Has Clinton written off white working class men?
Clearly the author thinks so. I disagree.

While Clinton struggles with that demographic, "Writing off" suggests that she has given up.
I think otherwise. Did not Clinton pass over Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker for VP, to pick a rather moderate white Catholic man as her running mate?
The convention featured a rousing, prime time speech by "Middle Class Joe" Biden.
There was tough talk about terrorism, There were  retired generals, patriotic displays, etc.
By the author's own admission Clinton spoke about the working class in her speech.
Did not the convention advocate for an increased minimum wage?

The author also notes that Clinton, with Kaine and Biden in tow, is launching a vigorous campaign in PA and OH, the rust belt swing states that she may be struggling in.
Also as noted by the author, Bill plans to campaign in white rural communities in the fall.
Clinton may lose badly among white working class men. But, not because she wrote them off.

So, what is the author's beef with the DNC and white, working class men?
Well, it was a  star-studded celebration of diversity, inclusion and social justice.
He notes the multi-gender bathrooms to the initial speaker lineup Monday of Ivy League graduates to comedian Sarah Silverman referencing her therapist at the podium.

And then the author concludes, to white working class men, the message was clear: We've pretty much given up on you. 

Wait a minute. If some voters drift away from the democratic party because it celebrates diversity, human rights for gay people, or welcomes (Gasp) Ivy League graduates, I have to ask a question. Has the democratic party really given up on them, or is the real problem that these voters don't particularly like people who look,  think, or have backgrounds that are different from theirs? 

The author takes particular offense to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comment "I think so many times white, non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interest because of guns, because of gays, and because of God." 
The author may not like the quip, but does not Pelosi have a point? One of the great divides in American politics is over guns. Gay rights are another flash point. And haven't we seen a host of states hastily put together "religious freedom" laws in order restrict the rights of same sex couples. Sounds alot like Guns God, and gays to me.

I think that the democratic party's woes with working class whites may persist. I just don't agree with the author's premise that it is the party writing them off. It may be the other way around. If the top concerns of white middle class men continue to drift away from issues like wages, and healthcare, and towards completely unlimited gun rights, walls, the limitation of rights of immigrants, and gays, and hostility towards educated "elites",,,,,,,,, well then the Democratic party just isn't going to have much appeal to them. So, the old question remains. Did the party leave them, or did they leave the party?
 

Last edited by Goose (7/30/2016 7:52 am)