Bush/Cheney '04: The rich won this election ...

Next time anyone on this board is going to go on about those "liberal elites" and how it's the Republicans who represent "the common folk", I'm gonna remind them of that. The poll shows: the richer, the more likely to have voted Bush.

Putting aside the fact that there are not enough "wealthy" people in this country to elect a president, what if there were, and they did?

Are the votes of the "poor" somehow more sacred than the votes of the "wealthy?"

The "poor" vote for candidates who promise to use the taxes paid by the "wealthy" to benefit them.

An elitist who is out of touch with the common person is perfectly capable of recognizing this dynamic and exploiting it.

[..] That someone is "poor" doesn't necessarily mean that they are poorly educated, irresponsible or lacking a proper work ethic.

That someone is "wealthy" doesn't necessarily mean that they are well educated, hard working and responsible.

However, far more often than not, these characteristics go hand in hand with the socio-economic status. In America at least.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Putting aside the fact that there are not enough "wealthy" people in this country to elect a president, what if there were, and they did?

Are the votes of the "poor" somehow more sacred than the votes of the "wealthy?"

No. Already answered that (rhetorical) question, see post above yours.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The "poor" vote for candidates who promise to use the taxes paid by the "wealthy" to benefit them.

An elitist who is out of touch with the common person is perfectly capable of recognizing this dynamic and exploiting it.

[..] That someone is "poor" doesn't necessarily mean that they are poorly educated, irresponsible or lacking a proper work ethic.

That someone is "wealthy" doesn't necessarily mean that they are well educated, hard working and responsible.

However, far more often than not, these characteristics go hand in hand with the socio-economic status. In America at least.

Before you go on claiming that the Democrats only pull the "poor" vote because those are people looking for hand-outs and are "more often than not" more "irresponsible or lacking a proper work ethic", please note that Kerry led in all income groups up to $50,000 in family income.

That's a lot of people to be putting down.

Its also a lot of people to be excluding from those mythical "common persons", which the liberal elites apparently are out of touch with, and the majority of all those people earning less than $50,000 are not part of either.

There's something primitive in the rhetorical bashing of the rich, of course. But confronted with a bashing of the poor of the same rhetorical quality, I know which turns me off more.

Makes it very easy to choose sides.

I am not bashing "the poor." I am bashing people who are irresponsible and lacking a work ethic, and noting that it is hardly a coincidence that the majority of such people are "poor."

I am also not claiming that Democrats only attract the poor votes, and your indignation that I might be, is somewhat amusing considering the thrust of your post: The wealthy elected Bush.

You also, apparently, are reluctant to appreciate that an elitist need not be in touch with the common man (irrespective of how you define him) to exploit him.

Not all Liberals are elitists, but there is absolutely nothing in your statistics that proves the notion that Liberal politicians are elitists out of touch with the common man to be inane.

Not, it's not a mystery that people vote for their own self interest. Is it wrong? Well, in a Presidential election - Yes, it could be. If your own self interest conflicts with our national interest of staying sovereign and safe, then yes, it's wrong. Voting for one single issue that is of minor consequence compared to larger issues, is wrong (okay, perhaps in some instances it's merely silly), and I'm talking about both sides if the political spectrum here. For instance, a Dem who votes for Kerry soley on the basis of gay marriage, or a Rep who votes for Bush sole on the abortion issue is, IMO, not looking out for the larger issue that if we are being blown up, those other things don't matter. Voting for Bush purely because I want to keep my tax cut (nope, not even close to the rich category), or voting for Kerry because he promises to tax the rich and for no other reason is kind of silly at this particular time. In times of peace, then we have the luxury of voting for less pressing issues. Won't it be nice if some day we can go back to squabbling about a bunch of little things?

Money Matters

TNR Online
Post date 11.10.04

Theories abound as to why John Kerry lost last Tuesday. A single question on the much-analyzed exit polls unleashed a week of discussion about how religious voters--that is, those concerned with "moral values"--may have decided the presidential election. On the left, Democrats bemoaned their party's inability to speak about faith. "Aside from Tipper Gore and a few others, liberals have failed to stress that ... they share conservatives' underlying unease with pop-culture values," wrote Robert Wright on Slate. Meanwhile, culture warriors on the right gleefully declared the election to be a vindication of their positions. "Ethics and moral values were ascendant last night," gloated Bill Bennett at National Review Online. Still others argued that the difference in this election was national security, with voters who might have preferred Al Gore in 2000 now convinced that only President Bush could keep them safe.

But in the rush to pin the blame--or the credit--for Bush's victory on religious Americans or security moms, almost everyone has ignored the group that may have made the biggest difference: wealthy voters.

The impact of a given bloc's contribution to a candidate's victory can be measured by something called "voter performance," the group's percent of the electorate multiplied by its level of support for a candidate. For example, if a particular group made up 50 percent of the electorate and gave a candidate 60 percent of its vote, that bloc's performance would be 30 percent. A group's performance can therefore rise or fall depending on two factors: its turnout relative to the rest of the electorate and how it votes.

For all the talk of how religious voters made Bush's victory possible, their performance didn't change from 2000 to 2004. Four years ago, those attending church once a week or more were 42 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 59 percent of their vote--for a performance of 25 percent (that is, 42 percent multiplied by 59 percent). In 2004, these voters were 41 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 61 percent of their votes, for a performance of 25 percent--no change from 2004.

By contrast, Bush improved his performance with voters at the upper end of the income ladder. Among those making less than $50,000, Bush actually lost ground, as his performance fell from 21 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2004. Among those making over $50,000, Bush's performance jumped 3 points, from 28 percent to 31 percent. And most of this improved performance was concentrated among the wealthiest of voters, those making over $100,000. In this group, increases in turnout and support for Bush raised the president's performance from 8 percent to 10 percent. In fact, Bush's gains among the wealthiest Americans account for a good chunk of his popular-vote margin of victory.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Among many of these upper-middle-class and wealthy voters in 2004, the answer is clearly yes. Bush's tax cuts were concentrated among those at the upper end of the income scale. Furthermore, since the last election, the share of the national income of voters who make over $54,000 per year has increased, from 72.8 to 73.2 percent. Not only did these voters disproportionately benefit from Bush's policies, but Kerry ran on a promise to raise taxes for many of them.

Perhaps then, it was no coincidence that at his press conference the day after declaring victory, Bush said little of interest to social conservatives and instead spoke of revising the tax code and privatizing Social Security, two measures likely to appeal to upper-income voters. Bush seems to understand who reelected him--even if his critics on the left and the wishful thinkers to his cultural right do not.

Philip Klinkner is an associate professor of government at Hamilton College.