About the Clinton wins 1992 and 1996, which were won without those 'hard-working white folks.' Let me remind you with a visual aid, Jere.
Clinton took 43% of the vote in 1992; he took 49% in 1996. In 1996, at the height of his popularity, Clinton took Kentucky (full of hard working white folks) by less than 1%, Nevada by just over 1%. He took Arizona by 2.2%, and Tennessee (home of Al Gore, his running mate) by 2.4. He won Missouri, where Perot ran strong, 47-41. He won Louisiana and Arkansas, also with a large number of working class whites.
Perot took 8% in KY; 9% in NV; 8% in AZ; 5% in TN; 10% in MO; Perot took another 9% in FL (Clinton 48), 10% in OH (Clinton 47), 9% in PA (Clinton 49), and 9% in NH (Clinton 49). And remember, Perot's share in 1992 was more than double his share in 1996. Are there enough favorable minority groups and eggheads in any of those states to swing them to Obama without a third-party candidate to hamstring McCain like Bush 41 and Dole? And keep in mind, Jere, that Obama tanks just as badly among Hispanics as he does whites, judging by the results in Texas and the Mountain West.
I guess this is where my math fails me, but doesn't Bill Clinton owe more to Perot and his oil billions than he does any particular aggrieved community? No Democrat has been elected twice without a third party challenge to his Republican opponent since Franklin Roosevelt. Before him, you have to go back to Grover Cleveland. And they also have not won without West Virginia since 1916.