Two-thirds of West Virginians approve of the job performance of Gov. Joe Manchin. In ordinary circumstances, that would be enough to get him any promotion he wants. Not in 2010.
Manchin trails Republican businessman John Raese in a key Senate race. As soon as he stepped off the state stage into a federal race, he became associated with Obama liberalism, a deadly virus against which personal popularity — and even moderation — provides only limited immunity. If he loses, he’ll be a victim of the revenge of the Hillary voters.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton had persistent appeal among working-class whites, loosely defined as whites without a college education. As Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute notes, 94 percent of West Virginians are white, and only 17 percent of them have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the 2008 primary, Clinton beat Barack Obama in West Virginia by 67 percent to 26 percent. Today, Obama’s approval rating in the state is ... 29 percent.
Democrats have undertaken an experiment in whether you can be the self-styled party of working people if you don’t have much appeal to a swath of working people.
In Obama’s case, the answer is “yes,” at least it was in 2008. He lost the roughly 40 percent of the electorate that is working-class whites to John McCain by 18 points, but made up the deficit among other groups. In that context, the preference of working-class whites for Republicans over Democrats on the generic ballot by 22 points this year isn’t alarming.
Obama, running nationally, conceivably can overcome that kind of gap. But an untold number of Democrats running in areas where working-class whites predominate can’t, as a matter of sheer arithmetic. Many of these Democratic “majority makers” will be the sacrificial lambs of Obama liberalism.
According to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating is still above 50 percent among blacks, Hispanics, voters between ages 18-29, moderates, postgraduates, singles and Easterners. He’s below 50 percent among everyone else, and in the 30s among whites, voters 65 or older and married people — exactly the voters who disproportionately turn out in midterm elections.
Liberals want to chalk this up to race. But in January 2009, when President Obama was as African-American as he is today, his approval rating was 63 percent among whites.
It’s long been an occupational hazard of liberalism to get crosswise with working-class whites. Obama is particularly vulnerable because he combines the affect of Adlai Stevenson with the economic performance of Jimmy Carter. He came into office with working-class voters suspicious that he didn’t understand their concerns and proceeded with an agenda — health care, cap-and-trade and all the rest of it — that didn’t address their concerns, or work.
Obama famously boasted to a retiring conservative Democratic congressman that this year would be different from 1994, because Democrats had him at the top. Ask Joe Manchin, among many others, how that’s working out.
Lowry is editor of the National Review.
Manchin trails Republican businessman John Raese in a key Senate race. As soon as he stepped off the state stage into a federal race, he became associated with Obama liberalism, a deadly virus against which personal popularity — and even moderation — provides only limited immunity. If he loses, he’ll be a victim of the revenge of the Hillary voters.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton had persistent appeal among working-class whites, loosely defined as whites without a college education. As Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute notes, 94 percent of West Virginians are white, and only 17 percent of them have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the 2008 primary, Clinton beat Barack Obama in West Virginia by 67 percent to 26 percent. Today, Obama’s approval rating in the state is ... 29 percent.
Democrats have undertaken an experiment in whether you can be the self-styled party of working people if you don’t have much appeal to a swath of working people.
In Obama’s case, the answer is “yes,” at least it was in 2008. He lost the roughly 40 percent of the electorate that is working-class whites to John McCain by 18 points, but made up the deficit among other groups. In that context, the preference of working-class whites for Republicans over Democrats on the generic ballot by 22 points this year isn’t alarming.
Obama, running nationally, conceivably can overcome that kind of gap. But an untold number of Democrats running in areas where working-class whites predominate can’t, as a matter of sheer arithmetic. Many of these Democratic “majority makers” will be the sacrificial lambs of Obama liberalism.
According to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating is still above 50 percent among blacks, Hispanics, voters between ages 18-29, moderates, postgraduates, singles and Easterners. He’s below 50 percent among everyone else, and in the 30s among whites, voters 65 or older and married people — exactly the voters who disproportionately turn out in midterm elections.
Liberals want to chalk this up to race. But in January 2009, when President Obama was as African-American as he is today, his approval rating was 63 percent among whites.
It’s long been an occupational hazard of liberalism to get crosswise with working-class whites. Obama is particularly vulnerable because he combines the affect of Adlai Stevenson with the economic performance of Jimmy Carter. He came into office with working-class voters suspicious that he didn’t understand their concerns and proceeded with an agenda — health care, cap-and-trade and all the rest of it — that didn’t address their concerns, or work.
Obama famously boasted to a retiring conservative Democratic congressman that this year would be different from 1994, because Democrats had him at the top. Ask Joe Manchin, among many others, how that’s working out.
Lowry is editor of the National Review.