The most powerful Democratic bloc is...

The most powerful Democratic bloc of voters?  A lot of theories have been advanced about this, but let's look at who really has power during a time of increasing economic turmoil... that would be the Democratic voters who are financially and physically secure.

Not necessarily the young ones.  Not necessarily the ones from this or that state.  Not necessarily the well-connected ones.  Not necessarily the well-educated ones.  But the financially and physically secure ones.

Not necessarily wealthy.  However, decoupled from the vicissitudes of the collapsing housing bubble; not facing any major mortgage payments or student debt; maybe with just a sawbuck in their wallet today, and living in an unfashionable neighborhood or "just getting by" - but getting by on their own resources, more or less, not so much on borrowed ones.

More thoughts below...

The most financially and physically secure Democratic voter has either modest or more-than-modest assets -- but they're real assets, like a car that they own (that works), a house that they own outright (no mortgage), good health (which makes them physically secure), and living in a neighborhood that doesn't have high crime (physically secure again).  They would have a stable job, or skills that would enable them to reliably find enough work to survive (either blue collar or white collar work); they wouldn't have a ton of student debt, either.

My question is, which candidates have the most supporters who fit this general description?

I can't help thinking of Obama's high support among students and college graduates, and wondering how much debt these Democrats are carrying.  That's just one way of looking at one candidate; you could ask the same questions about Clinton's supporters as well, and McCain's.

We'll leave the very rich out of this consideration because we know the economic downturn will not impair their financial security (perhaps by design).  This question is just directed at the middle class or upper middle class.

How secure (and therefore powerful) are these blocs of voters, REALLY?

My feeling is that this is a hidden Achilles' heel of Obama's constituency: not that they're in debt so much as they haven't really come to terms with it and have perhaps an overinflated sense of their political power because they're not really comprehending how financially underwater they are.

The anger of the poor does not produce meaningful and long-lasting change; it produces more turmoil that can be easily exploited by the very wealthy.  Rather, the poor and disadvantaged are only able to mount effective resistance to exploitive forces when they have some degree of "real" security to fall back on, be it modest real assets (which can be pooled for the greater strength of the community), or physical health and strength.  I'm not really sure that "college education" is a major factor when the system is set up to extract money from academic seekers and then not offer them jobs where they can quickly pay back the debt.

Obama has a big army, but when you look at it closely, it's kind of a tattered one, even though it appears to be young and fresh.  

It's worth noting that many of Clinton's elderly supporters probably no longer carry mortgages and -- aside from health bills, certainly a HUGE consideration here -- probably carry somewhat less debt.

But as I said, there are many nuances to this situation to be considered - so what do you think?  Considering all factors, which candidate has the most secure supporters?

•  I thought we were latte drinkers who DON'T need

  anything from the government?  I thought that was the Clinton spiel, that we Obama supporters are dilettantes with the money and time to be idealists.  

  You may dismiss college students today but there is no arguing that they are not the future.  If the Democratic Party has plans for 10 years from now even, you need those younger people.  

  by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:13:29 AM PDT

  •  future

    I'm not dismissing college students - I'm just questioning how deeply in the hole they are (and how much they understand that that's connected to their political efficacy).

    College students may be the future, but what kind of future?  A future where they're in power, or a future where they're on barricades in the streets, being shot down over and over again because they have anger  and no resources?

    That's sad to think about it, but someone has to say it.  

    Is it possible that Clinton's core supporters -- regardless of how wealthy or not their lifestyle is -- have more core security?  (Less debt, live in older houses that they own outright, didn't overpay for their educations, have deeper community roots of many generations' standing as a tradeoff to a less affluent lifestyle, etc?)

    Make no mistake -- the vast majority of Americans, no matter who they support, are up the creek today.  But I do think there are important nuances in the levels of financial/social/physical security.  Which candidate has an advantage here?

    I don't know for sure; but "youth are our future" is not a real answer to the question.

    The candidate who has the most financially and physically secure supporters has the most powerful army.

    by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:20:23 AM PDT

    •  I put "average student loan debt" in search

      engine and the first item that came up showed a figure under $20,000.

      So, who is more "secure," a healthy 25 year old with $20-$30K student loan debt or a 75 year old who only has $1000/month Social Security and a $500/month pension and the fear that within the next 5 years he/she or spouse will become afflicted with dementia?  Thats another one from the search engine, 25% of people over 80 have some form of dementia.  Once you've seen dementia in real life, you fear it.  Having a paid up house is worth . . . What? when you contemplate nursing home care at $5K per month?  And these seniors you are thinking about do not own expensive houses.  You are talking about people in OH, PA, TX whose houses would not fetch $100K.

      by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:50:19 AM PDT

•  Ron Paul n/t

  by breezeview on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:15:49 AM PDT

•  Well, the Mister and I

  are well-within your parameters.  No debt (except a few thousand on the Mister's car).  No mortgage -- we own our home.  He has a union job, with a define-benefit pension and health insurance.  I have a secure and well-paid job (22 years and counting) as an office-goddess for a small lawfirm.  I'm 49, the Mister's 59, and we're both college drop outs.

  But one aspect you're missing: we have school-aged children.  And Hillary scares the crap out of both of us.

  We're an Obama household.

  by Frankenoid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:41 AM PDT

  •  Temperament to be president

    I've been thinking of that since that thing with McCain doing the angry, petty back and forth with the reporter.  Neither McCain nor Hillary Clinton has the temperament to be president.  You never know who is going to show up with her.  One day she's saying she's "honored" to be running with Barack Obama and then a day or two later she's shouting "Shame on you, Barack Obama."  I would feel a lot more comfortable about the future for my daughter and my nieces and my nephew with Barack Obama making important decisions.

    by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:01:35 AM PDT

•  Funny, I thought Clinton was

  trumpeting her success at exploiting the "anger of the poor."  Watching her in Ohio (at least until I had to turn off the TV out of nausea), I reflected that I hadn't seen so much fake populist pandering since Clinton tried to get Edwards to endorse her.  Who wrote her cue cards in Parma, Eugene Debs?

  I think Obama has the most secure supporters.  His are better educated.  A weak mind makes one insecure both financially and emotionally.  It also makes one more prone to be swayed by fear and lies.  Not that I'm pointing fingers...

  by teyigdhk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:38 AM PDT

  •  however

    Is it possible that Obama's "better educated" supporters in fact overpaid for their educations, and hence are politically weaker in the long run?

    by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:22:45 AM PDT

    •  I don't understand.

      I paid a hell of a lot for my degree but I think it was worth it.  Are you suggesting that Herself's anti-intellectualism is actually a brilliant strategy worth of emulation?  Am I worse off than an unemployed coal miner in Appalachian Ohio, who Herself was able to trick and lie to?

      Phooey on book-learnin' and ciphering!  Spittoons for everyone!  Death to rationality!  Hillary '08!

      by teyigdhk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:32:17 AM PDT

      •  it's not "anti-intellectual"

        to question the COST of a college degree, based upon the financial return.

        I got a college degree too, but my parents refused to overpay for it or put me into debt.  My mother worked as a secretary at the university I went to, to ensure that I got remitted tuition.

        I'm just simply questioning how underwater Obama's and Clinton's supporters may really be.

        by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:36:32 AM PDT

        •  More fear mongering: Student debt NOT that scary

          You're relying on headlines and anecdotes.

          by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:33 AM PDT

      •  also

        An unemployed coal miner in Appalachia knows exactly what and who they are, and how disadvantaged they are in the scheme of things.

        I'm not too sure some of Obama's supporters really grasp that, college-indebted or not.

        by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:41:50 AM PDT

        •  Unemployed coal miner is in big trouble, no?

          This is not someone with any reason to feel secure.  

          by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:55:50 AM PDT

          •  Things are tough

            Things are tough all over, but at least the coal miner KNOWS he's in deep doodoo and isn't putting on airs about the real-world value of the college degree he couldn't afford.

            by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:59:16 AM PDT

            •  So, he'd vote for McCain over Obama? nt

              by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:03:01 AM PDT

              •  I think

                He'd vote for Obama if Obama had enough time to explain himself, or if Obama explained himself in the right way.

                Obama should have been concentrating on his American experiences -- as a Chicago lawyer, as an advocate for the poor, a community organizer -- instead of allowing his campaign to get wrapped up in the rest of his exotic biography.  If he had done that, instead of marketing himself as the Global Coming of Jesus, he could have made firm inroads in these blue-collar territories.

                by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:08:53 AM PDT

                •  Stop insulting me.

                  If I wanted Jesus I'd go to church.  

                  I could say that female Hillary supporters support her because they want revenge on their husbands or ex-husbands.  I won't say that if you stop it with that lame "cult" lie that Hillary herself started.

                  Let's just both stipulate that we're rational, mmmkay?

                  by teyigdhk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:17:32 AM PDT

                •  To be honest with you

                  I really do - honestly - think that the voters you're talking about were influenced by race.  Thats a figure that came out of the Ohio race:  20% were influenced by race and 75% of those voted for Clinton.  So, thats her entire 10% victory margin.

                  In my opinion, the Governor of Ohio and Hillary Clinton had a part in that.  The Democratic Governor tanding next to her while she shouted, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" was pretty shocking.

                  But these voters you are talking about are going to get nothing from John McCain except that he's white.  He has nothing to offer them.  

                  by Lois on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:18:57 AM PDT

  •  actually

    Hillary knows that it's to her advantage to drag the campaign out for as long as possible; and honestly, I do think it is to her advantage, that her base possibly has more staying power, in terms of not being blindsided by what's going on in the economy today.

    If it is true that Obama claims a bigger share of the college students and the white-collars and academics, that's a population that is going to be severely squeezed by what's coming, and may not be entirely aware of it.

    Obama is trying to fight an idealism-based campaign on the unfavorable ground of what looks like to be a rather severe recession coming, if not worse.  The longer Hillary drags it out, the better the odds get for her.

    by NYCO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:34:17 AM PDT

•  Big cities, small towns

  Someone posted a diary the other day that pointed out Obama wins big in urban areas and Clinton wins big in the rural areas.  Cities versus small towns.  Obama won all the cities in Texas and didn't carry any (?) rural counties.  Same thing happened in Ohio, but his city votes fell short.  I don't know what may be inferred about this, but find it interesting.

  by JFinNe on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:47:05 AM PDT

•  Retirees the Most Important

  I strongly believe that the over 60 age group is the single most important constituency for the Democratic candidate during the coming general election.

  Either Hillary or Barack will overwhelmingly win the African American vote.  Either Hillary or Barack will overwhelmingly win the Hispanic vote.  Either Hillary or Barack will overwhelmingly win the Jewish vote.  Either one will win the "big blue" states.  Either one will win the female vote.  Either one will win the union vote.

  So where does that leave the other core constituencies?  Simple.  Some of Obama's youth vote will stay home if Hillary is the nominee.  That won't make a difference in most states.  Kerry got a huge turnout of younger voters across the country and still lost.  Gore got a mediocre vote of young voters and won the popular vote anyway.

  But the differential is clearly the "silver crowd."  They will flock to Hillary in droves and will be the key differential in probably 20 states.  They are notably unenthusiastic about Barack and are a swing vote who could think McCain's age and experience is actually an attribute and vote Republican.

  But if Hillary is the nominee they will remember how great things were when Bill was president and how awful things are now with GWB and the GOP, and turnout in monstrous numbers to be the critical differential in electing Hillary Clinton the 44th president of the United States.

  by tailor324 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:36:50 AM PDT