SUNDAY, JANUARY 5, 2025
We're going to go with a no: Jonathan Weisman's lengthy piece for the New York Times appears beneath this packaging:
NEWS ANALYSIS
How the Democrats Lost the Working Class
The theory seemed sound: Stabilize financial markets, support the poor and promote a more secure, integrated world. But blue-collar workers were left behind.
This essay hasn't yet appeared in print editions. For Kevin Drum's reaction, click here. For Paul Krugman, just click this.
We expect to discuss Weisman's essay in the coming week. For today, we direct your attention to one particular passage:
WEISMAN (1/4/25): In November, 56 percent of voters without college degrees voted for Mr. Trump. In 1992, just 36 percent of voters with only a high school diploma voted Republican—about the same percentage that Barry Goldwater got in his overwhelming defeat against Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Can you put your faith in the things you read? In this case, should the answer be no?
That passage seems to record a 20-point gain in support for the GOP, from 1992 to 2024, among a certain group of voters. That would be a very large gain—but for starters, riddle us this:
Are "voters without college degrees" the same as "voters with only a high school diploma?"
The way our exit polls have been conducted, the answer isn't entirely clear—but let's set that to the side. Instead, let's think back to what occurred in 1992, when "just 36 percent of voters with only a high school diploma voted Republican."
For starters, it's true! According to this data set from the New York Times, Candidate George H. W. Bush (R) got 36% of the vote from "voters with only a high school diploma" in that election year.
This past year, Candidate Trump got 56% of the votes from that group, according to exit polls. That does look like a 20-point increase, but an obvious problem obtains:
As you may recall, 1992 was a three-candidate race! Here's the way the vote in question broke down, according to those same New York Times data:
Voters with only a high school diploma, 1992
Bill Clinton (D): 43%
George H. W. Bush (R): 36%
Ross Perot: 21%
Perot drained off 21% of that group's vote in that three-candidate race. For that reason, we're comparing apples to kumquats when we're asked to compare Bush's 36 percent vote share to the 56 percent Trump received in this year's two-candidate race.
As for Goldwater in 1964, he does seem to have received something like 34-38% of the vote from the group in question. That said, he only won 38.5% of the overall vote in that year's historic landslide. For that reason, it looks like an obvious case of cherry-picking when Weisman uses that year as the starting point for the current comparison.
Sur enough! In 1960, Candidate Nixon received something like 48% of the "high school only" vote—and in 1968, Nixon is said to have outperformed Candidate Humphrey with that group!
(He did so by a single point, 43%-42%, with third-party Candidate Wallace attracting 15% of that group's vote.)
Weisman's selections seem designed to embellish the apparent size of the Republican gain within that demographic. For those who want to know how this group has voted in recent elections, here are the exit poll numbers for voters with "no college degree:"
Voters with no college degree:
2008: Obama 53, McCain 46
2012: Obama 51, Romney 47
2016: Trump 51, Clinton 44
2020: Trump 50, Biden 48
2024: Trump 56, Harris 43
Over the past five White House elections, the Republican share of that group's vote has risen by ten points. That's a very large gain right there, using numbers which have come from roughly comparable administrations of our imprecise and imperfect exit polls.
(Full disclosure: George W. Bush seems to have won that group in 2004. Sometimes, it all depends on where you start your comparisons.)
It made no apparent sense for Weisman to base his comparisons on a three-candidate race in 1992, or on the unique blowout loss experienced by Goldwater in 1964. Can you place full faith in the things you read?
On the very rare occasion, the answer might seem to be no!
"Lost the working class" is overstating a close result that swings back and forth from year to year. If Somerby is arguing that Weisman is biased, you can tell from that headline, without looking at any messy stats (with and without third-party candidates).
ReplyDeleteAs Somerby used to point out, the authors of pieces do not always write their own headlines and subheads. If Weisman didn't write this one, then perhaps whoever did was persuaded toward that conclusion by other evidence in Weisman's article, evidence that Somerby doesn't describe here. Somerby has been known to leave out stuff that doesn't fit his own preferred narrative, so maybe he is doing that today. I don't care enough about this nitpick to find an article behind a paywall, just to show how Somerby himself operates. I long ago decided that Somerby is no more trustworthy than those he criticizes.
Lol. "nitpick." Somerby nailed this asshole careerist "journalist" for a completely misleading presentation, which he used to "support" his preferred narrative. kudos on Somerby
DeleteExcept it was also so trivial when there are more important things to talk about. Somerby seems to only care about trivialities.
Delete4:28: Somerby explicitly said that he will discuss the article in depth later. He states unequivocally that Republicans did increase their share of the non-college vote, so it remains to be seen what he thinks overall about the article.
DeleteThere is no point in endlessly dissecting the percents of voters in various demographic categories, when Dems have conceded the election and Donald Trump, felon, demented billionaire and his cronies are busily dividing up the spoils. We should be talking about what we will do next, not pointing fingers at each other and assigning blame. That's why Somerby's participation in this empty exercise is frustrating. If Somerby had any insight, he would be discussing how we are to cope with fascist wannabes trying to undo every good thing Biden did (and yes, there were many good things).
DeleteEssays like this make Somerby appear especially autistic, since he is so narrowly focused on a tiny point about definition of working class and who belongs in that category, that he is missing everything important in the news, not just today, but as usual.
I will say this slowly, so the most obtuse commenter here can understand, the Democrats lost. It doesn't matter by how much or who voted for whom any more. What matters is what we do next. Somerby is not helping with that.
"Can you place full faith in the things you read?
ReplyDeleteOn the very rare occasion, the answer might seem to be no!"
If you cannot place full faith in what you read, what then are you supposed to do in order to know what is going on in current events?
Does it mean it is OK to make up your own theories and facts? Does it mean you should believe nothing and draw no conclusions and give up trying to understand the world? Or does it mean you should support and follow whoever seems to be most aligned with your own self-interest?
My own solution is to accept all statements provisionally, then try to find trends that are supported by a preponderance of evidence, until a larger picture emerges. I disagree with Somerby's all-or-nothing approach, which disqualifies an entire piece if there is one murky or unsupport part of it. That approach leaves you with nothing to believe, since the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. I categorically reject the idea that truth is determined by one's own benefit or that it is OK to believe preferred narratives because nothing can be known for sure. The "it's all lies anyway, so why not tell people whatever we want" school of politics followed by the right.
My main reason for seeking to get as close to the truth as possible (even when perfect knowledge is impossible) is that reality has a way of biting those who live in fantasy in the ass. Reality doesn't change just because you disbelieve it, and those who know the world better are better able to control the influences in their own lives and make better decisions.
That's why I've chosen to stop reading the NY Times. It didn't report on the election fairly, so it seems likely to be still biased on political topics, so why read it when there are better sources available? Biden has done more for the working poor than any recent president and yet the NY Times is running an article about how the Dems have lost the working class. That makes them biased idiots, no matter how Weisman handled his stats.
Here is a more important press coverage story, one that Somerby routinely ignores:
ReplyDelete"In a recent post to his blog, veteran journalist Dan Froomkin argued that mainstream media outlets' coverage of President-elect Donald Trump has been dismal in its grasp of who Trump is on a fundamental level. He then relayed advice from another experienced reporter on how journalists can more accurately cover the incoming administration over the next four years.
On his website Press Watch, Froomkin argued that Trump should be viewed not merely as a politician, but as a "proverbial snake-oil salesman." He opined that media outlets that failed to "situate Trump’s words and actions in the context of an ongoing con" were engaging in "deception" by "failing to tell the central story." Froomkin cited Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston, who referred to the 45th and 47th president of the United States as "the greatest con artist in the history of the world."
"You’ve got to stop covering him like he’s just another politician, with a different agenda,” Johnston told Froomkin in December. “He’s a criminal and a con artist. And that has to be central to everything you cover about him.”
https://www.alternet.org/reporter-trump-coverage/
While Somerby nitpicks the definition of working class, this guy gets the big picture:
ReplyDelete"What to Know About Democrats Losing the Working Class
January 5, 2025 at 12:24 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 112 Comments
Seth Masket: “A substantial chunk — let’s say 90% — of the story about the working class leaving the Democratic Party over the past 50 years is a story about race. To simplify, it’s about working class whites starting in the 1970s, and Latinos more recently, being mobilized against the Democratic Party due to resentment toward Blacks.”
Also: “We have never had a consensus definition of ‘working class.’ It could mean people without a college education, or lower-income people, or people in specific types of jobs like manufacture or service, or something else. It is also a populist cultural designation — one that Donald Trump has exploited well — signifying the tastes of “regular” people (often somehow rural whites) who might have money but still want to stick it to elites. Just who has left the Democratic Party and when is highly contingent on one’s conception of ‘working class.’”
[Political Wire]
what a bunch of BS. after a Republican won in 2004, Obama -- both Democratic and Black -- won in a landslide
Deleteand Somerby wasn't nitpicking about the definition of "working class." he was pointing out that the author's switch from "with no college degree" to "with only a high school diploma" might mean he isn't comparing apples to apples
Different people among the working class voted for Obama than voted for Trump.
DeletePerhaps, 4:36, but Somerby hasn’t really stated his overall view of the article.
DeleteThe big news today is about the celebration of 1/6 held by Trump last night, where he celebrated John Eastman and his cronies, most of whom escaped prosecution for trying to overthrow the election.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Somerby choose to discuss? Another "Democrats in disarray" story manufactured by the NY Times.
Here is some more press criticism that discusses why the right wing hates Democrats, how it affected the terrorist who blew up the cybertruck in LV, and how the media has downplayed his ideology. This is a much bigger problem than Somerby fixates on in this largely irrelevant NY Times article today.
ReplyDelete"For years, the mainstream press has been in denial about how much the American right despises the Democratic Party. Even after nearly half a century of anti-Democratic rhetoric from Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Fox News, and Donald Trump, even after January 6, the press has a desperate need to believe that America has two reasonable ideologicasl wings that seek to coexist with each other. The Democratic Party clearly seeks to coexist with the Republican Party. (It sometimes seems as if D.C. Democrats want a strong Republican Party more than they want a strong Democratic Party.) But the GOP and the right in general clearly believe that America would be better off if the Democratic Party didn't exist.
So we're not going to talk very much about Matthew Livelsberger's manifestos. Talking about them would get us unnervingly close to truths our politcal establishment can't face.
*****
UPDATE: I realize that I didn't give you a sense of how the press is avoiding this subject. In The Washington Post, Livelsberger's denunciation of the Democrats is buried in the 33rd paragraph of this story. The story says this:
In the writings investigators found on his phone, the soldier expressed concern with America’s standing in the world and Democratic control of government. He called for soldiers and veterans to “move on DC starting now” and to “occupy every major road along fed buildings.”
Livelsberger wasn't just "express[ing] concern with America’s standing in the world and Democratic control of government" -- he was calling for a military siege with the goal of purging Democrats from the federal government and the armed forces.
The New York Times did a bit better, although the information is buried in paragraph 13 of this story:
The writings found on Sergeant Livelsberger’s phone suggest that he had been increasingly concerned about politics. In one note shared by the police, Sergeant Livelsberger said that people should “try peaceful means first but be prepared to fight” to get Democrats out of the federal government.
But he didn't just say they should fight -- he said they should lock down the capital. He said they should, in effect, launch a successful January 6. The coverage is utterly inadequate."
https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-mainstream-press-doesnt-want-to.html
"Even after nearly half a century of anti-Democratic rhetoric from Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Fox News, and Donald Trump,"
ReplyDeleteThese are not honest brokers, friend. These are power seekers, propagandists, opportunists, grifters and liars. Now you want to throw a murderous madman into the mix?
I can't quite tell from your post which side you're on.
I read it as a list of people hating on Dems, who led to the hatred of Dems expressed by this terrorist.
DeleteSomerby thinks 2024 was a "two-candidate race", but it was not; in fact, more people in 2024 voted for candidates other than Trump.
ReplyDelete2024 was a low turnout election for Dems, but even so, Trump only managed 30% of the electorate, not even 50% of those that voted.
Furthermore, elections have significant differences in turnout, rendering exit poll percentages relatively meaningless.
"Can you place full faith in the things you read?"
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the context. Duh.
I am not going to take what an unreliable narrator conveys, at face value.
It is unwise to make sweeping generalizations, as Somerby does, about Blue America and news media, based on shaky, murky, and/or nonexistent evidence.
ReplyDeletePolls indicate that a majority of voters that closely or moderately follow news media, voted for Harris.
Corporate media, like the NY Times and cable news, are garbage and have an outsized and unhealthy influence over politicians and pundits, but has little influence over the electorate, and is not determinative in elections.
There's like two people who come on here every day right after Somerby posts a new entry, and they quickly type up multiple negative comments, trying to make it seem like it's more than just the two haters. But it's just the two haters. I guess most of us already know that, but I sometimes feel compelled to make it explicit. And their comments are usually absolute garbage, too. They deliberately misread what Somerby says, or find some ridiculous, pedantic angle from which to shit on it. Can't you two find something better to do? It's bad enough that we have to put up with the likes of Mao and DIC, without having to wade through your axe-grinding nonsense.
ReplyDeleteYou write this like what you say is self-evident and everyone should agree with you but that isn’t what’s going on. Somerby deserves a lot of the criticism he gets, never addresses any comments and never changes.
DeleteI think a lot of the comments make sense.
DeleteIt is self-evident. His post today is rock solid media criticism, and yet 10 negative comments instantly pop up, most written in the same style and full of the same kinds of stupid, dishonest, ridiculous "takes" as such comments almost always are.
DeleteSo get up earlier and make those positive comments yourself, Mike.
DeleteJust don’t read the crap.
DeleteInstead of that, how about the two axe-grinders not waiting around every day of their lives for a new Somerby blog post so that they can hurry up and litter the comments section with multiple dishonest, ridiculous "criticisms"? How about that?
DeleteWhat makes you think you can control other people’s free seech?
Deletespeech
DeleteWhat makes you think you can control mine? (See how stupid that is?)
DeleteTelling others they can’t comment is the stupidity.
DeleteEquating richly deserved criticism with "telling others they can't comment" is the stupidity.
DeleteReading this blog is the stupidity.
DeleteAnd yet here you are, day after day.
DeleteThere's nothing stupid about today's post, btw. It's extremely smart media criticism. What Bob points out never would have occurred to me (nor, it's safe to assume, to most people). I would have looked at the numbers they presented and thought they supported the author's argument.
If you think Somerby is brilliant, enjoy it and don’t worry what others think.
Delete"Somerby is brilliant." Is that what I said, or is that more of your habitual "strawmanning"?
Delete"don't worry about what others think." Oh, sweet non-self-aware irony.
You’re trying to pick a fight.
DeleteSomerby’s blog is not just dying, it is rotting from within. The once proud temple of truth now reeks of disillusionment and decay. His bitter tirades against Democrats are not just misguided, they are pointless ravings - shouts into an vast endless void - a desperate plea for relevance that only underscores how far he has fallen.
DeleteThat said, he was right about Biden being too old and Democrat's denial in seeing how their own conduct appeared to voters hurt them in the election.
Many voters didn't even know Biden wasn't still on the ballot. So much for that theory about why Dems lost.
Delete"dying" "rotting from within" "the once proud temple" "decay" A bunch of meaningless mumbo jumbo. I dunno, maybe you should stick to your overused strawman tactic after all. (Btw, genius, you put the apostrophe in the wrong place in "Democrat's")
DeleteItching for a fight. What’s wrong with you guys?
Delete“ His post today is rock solid media criticism,”
DeleteAnd yet he still plans to discuss the essay, and he is very clear that Dems did lose non-college support, according to his numbers. It isn’t completely clear that he disagrees with the story overall.
So?
DeleteMy God. Drum's analysis was shockingly overly simplistic and incomplete.
ReplyDeleteHere’s some good analysis by Drum:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/elon-musk-killed-pbm-reform-without-knowing-what-a-pbm-is/
I do not understand why insurers use PBMs or why the reform would help. Won't the insurers employee people who do same things as the independent PBMs?
DeleteIf they do the same thing they’ll be PBMs, and they’d be bound by the new law.
DeleteGood job, DiC. Let us not discuss the linked article outlining how your hero, Elon Musk, fucked up again. Deflect, divert, change the subject, whatever.
Delete"I do not understand why insurers use PBMs..." Maybe because they turn a profit and insurers like United Healthcare own them. Try using the internet to educate yourself.
DeleteBy owning the PBM, a large healthcare company can negotiate down the price of a drug like the new weight loss drugs, to well under their retail price of circa $1200 dollars monthly. They then tell the consumer that the drug is tier 4 and requires a 500 dollar copay. So the healthcare company pays less for the drug than they receive from the insured patient in the form of a copay for it. Get it now? There is plenty of YouTube content on this. A bipartisan bill to address this was just tanked by Musk.
Delete
ReplyDelete"That passage seems to record a 20-point gain in support for the GOP, from 1992 to 2024, among a certain group of voters."
Right, Ross Perot was part of 1992. But still: Bubba only got 36%, right? And in any case, it WILL BE a 20-point gain in 2028.
Because, clearly, your utterly corrupt party bosses don't care about anyone but themselves. And even you, retarded rank-and-file members, will see it eventually.
Satisfied now?