« Iraqn Mendacity Watch |
Main
| What Makes An Economist? »
October 22, 2007
What's The Matter With America?
Not that much. Contrary to what you occasionally hear pundits say, Republicans just about always win among wealthy voters. This was true in 2004, where the inflection point was about $50,000 a year, at which level voters began breaking for Bush, with Kerry's absolute weakest performance coming among those who made over $200,000. It was even true in Kansas, where Bush's win grew more lopsided as you wandered up the income bracket.
October 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
So we need a chart, Kevin! Show us how the number of people in the $200,000+ income group has changed during the Bush administration. Are they building their pool of diehard voters, or draining it?
Posted by: Winslow | Oct 22, 2007 8:45:58 AM
Sorry, Ezra--I was thinking about Kevin Drum and his charts when I posted earlier. It's early.
Posted by: Winslow | Oct 22, 2007 8:53:58 AM
"Just about always"... but you only show 2004 - does this hold for 1992 or 1996? What about 2000? I'm not necessarily saying it doesn't, but 2004 is only one data point, and the most recent, and the numbers point more to the completeness of Bush's success than anything (of the 70%) of voters between $35,000 and $150,000 in income, Mr. Bush won majorities pretty much acroos the board. Thus it's not so much that his numbers get better as they go higher it's his success hitting the sweet spot in the middle that's better or more concerning, depending on one's point of view. I agree Republicans have an appeal to the wealthy that's greater than the Democrats. I don't think that negates the impasct of wealthy Democrats on the politics of their own party, or negates the notion that Democrats appeal to a certain segment of wealthy voters.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 22, 2007 11:09:05 AM
Ezra's correct, and brought me to a rather intriguing conclusion that I'm sure will make macroeconomists ponder for a while. Perhaps what we saw as being wrong with Republican policies all along was not just that the way they favored the rich was inequitable and unfair. It was also unsustainable.
That is, by creating so few rich people, and by stagnating wage growth for all but the super-duper-wealthy -- as opposed to the merely super-wealthy -- the Republicans have made their own voting bloc ever smaller and smaller. Hence the 2006 election results, and the slew of recent polls showing voters shifting Democratic.
Posted by: Rick | Oct 22, 2007 1:19:17 PM
The US is unique amongst the western democracies in having such a parasitic and antagonistic elite vis a vis the rest of the population.
Who hates America? The wealthiest Americans hate America because it must serve their interests completely or they will destroy it all out of spite. Most other civilized countries do not have elites like this. It's almost African in its intensity and zero sum quality. I mean if South America can move away from this kind of politics why can't America? Why can't the republican party normalise itself?
Posted by: Northern Observer | Oct 22, 2007 4:17:50 PM
You are confusing high-ish income and wealthy.
It's entirely possible that Bush won among voters with incomes over $200k (which includes a lot of 2-income middle managers, small business owners, etc) and lost amopng the very wealthy (say, assets over $10mm).
Posted by: SamChevre | Oct 22, 2007 4:51:22 PM
I urge everyone to take a look at the US income quintiles before you post. Every time EK posts on wealth, someone chimes in with 'well that isn't really wealthy in NYC, SF, Boston', or 'for two lawyer families', or 'you couldn't buy a home in my neighborhood on that', etc. etc.
$200K in annual income puts a household in the top 3%. It isn't much compared to the top .1% but that household is earning more than 97% of all other households in the US. That family is rich not high-ish incomey. The top twenty percent of household incomes (now known as higher upper middle class) starts at $88,000.
If I was in the top 3% of households I might consider voting for the party that promised endless tax cuts for the top 5% too.
Posted by: capital gains | Oct 22, 2007 11:02:50 PM
Why do you continue to insist that anuual income equals wealth.
It is part of the entire conventional wisdom to keep the middle class thinking the rich/wealthy are actually paying taxes on their wealth.
You stats charts are complete bogus.
Lets look at it this way, both my Father, my brother and my sister voted in 2004.
My Father owns his house free and clear (400,000), he owns a vacation home (small mortgage),
He’s got about another 400,000 of savings/investments, he has his bills paid off, no debts.
He made about 26, 000 in income in 2004 in Social security, dividends,cashed in securities, etc. You would say that that POOR guy voted for Kerry.
My brother made just over 100,000. He has about 40,000 in college loans, a 1800 dollar mortgage,
Three kids to cloth, house, feed, educate, etc. Two car payments and several other credit payments
Trying to make ends meet. They barely get by and have no savings except a 401k.
You wou’d say he is wealthy and voted for Bush.
My sister made about 45,000 and voted for Kerry, Aha, low income, votes Democrat right. Nooo,
because she also lives at home in our parents second floor. They live on the first floor. They pay all her
Utilities bills and she pays no rent, she just pays for her car and shopping. And she sure loves to shop.
This is the problem, people who make annual income, normally make it because they have a lot of bills to pay.
People who don’t make much are not always poor, sometimes they just don’t need to work.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 23, 2007 4:39:34 AM
"about $50,000 a year, at which level voters began breaking for Bush, with Kerry's absolute weakest performance coming among those who made over $200,000."
Excellent, democracy appears to be working. As Bush did get the majority of the popular vote, and Ezra says this was because of the votes of the rich, then clearly, tax and other policies should be benefiting the rich. That's what democracy means, that the voters get what they want.
No?
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Oct 23, 2007 9:06:50 AM
