2.00 / 1)

Tied without. The last week has obviously hurt Obama but if this is the best McCain can do then there is no need for panic. Hopefully there will be some snapshot polls later in the week so we can get a better picture of exactly where we are at.


by conspiracy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (none / 0)

OK so the poll measures how much Mccain is picking up among a democratic base i.e. low wage workers .

Doesn't really address the issue of the " perceived " problem Obama is supposed to have with the working class or rural voters or catholics or reagan democrats .

if you use the criteria the quinnipiac polls that recently came out in the battleground states , Mccain leads with the subset of groups that are white with no college degree and catholics ( infact he leads with all subsets of groups that are white , at least according to quinnipiac if I remember correctly ), I assume that would be the working class in their opinion. Take Michigan in the Quinnipiac Polls Mccain is leading in Maccomb County ,thats full of Reagan dems and the working class.

It is not easy to define what working class ,and this poll does little to give more insight into Obama's supposed problem ( if he has one ).

I would advice caution in over- interpreting the poll.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (none / 0)

This proves to me that Obama is the worst Democratic Presidential candidate in this decade.


by mrrara on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST

GE is much different than a primary (none / 0)

Obama's skills at running divisive primary campaigns are formidable and they worked well for him.

Unfortunately, he now has the difficult task of stitching back together the voting base that he tore apart.  Its a task requiring a different set of skills.

He needs a solid, comfortable lead among blue collar workers, a difficult task for a candidate who touts "free trade" and "open markets".  Low income voters aren't in the mood to hear about plans that could mean their jobs will be shipped overseas.  

I have no doubt Obama can make the transition to GE style party and voting-base building.  But its a new skill for him, one he's never had to utilize before.  


by Betsy McCall on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST

A Paradox (none / 0)

Democrats win the votes of the poor, yet the poor states vote Republican. Actually, this is not a paradox and has a fairly simple explanation.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM EST

Re: Obama Up 30 Points Among Low-Wage Voters (none / 0)

Obama showed his GE skills in his election for US senator.  In the primary he was pretty much the progressive reform candidate.  In the general election he became the party organization candidate.  Maybe his problem now is that at the same time, he has to fire up the progressive reform base in the field, while appealing to a more cynical and conservative public on the tv.


by oakparker1 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.