That's way too low. Kerry lost whites 59-41, and was still within 3 points nationally. I don't have the splits for white non-college vs college, but I think 2004 was the first election where white non-college voters went for the Rs while white college voters went for the Ds. Given that Obama has even more strength among white college voters, I bet he can get crushed among the white working class and still win.

But they're white people! Don't you know their votes count twice?

In NES04, self-identified working-class whites reported party ID was 44/26/26 R/D/I. I don't think Obama or any Democrat can turn a 20-point gap into a 10-point one unless party ID itself has shifted. It may have, for all I know. But the betting money says it doesn't shift so quickly.

This is a pretty big chunk of the electorate, on which modern GOP electoral success is founded. If the GOP loses 10 points of that gap, it's doomed.

I don't think it's doomed. Screwed for this cycle, yes. Doomed, no.

10-12 points would, naturally, be built on assumptions about other voters; presumably, if those assumptions were to be misplaced, the 10-12 points among working class whites would also be a problem.

More problematic, though, I think, is the sense that educated liberals seem unconcerned that the people who should find some affinity with policies and proposals meant to help them would choose the other side. If Obama, as nominee, is losing working class voters 55-45 that strikes me as a recipe for trouble... if not in this election, then down the road. I think the point is that we may not have a choice, and we'll have to accept, ultimately, what it takes to win this cycle. But much of calling this "just fine" or "no big deal" strikes me as incredibly short-sighted. There's a problem, it seems to me, when the party that says its concerned about the needs of working people can't appeal to a majority of them. Call me crazzy. And that we can win elections without them says to me that we'll wind up, eventually, with a party whose priorities are more aimed at the people who do side with us... and not those who don't.

Kids, please read: the Democratic party when last measured by the gold standard among these things, the NES, was losing the white working-class by 18 points.

If in 2008 Obama is losing white working-class voters by a mere 10 points, that is a recipe for an Obama blowout.

Full stop.

More problematic, though, I think, is the sense that educated liberals seem unconcerned that the people who should find some affinity with policies and proposals meant to help them would choose the other side.

This same mindset causes Republicans to wonder why African Americans who have socially conservative views about abortion and homosexuality, nevertheless vote strongly for Democrats: that segment of the electorate simply has different priorities. Likewise, many members of the white male working class have different priorities than workaday economic issues like health insurance, education, and social security.

I think the Republicans very keenly observed that many social issues could be leveraged to their advantage into political for certain segments of the electorate, and it worked. Unless you have anything specific in mind, I don't really see how the Democrats can "magically" get these voters back who find the Republican message compelling enough to override their economic interests that lie with the Democrats.

weboy: "If Obama, as nominee, is losing working class voters 55-45 that strikes me as a recipe for trouble... if not in this election, then down the road."

I don't have the stats at hand, but I've read enough Krugman to know that if you look at income, those lower on the ladder tend to vote Democratic. So don't worry about people not recognizing who best represents their interests.

I think it's only when you head south and look at whites that Dems tends to fare poorly.

There's a problem, it seems to me, when the party that says its concerned about the needs of working people can't appeal to a majority of them.

Weboy, you just conflated "working class" with "white working class." Why would you do that? I've seen no analysis that suggests Obama can afford to, or is likely to, lose a majority of the sum total of all working class votes.

As for the rest of your worries, I think it's a bit much. First of all, you suggest that closing but not eradicating the "white working class" vote is a bad sign down the road. Two responses: 1) Whites will continue to make a up a smaller fraction of the population as a whole as well as the working class into the future, so the impact of failing to win this demographic will continue to shrink in electoral significance, and 2) If he picks up votes compared to Kerry with this demo I think that's a great sign of progess. The cultural conservatism and R voting tendencies of Whites is the result of a bunch of complex causes with deep roots. I think Obama's a pretty impressive candidate in a lot of ways (indeed, I'm quite certain I think more of him than you do) but it's highly unrealistic to imagine he can undo all that in one election cycle, even a favorable one.

Again, Al gore lost white people by 30 points and won the popular vote.

Some people really are delusional about this. We are far better off trying to maximize our support in the Latino and black communities than we could ever be by trying get 45% of the white vote (losing by 10%). Thats not going to happen, and it's not remotely necessary. If we get John Kerry's level of support (lost by 20%) and win 70% of Latinos, thats a win and it's a far safer bet.

I'm assuming the presumption is a similar turnout from 00 & 04?

The GOP is going to have trouble firing up the troops.

Again, trollite is lying.

Gore lost whites 42-54%.
That would be 12 points.

trollite gets a little thrill every time he puts up the bogus numbers so he does it frequently.

One of the great things about this primary is that whites are enjoying some attention where they were largely ignored as an identity previously.