Edwards the "working class hero" myth debunked

Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth does a fantastic job today debunking the group-thinking media's narrative that John Edwards is a "working class hero", who will give Obama a "boost" in the GE among members of that group. Here's an excerpt of this must-read piece:

In Iowa, entrance polls didn't ask about educational levels, which is how working class has generally been defined this primary season. But they did ask about income. And Edwards's best income demographic was those making over $100,000 a year--the richest group. His second- and third-best performances were among those making $50,000-$75,000 a year and $75,000-$100,000 a year. His three worst showings came among the three groups making less than $50,000 a year.

New Hampshire's results are slightly more mixed, but they still don't offer support for the idea of Edwards as a working-class hero. Edwards performed just as well with college-educated voters as with non-college-educated voters. Looking again at income, his strongest performances were with voters making $50,000-$75,000 a year or $75,000-$100,000 a year. He did as well with voters making above $100,000 as with voters making below $50,000.

And in South Carolina, his best performance by education level was among those with a post-graduate degree. And he did better among voters with a college degree than those without. In terms of income, by far Edwards's best result was with voters who made more than $200,000 a year.

The root of the problem here is the press's obsession with style and image--and simple, clear narratives--at the expense of substance and evidence and complexity. Throughout his campaign, Edwards reminded anyone who would listen that he grew up the son of a mill worker, and his campaign rhetoric was squarely focused on the economic struggles of ordinary working Americans. Apparently, that was enough to make many in the press assume that his supporters were working class--even in the face of empirical data suggesting a much more complicated picture.

And besides Roth's great points, I would add the fact that Edwards could not even manage to help Kerry win the state of North Carolina, where he served as senator. Indeed, Bush swept the floor with Kerry in the Midwest and South, known as white working class enclaves.

But big journos love a simpe story line they can recite as a group, evidence be damned, as Roth pointed out.

Whole story here.



Display:


The enemies list... (2.00 / 3)

...keeps getting longer.

Must be rough.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST

And to think (2.00 / 3)

Clinton supporters were so nice to him before Super Tuesday.  

I'm sure he'll be fine, though, what with his thirty pieces of silver.  Am I right, guys?  Huh?  Huh?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST

he always was a lightweight (none / 0)

I never liked Edwards. I always saw him as the political lightweight he was. You're right about his inability to get Kerry even close to Bush in any state. He didn't even run for Senate re-election in 2004 because he knew he'd lose. He barely won that seat. He was never a hero to the actual working class. He was just a protest vote in this primary.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM EST

Re: he always was a lightweight (2.00 / 1)

Exit polls show Edwards qwould have won back his seat in 2004 by 8 points.  Edwards was principled enough to not pull a Lieberman - and divide his loyalties to his constituents.

Hard to win NC when you dont staff it, dont campaign in it, dont run ads in it.

He won the Senate seat against an incumbant and the Helms political machine during the Clinton impeachment build-up in 1998 - having never before run for public office, and not taking a dime of PAC or lobbyist money.

Youre revisionist history to serve your bias is a really nauseating trait.  You should have stopped at the first sentence.


Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama
by BWasikIUgrad on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.