Wealthy Dems Stand by Obama

[maryf]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/10/rich_dems_stand_by_obama_106686.html

Wealthy Dems Stand by Obama
By David Paul Kuhn
August 10, 2010

Affluent Americans are Barack Obama's most secure class of support. They have stuck by this president at three to six times the rate of all other income groups since early 2009, based on a RealClearPolitics analysis.
It's a familiar story that wealthy voters have moved toward Democrats in recent years. But the remarkable steadiness of Obama's affluent support has continued with little notice. The national media has instead heavily covered Obama's tepid flings with populism.

<snip>


Affluent Americans are not broadly pleased with the president. Only 43 percent approved of Obama in June and July. But few of Obama's affluent supporters have turned on him. That's the salient point. In effect, almost half of affluent adults can be considered part of the Democratic base. These are the Americans who especially don't vote their economic interest. They are more likely to identify as liberal, live in a city and reside near a coast.

They are also less likely to be a serious casualty of the financial crisis. The Wall Street crisis came to define the Great Recession. But about three in four job losses have been blue collar. That suggests affluent Democrats are not only voting their social interest over their economic interest. They are also less likely to have their current political allegiance questioned by their economic interest.

This helps explain why Obama's approval rating in some of the wealthiest states, like Connecticut, remains well above the national average. Democrats have been asking "what's the matter with Kansas" since the Bush years, when a liberal author wondered why many working class voters back the GOP. But here is rich Connecticut standing by the president who asks more of the rich. It's enough for a conservative to ask: "what's the matter with Connecticut?"

[Starry Messenger]

1. recommend.

[maryf]

19. I saw you posted something else from WSJ related to this...

but I can't find it now?

[Starry Messenger]

22. Here it is, Mary:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/10/why-are-wealthy-dems-still-backing-obama/


It actually references the Real Clear Politics article in the OP, and just kind of piggybacks off of it

But his support among affluent Democrats hasn’t fallen much from the 2008 election, which was defined in part by wealthy voters shifting from Republican to Democrat. “The salient fact is how few of the affluent bloc that was once pleased is now displeased,” writes David Paul Kuhn on RealClearPolitics.

<snip>

How to explain? Are the wealthy voting against their economic interests?

For one, today’s wealthy are more likely to live on the country’s more liberal coasts, where voting Republican is taboo no matter how bad things get. And Obama talked about raising taxes on the rich in his campaign, so the increases are no surprise.

Also, the affluent haven’t suffered as much in the crisis, so they are “less likely to have their current political allegiance questioned by their economic interest,” the website concludes.

There may be other reasons, too. Wealthy voters–especially those way above the $150,000 entry point–tend to think long term (as in generations) about their money. While taxes are important, issues like the environment, education, infrastructure and America’s place in the world tend to be more important. On those issues, wealthy voters might see the Democrats as taking the lead.

I'm surprised it made it into the WSJ.

[maryf]

23. "how few of the affluent bloc that was once pleased is now displeased"

I wonder how long that will last? Thanks so much!

[TBF]

2. Not surprising. nt

[maryf]

3. More from the article for you: This is why The Wall Street Journal headlined

This is why The Wall Street Journal headlined a story last summer, "Democrats' New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters." But polls have continuously shown that Democrats have far more reason to worry about those who are anything but rich. This is partly because upper class Democrats are not voting on tax policy. If they were, they'd be Republicans.

[TBF]

6. It's always been that way. The difference now is that

Obama is trying to create more rich dems. His strategy is to pull in centrists with high incomes who may feel more comfortable with the social policies than they do with the tea party silliness. If DU is any indication he has been successful with that policy.

The problem is that in so doing he forgot about his real base. It's really not high income dems. It's the teachers, union workers, nurses, cubicle workers, etc... they are the ones who do the grunt work at home in their districts.

Jon Stewart could care less what Gibbs said yesterday. He'll make some jokes and vote for Obama. As for all those union workers, though, who feel that "hope and change" is a mirage, they may just stay home on voting day.

[maryf]

4. Good morning kick...more from within the article...

Obama's approval rating has plummeted by 24 percentage points among those with a household income that is less than $50k annually. He's dropped 13 points within the $50k to $100k bloc over the same period. And he's fallen 17 points within the $100k to $150k bloc.

[TBF]

8. I saw that - and a loss of 4% in those earning over 150K.

He's losing his real base, and that should concern him. He needs a big-tent approach and he needs it fast. If I were him I would get rid of Rham & Gibbs, and get someone like Howard Dean on board. He knows who the base is and understands how to reach them.

[blindpig]

5. Well, that explains a lot.

Who exactly is the base?

Perhaps it is the 'leftists and progressives' who do not understand the power arrangement. Perhaps they do not understand the nature of the Democratic Party at all.

As for the 'voting their social interests over their economic interests' thing, well, that depends. Is the Administration putting the squeeze on the rich? Don't see much of that, a lot will depend upon the hypothetical repeal of the bush cuts. Don't hold yer breath. Then there is the simple matter of relative pain, what's a few thousand to people that loaded? A small price for a pseudo-conscience, I think.

[maryf]

7. pseudo-conscience...

the price of a cuppa joe...

The squeeze on the rich isn't there as you say (tax cuts??? I say tax the rich more!). I do find it interesting that the group from 100 to 150, very comfortable, has lost more faith than that from 50 to 100, whose comfort has been slipping for a long time...does it mean the better off in that group, (but not as well off as the next group who love Obama still), are starting to feel a little bit of a pinch, are starting to realize that their aspirations are chimeric; maybe they are realizing they are workers too, wage slaves?

[TBF]

9. Yes, I see it here in the suburbs.

Higher incomes are either Republican or worried. If you live in a big city as I do, that $50-100K includes a lot of middle managers and tech workers. Some of the lower level doctors, lawyers (many of those are over $150 though). Even with the high salaries they've been rocked by this economy. They have cut vacations, they're trying to rebuild their investment accounts, transferred their kids from private to public schools, and in some cases they are very worried about their jobs.

The only people who aren't worried are the truly wealthy - the ones with inheritance that will last awhile. That is a very small percentage of this country.

[maryf]

10. I think less than 3%

make over 200...

[TBF]

11. I haven't looked at the tax tables for awhile -

but yes I remember $250K being somewhere in the top 5% - could've been top 3%. In Texas you see families with oil money who can live off royalty checks. It's a very, very small percentage that have that kind of inherited wealth. And ridiculous that so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few.

[maryf]

13. and some of those same entitled people protest unemployment bennies

as they say the people shouldn't be paid for not working...

[blindpig]

16. I doubt it.

Maybe it is that they identify more with the higher income brackets and believe they have more to fear from rumblings below..

[maryf]

17. Of course

If they'd only realize the rumblings from those below is because the whole thing is crumbling from the base up...and the higher they are, the harder they'll fall, time to join the base now...or as you so aptly put it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8907415

"So here's the deal: shut up and carry that water or do something completely different, cause you're just spinning your wheels. As for 'something completely different', you might look at history. There are plenty of lessons there. The main lesson is that only when the people organize themselves, presenting a united front in implacable opposition to the ruling class, will they get any traction. Anything less is doomed to failure or assimilation. This is an invitation to lots of work, discomfort, and mebbe worse. But the thing is, we do it on our own. We are not dependent on those whose class interests is diametrically opposed to ours.

Time is ticking folks. War is unabated, the standard of living for the working class is degrading, and the planet is dying piece by piece.

Shit or get off the pot."

Just had to repeat that...

[KharmaTrain]

12. It's Called Playing The Game..

...and that's what our politics has become...a high stakes poker game. If you've got the bucks you get a seat at the table...if you don't, you sit and watch. Our non-stop campaign system has made getting elected so expensive that politicians spend more time fund raising than they do on legislating. Without the big bucks for TV ads, hoidy-toidy consultants and PR people these people don't think they stand a chance of being elected (especially in tight elections). Thus those who write the big checks are always going to get the access and have more influence.

[maryf]

14. election reform might help...

but it might be too broken at this point...my personal jury is still out on this one...

[TBF]

21. I don't think it would -

it would just go behind closed doors

[maryf]

24. probably...

though there aren't too many we can see past now... :)

[blindpig]

15. Ain't no chance this is by design, huh? n/t

[KharmaTrain]

18. Of Course It Is...The Golden Rule

It's designed by many for many different ends...call it corporate welfare or a kleptocracy but it's money that dominates all. Those who have it want more or to protect what they do have. If they can't shake the money out of your pockets then they will through your taxes...and writing the big checks is just the cost of doing business. I recently heard that lobbyists spent $3.5 billion in the last year and a half...the little guy doesn't stand a chance.

[maryf]

20. bump for rush hour...nt