Chart of the day: What the battle over Occupy Wall Street is really about

[ProSense]

Chart of the day: What the battle over Occupy Wall Street is really about

By Greg Sargent

If you want to understand why conservatives are relentlessly highlighting the theatrical excesses, violence, and bowel movements of a select few Occupy Wall Street protesters, this chart explains it in a nutshell.

In theory, high economic anxiety — combined with the increased focus on inequality and Wall Street lack of accountability that have resulted from the protests — should help Democrats. In this environment, Dems should have a better shot at winning over working class swing voters — by calling for higher taxes on the rich, more oversight of Wall Street, and nixing tax breaks for corporations, all of which are supported by these voters — than when the focus is on Dem Big Government excess, as it was in 2010.

The battle over what Occupy Wall Street means actually represents a larger battle over this key consistuency. If conservatives can highlight protesters’ excesses to push the cultural buttons of working class voters — making them less receptive to the protests’ message about what’s really gone wrong for them — then they may be able to reduce Dem inroads with these voters. There are some signs this push is working. But if organized labor can get these voters to focus on the overall message embodied by the movement, that’s better for Dems.

Working America, the arm of the AFL-CIO that organizes workers from non-union workplaces, has produced a chart and an accompanying report that demonstrate just how crucial and volatile this constituency really is. The chart, which is based on exit poll data, shows how big the swing was among these voters from 2008 to 2010:



more

It seems like the battle has gone from "this isn't about Obama" to everyone trying to make it about Obama.

[Enrique]

1. this is not what OWS is about

it is how the political establishment is reacting to OWS, and that is what Greg Sargent covers, so naturally that's his angle, I have no problem with that.

[ProSense]

2. Well

"this is not what OWS is about it is how the political establishment is reacting to OWS, and that is what Greg Sargent covers, so naturally that's his angle, I have no problem with that."

...who said it was? I understand Sargent's point.

My point is that people from all sides are invoking the President's name, whether asking him to insert himself into the movement or as a way to bash him politically.

Either way, whatever happens is likely to happen naturally, regardless of the pressures, and that's not saying that Sargent's point about the media isn't valid.