I never said it did. I said the article and it's hard metrics all exclude working class people to paint a picture of a conservative working class. The point is we don't know, from this article, that Democrats have lost ground with the working class, because whenever numbers are involved they choose measures that don't actually measure the working class and specifically intertwine them with aspects that are more conservative.
Even your final line implicitly associates education with class, when it couldn't be further from the truth for a lot of people today. Do you think college educated baristas don't think they're working class? And that's even by the income-based measure intended to put a "middle-class" buffer to protect from any sort of worker vs. capital framing.
Literally this entire conversation you haven't even tried to address the instigating criticism of the article both using the wrong-headed definition of class as education and that their statistics are filtered to create a Republican bias unrelated to class. It talks about class being a fuzzy term and other races existing, but when it tries to demonstrate the problem it's just white women and the non-college educated "class". All while relaying absurd quotes about how they like people that talk to them directly and are successful through their own hard work like Trump.
And while people do have kind of a fuzzy definition of working class, that definition isn't education. Most people identify as "working class" and fewer than 1% of respondents defined it by education. Media and think-tanks that have latched onto "non-college educated = working class" do so intentionally. They want it to represent a dwindling thing from when boomers worked hard and didn't complain, not anything to do with labor and capital.