GROWING INFLUENCE: HOW RACE AFFECTED THE 2012 ELECTIONS
How does the total number of votes break down by race in 2012?
White 72 per cent of voters
African American 13 per cent
Hispanic 10 per cent
Asian 3 per cent
How does this compare to 2008?
White 74 per cent
African American 13 per cent
Hispanic 9 per cent
Asian 2 per cent
And in 2004?
White 77 per cent
African American 11 per cent
Hispanic 8 per cent
Asian 2 per cent
How did people vote in 2012?
White 39 per cent for Obama, 59 per cent for Romney
African American 93 per cent Obama, 6 per cent Romney
Hispanic 71 per cent Obama, 27 per cent Romney
Asian 73 per cent Obama, 26 per cent Romney
Compared to 2008?
White 43 per cent Obama, 55 per cent McCain
African American 95 per cent Obama, 4 per cent McCain
Hispanic 67 per cent Obama, 31 per cent McCain
Hopes: Barack Obama says he relies on Latino opposition to Mitt Romney in order to get re-elected
11/7/2012 12:01 AM EST
By the way, as non Hispanic Whites decrease as a share of the electorate, we also decrease as a share of the TAXPAYERS, or those who should be paying taxes. Obama can play up his supposed support for the middle class all he wants, but Black unemployment is up and Hispanics still have the lowest average incomes and the most children living in poverty. Who does he think is going to pay the taxes to support them?
11/7/2012 10:29 PM ES
If demographics determine political destiny, do demographics also determine economic destiny?
Is America destined to become poor because of demographics?
I didn’t use to think so, and not sure I think so now, but Mr. Sargent’s emphasis on linking demographics to destiny raises the question.
11/7/2012 10:53 PM EST
If demographics determined economic destiny, then how is it that Hispanics, who are majorities in their own countries, can’t seem to make those governments and those economies work? That rather supports your point, doesn’t it?
Obama’s problem with white working-class Americans
In 2008, he won vital votes among poor whites, but their support is slipping: that demographic is not for this Democratic president
The truth is that, no matter which way you slice the data, Obama is doing worse with the white working class than he does with other demographic groups.
No matter the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, the country will be more polarized than ever. Republican ideologues hate President Obama while Democrats have no capacity for trenchant leadership.
Consider these myriad self-inflicted problems that confront the American people on a daily basis: high gas prices, lack of jobs – economic opportunity, Mexicans, Somalis, the high cost of health care… Then consider the quality of the candidates who are running for president on the Republican side and The One now in the Oval Office. Haven’t you ever wondered why so many LOSERS (Reid/McConnell) are successful politicians?
“Congress has taken a “stupid pill,” declared the junior senator from Oklahoma, that is blinding it from seeing that the country is teetering on the edge of financial ruin.”
Reason why nothing truly changes for the people.
In Indiana’s 9th District, lawmakers change and only the anger endures
In the past decade, as mounting voter disaffection created an angry cycle of “wave elections” in American politics, nobody rode the waves harder than the people of the district south of Indianapolis.
Among 435 congressional districts, this is the only one that has flipped three times since 2000. That makes it the epicenter of a national indecision that has helped wipe out Washington’s centrists and filled the Capitol with fractious partisans and frustrating gridlock.
Any average citizen living in Wisconsin or Georgia who believes meaningful change will result from an election, the next election, any election, should remember candidate Obama’s mantra of “ hope and change.”
Republicans think it’s 1980 – President Obama is Jimmy Carter. Except there is no ex-governator/actor running for the White House, not even a salesman/motivational speaker/CEO.
“Talk to any Republican leaders or strategists and they will quickly point to the enthusiasm gap between their voters and President Obama’s as one reason they believe they will prevail next November. Listen to any Republican voters and a different enthusiasm gap appears. They are not truly excited about any of their likeliest nominees, least of all Mitt Romney.”
History has established that Barack Obama is not a leader. He either lacks the skill or the willingness to cultivate relationships in order to promote his agenda. He can inspire voters to support him but not the politically powerful. Acting like a politician, re-election, he is reacting to the Republican policy announced by Mitch McConnell:
McConnell’s “Single Most Important” goal: Defeat Obama
President Obama expects to be re-elected without meaningful support from the the white working class, the backbone of your country.
November 27, 2011, 11:34 PM
The Future of the Obama Coalition
By THOMAS B. EDSALL
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.
In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.
Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.
Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.
The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:
Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?
For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”
In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”
In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”
Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.
Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.
In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.
The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.
There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”
As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.
A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.
The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.
While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.
The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.
One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during the current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.
New direction: President Obama visited a heavily Hispanic part of Denver on a recent visit to Colorado to pitch his jobs bill
Obama to Vie for Arizona as Latino Numbers Rise
The Obama campaign, which is counting on Hispanic voters to help carry friendlier territory like Colorado and Nevada, has opened offices in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff in a play for Arizona, and it has helped recruit a Hispanic candidate for Senate. Activists are already mobilizing to generate turnout by emphasizing the president’s efforts on behalf of Hispanics, in contrast to the antiimmigration efforts of state Republicans.
“I tell them about the Dream Act,” said Miriam Gonzalez, 23, who has been registering voters at Latino supermarkets like Ranch Market and Food City, referring to the White House-backed legislation that would provide young Hispanic students a path to citizenship but has been stalled by Republican opposition in Congress. “I keep talking, and then people register.”
The voting-age population of Hispanics in Arizona has surged over the last nine years to 845,000 from 455,000 and now constitutes 19 percent of Arizona residents of voting age. Though Hispanics have not turned out at high levels in past years, Democratic activists and Obama campaign officials believe that this year could be different, especially after Hispanic voters flexed their expanding muscle in recent local elections, including one this month that recalled a Republican state senator, Russell Pearce, the architect of the state’s tough immigration law.
Thousands of Hispanic residents who had never voted also flooded the polls to help Daniel Valenzuela, a Hispanic firefighter, beat Brenda Sperduti, a white businesswoman, to become the first Hispanic to represent an overwhelmingly Latino district on the Phoenix City Council.
In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president, the United States had one of the highest turnouts ever of black and Latino voters. Undoubtedly, this made a difference in the election: Obama won by a slim margin in many states that had traditionally voted Republicans. The high turnout of blacks and Latinos made the difference in crucial swing states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado and New Mexico. And southern states, which have a high percentage of blacks, are traditionally carried by the Republican party – but if enough blacks and Latinos vote, that isn’t the case.
“It is simply amazing that in a country of 313 million people, many of them literate, the political opposition consists of ignoramuses [Perry], dimwits [Bachmann], contrarians [Paul], Christian jihadists [Santorum] and, now, two men so thoroughly hollow that a moral principle would make a rattling sound inside them. I am talking of course of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.”
On the other side of the aisle, no Republican running for their party’s nomination inspires independent confidence. Calvin Harding meets Jimmy Carter
Would you buy a used car from Willard “Mitt” Romney?
Bachmann the Evangelist?
Would you buy a doughnut farm from Rick?
Would you sign a contract with this man?
The Right Word: if not Mitt, Newt?
The conservative talk hosts despair over the Republican party settling on a credible candidate to beat arch-enemy Obama
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011 11.46 EST
After yet another inconclusive Republican primary debate, conservatives are starting to despair of ever finding a future president who will satisfy family values-oriented Republicans, as the popularity of one candidate who has been accused of sexual harassment by four women is overtaken by another who has been married to three.’
Bill O’Reilly discussed a new Quinnipiac poll, which confirmed that since the allegations of sexual harassment came to light, Herman Cain‘s position of frontrunner is now occupied by the thrice-married Newt Gingrich, who is enjoying a lead of 26% to 22% over the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, whom nobody seems to want to nominate (view clip). O’Reilly is beginning to think that the time has come for conservative voters, particularly the family values set, to overcome their fickleness and just pick the candidate they think can get the job done (that is, the one who can beat President Obama). He discussed the state of affairs with Republican strategist Dick Morris.
Now, in the beginning of this whole debate cycle and everything like that, it was fluid, all right. So, then, you had a Rick Perry come in, he rocketed to the top; then you had Cain, he took Perry’s place and now he’s going down. And then, you have Newt Gingrich. When are things going to start to stabilise, so we know who the real contenders are!?
Morris asserted that things should settle down after the Iowa caucuses and at least, at that point, we should know who the no-hopers are. He explained that the problem with the current pair of frontrunners, Romney and Gingrich, is that for different reasons, neither candidate can win over the evangelical Tea Party family values crowd, who make up about 30-40 % of GOP voters. Romney is burdened with being a Mormon and because he is OK with the idea, or at least was, at one point, of poor people having access to healthcare; and Gingrich is in trouble for having suggested a “humane” approach to immigration and for having at least once publicly acknowledged that global warming may exist. There is also the delicate matter of his having received payments of between $1.6m and $1.8m for his services “as a historian” to the troubled mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the oversized tab at Tiffany’s and his variety of ex-wives, one of whom he divorced while she was sick with cancer.
O’Reilly told Morris, however, that other than all of the above, “you’d think that Newt Gingrich would appeal, though, to very conservative people.” Morris agreed, saying that Gingrich was as conservative as they come and that, when push comes to shove and voters are faced with having to endure another run of Obama or take on a Gingrich, they’ll go for Gingrich. He even thought that ultimately, with a bit of careful manoeuvring, Gingrich could turn the million-dollar payment from Fannie and Freddie into a positive, if he can convince voters that the memo he wrote for them actually predicted that the housing bubble was about to burst. If he can work that storyline, Morris is convinced he will be president.
Rush Limbaugh is still struggling to cope with the downfall of his conservative hero Herman Cain, who, if elected, would have guaranteed the multimillionaire radio host an enormous personal windfall by reducing his tax bill to an unprecedented low of 9% (listen to clip). Not only that, but now Limbaugh expects that the latest GOP frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, will also be subjected to the same kind of “media anal probe” that Cain had to endure and that, ultimately, all Republicans have to endure, while Democrats like President Obama get a free pass.
Every second- and third-tier Republican candidate gets an anal exam, a media anal exam. We know about their marriages. We know about their friends. We know about their enemies. We learn about their barmaids and their floozies. We know everything about their kids. We know about their grades. You name it: we’re told everything that we want to know or don’t want to know and more about every Republican. And as a Republican matriculates in the top of the heap, the anal probe gets even deeper.
But yet, we know nothing. We’re coming up on three years of the Obama regime and we know nothing about Obama beyond what has had to be pulled from the tightest of closed circles. We don’t know what his grades were in college and law school, and we’re told not to worry about it, that he’s smart, he’s intelligent, he’s smarter than all the rest of us anyway, so it doesn’t matter what his grades are.
Limbaugh now fears that Newt Gingrich is next in line for an anal examination by the media and that by the time they have finished with him, his poll numbers will be in the minus figures. He wouldn’t mind the scrutiny – if President Obama was only subjected to the same kind of torment. One might think, however, that were there “barmaids and floozies” lurking in President Obama’s closet, they would surely have been outed by now, and it may simply be that the image he presents – of being a happily married man who is loyal and in love with his one and only wife – might just be real.
Limbaugh seems to think otherwise, however, and that if Obama wasn’t given a free ride by the media, the truth would be revealed.
We don’t know who his girlfriends were. We don’t have people from his past popping up and telling everybody how inspiring Obama was, what a difference he made in their lives. I mean, he taught law. Well, he taught “Alinsky Law” at the University of Chicago. As far as we know, nobody knew the guy at any stage of his life. And, in fact, what we do know – that he was introduced to politics in the living room of Bill Ayers’ house – is downplayed: that was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know actually very little about his father and mother. We know that he has a brother who, to this day, still lives in a six-by-nine-foot hut in Kenya, even after three years of Obama’s presidency. But we know this because of our own efforts. There has not been any vetting. There is not and there won’t be any vetting.
Limbaugh can take comfort, however, in the knowledge that no matter how solid and genuine President Obama’s commitment to his wife and children may be, hell will freeze over before he ever gets the support of voters whose top priority is family values.
Michael Savage is close to breaking point about the upcoming presidential election that is only one year away (listen to clip). At this point in time, there is no Republican candidate who passes muster with his very particular brand of conservatism, and he is starting to wonder why they current crop of no hope losers in the Republican line-up would bother subjecting themselves and the rest of us to another senseless debate hosted by a “slimeball” like Wolf Blitzer.
Obama has destroyed the world, he’s wrecked the Middle East, he’s wrecked the United States, he’s wrecking Europe and you’re telling me that the Republicans can’t marshall a single voice to elucidate a single message that tells the world that the reason the world is in turmoil is because of an incompetent community organiser, leftwing-fanatic Marxist and his band of lunatics ruining the world!
No! Impossible to believe. Not one of the stooges on the stage tonight will say that.
Savage believes the solution lies in a third party, somewhere to the right of the Tea Party. He wishes that, as in Europe, people who are running for office would actually admit to be what they are. The Europeans are sophisticated, he says, they know that if they are voting for the Communist party, they are going to get a Communist government. Unlike here in America, where you have a president who claims to be a centrist in search of common ground, when, in truth, he is a diehard Communist one and his only goal is to make the super-rich pay higher taxes.
Heartbreak Awaits Republicans Who Love Gingrich: Ramesh Ponnuru
ByRamesh Ponnuru Dec 5, 2011 7:00 PM ET
Before Republicans put Newt Gingrich at the top of their party, they should consider what happened the last time he led it.
In the mid-1990s, Gingrich was the de facto head of the Republican Party. He helped lead it to victory in the congressional elections of 1994, which brought about real accomplishments such as welfare reform. But once he attained power, both his popularity and that of his party started to plummet. In the aftermath of his leadership, a Republican was able to take the presidency only by pointedly distancing himself from Gingrich.
Conservatives who dislike George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism have Gingrich to thank for it. After Gingrich lost the budget battles with President Bill Clinton, it took 15 years for any politician to take up the cause of limited-government conservatism that he had discredited.
Although Gingrich isn’t solely responsible for the Republican policy defeats of those years, his erratic behavior, lack of discipline and self-absorption had a lot to do with them. He explained that one reason the federal government shut down in 1995 was that he was angry that Clinton had snubbed him during an international flight. The Clinton White House then released pictures of the two men gabbing on the plane. Later negotiations didn’t go well, with Gingrich saying, “I melt when I’m around him.”
Erratic, Undisciplined, Grandiose
Gingrich’s fans say that he isn’t the same man he was then; he has “matured” in his 60s. Maybe so. But he’s still erratic: This year he flip-flopped three times on the top issue of the day, the House Republican plan to reform Medicare. He’s still undisciplined: He went on a vacation cruise at the start of his campaign. He still has the same old grandiosity: In recent weeks he has compared himself to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and said confidently that the nomination was his.
He still has the same need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory. Plenty of politicians competing in Iowa come out for ethanol subsidies; only Gingrich would proclaim that in doing so he was standing up to city slickers in a culture war invented in his own mind. He still has a casual relationship with the truth. In recent weeks he has said that Freddie Mac (FMCC) paid him to condemn its business model, only for reporters and bloggers to find out that he had in fact shilled for the organization in return for about $1.6 million.
He still has the same penchant for sharing whatever revelation has just struck him, as with his recent musings about getting rid of child-labor laws. “He goes off the deep end and throws things out there,” says Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, which has endorsed Gingrich. He means it as a compliment, but it doesn’t strike me as one of the top traits to seek in a president. Many voters may have the same reaction.
The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.
True, Gingrich has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than Romney. But he’s also done more to damage it. He lost his job as speaker of the House because conservative representatives were fed up with his inconstancy.
A Riskier Choice
There’s no guarantee that any Republican will win next year, of course. But Gingrich would be a riskier choice for the Republicans to nominate against President Barack Obama. The last time the country got a good long look at him, he turned very unpopular very fast. His decades in Washington, some of them spent essentially as a lobbyist, would muddle the party’s message. So would his unfortunate marital history.
We already know the basic strategy of the Obama campaign. It will be to portray the Republican nominee as a dangerous right-wing extremist. Romney’s demeanor — his steadiness, his reasonableness — would undercut that strategy. It seems likely to be much more successful against Gingrich. After all, it already was: In 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich as much as he ran against his nominal opponent, Bob Dole. Clinton portrayed Gingrich as callous and radical, and used Gingrich’s ill- considered words, such as his claim that Republican plans would cause the Medicare bureaucracy to “wither on the vine,” against him.
Gingrich’s energy and creativity are admirable, within limits. But recognizing his own limits is not a Gingrich specialty. Voters are likely to see, as he cannot, that he is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency.
ComSenseWiz 55 minutes ago
Obummer will eat Newt alive in the general. As an independent, a group that determines who wins the Presidency, there is no chance whatsoever that I would vote for a fat, ugly, ethically challenged adulterer. Romney is the only chance the GOP has to beat Obummer. Get used to it.
Pewterdude 10 hours ago
All the appropriate left leaning loons HATE Newt. …and that’s exactly why I’m voting for him.
Comment on 2012 election Obama abandons white working class