Message of Misery

[multi]

$23,700. That is the household income level at which a white person became more likely to vote for a Republican over a Democrat in congressional races in 2004. That's $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four, less than half the median income of the typical voting household of all races, and an emphatic repudiation of all things Democratic among the white middle class. Obtaining a sustainable Democratic majority in either house will be impossible unless there is a significant change in this economic tipping point.

To solve this problem, Democrats must first realize that they have a problem - no, actually a crisis - with the middle class. Democrats - the self-described party of the middle class - have not won the middle class vote in at least a decade. Among all voters with $30,000 to $75,000 in household income, Bush bested Kerry by six-points and congressional Republicans won by four-points. Democrats continued to win nine of ten black voters of all income levels, but Hispanic margins have decreased as their economic situation has improved. And as noted above, we got slaughtered among the white middle class.1

The second step is to admit that our deficit is as much due to economic disconnects as cultural and national security disconnects. That may be harder for Democrats to swallow. Many believe the middle class have been duped by a what's-the-matter-with-Kansas scheme in which clever conservatives trick the beleaguered middle class to vote against their own economic interests through the use of irresistible cultural wedge issues and national security concerns.

Of course national security and culture matter, but in 2000, when national security was a b-list issue, both Gore and congressional Democrats lost the middle class. In 1996, before the culture wars were fully ignited, Clinton also lost the middle class to the combination of Dole and Perot, as did congressional Democrats.

At Third Way, we not only believe the what's-the-matter-with-Kansas analysis is wrong, but that it represents a dangerous red herring for Democrats. In a report we co-authored called The Politics of Opportunity, we isolated five areas of disconnect between how Democrats talk about the middle class and view the economy and how the middle class view their own economic situation and that of America.

Disconnect one is optimism versus pessimism. Whether it's the "people versus the powerful" Al Gore's convention speech or John Kerry's "Benedict Arnold companies" where American workers see their factories "unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles away," the Democratic economic message is pervasively pessimistic. Democrats see the American Dream fading, the middle class being squeezed, jobs disappearing, schools crumbling, and wages stagnating.

That is not the way middle-class Americans view their own lives. Days after 9/11, 80% of Americans expressed optimism about the year ahead.2 Two months after gas hit $3 per gallon, 73% said they were optimistic about their family's finances.3 In 2004, 78% said they were doing "fairly well" financially.4 And only 22% believe they will not "earn enough money in the future to lead the kind of life [they] want."5

Voters may feel that the economy is heading in the wrong direction at a particular point in time, but they consistently view their own outlook as better (think of voters who hate Congress, but like their own representative). And they are turned off by a message of gloom and doom.

More..?

[Mazer]

So, in a nutshell, the Republican plan to win Congress is to make rich men richer while the Democratic plan is to make poor men poorer. Is this just me, or is anyone else reading it this way, too?

Folks, if bashing rich people, the oil industry, and the drug companies were an effective political strategy, jets would be landing at Michael Dukakis National Airport in Washington.

Good find, multi. This is the most honest critique of Democrats I've ever seen. Of course if the Democratic party actually took its advice I might be worried, but there's no chance of that happening.

Edit: what do the numbers on that map mean, multi?

[multi]

Edit: what do the numbers on that map mean, multi?

Sorry mate, it's a map showing how far median incomes have dropped over the past six years.

The article seemed to say alot of things that need to said , the US isn't the only place that bottom of the economic spectrum is getting a raw deal.

[Mazer]

Maybe it's time to move to Wyoming.

Now, if the authors of the article could come up with real plans to solve the problems they've identified, not just strategies to get their favorite candidates elected, then the wedge issues wouldn't matter so much and the political divisions in this country might relax a bit.