One
Not to hammer the point home, Lash, but this, too, is already in the WaTimes article you posted - emphasis added:
Lash wrote:"As Americans become even modestly wealthier their affinity for Democrats apparently falls off. With middle income voters, it is Democrats -- the self-described party of the middle class -- who are running far behind Republicans, the oft-described party of the rich," the report says.
The wealthier Americans are - the less likely they are to vote Democrat - as it says here in the first sentence too.
The point that this article adds in the second sentence is that the breaking point,
above which people are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, at least among whites, is actually quite low - 'underneath' the level of "middle income voters". Meaning that those, too, already in majority vote Republican.
Just like the rich.
But
unlike the whites who earn less than $23,300. Who in majority vote Democratic.
So what the article shows is that, among whites:
Poor - Democratic
Middle class - Republican
Rich - Republican
Which all perfectly fits in with what Soz was saying.
------------------
Two
Furthermore, it bears repeating that the "income threshhold" of $23,300 found in this report is specifically about white Americans.
The exit polls that Soz quoted tell us that the "income threshhold" nationally, counting whites, blacks, Hispanics and others, is MUCH higher. Double as high, in fact. At $50,000.
Nationally, of those earning under $50,000, a majority votes Democratic.
Of those earning over $50,000, a majority votes Republican.
2PacksaDay made me smile, especially in juxtaposition with Soz's tables underneath - because yes, I did also make these tables here - even painstakingly setting the spaces exactly so that the columns would come out right - right after the 2004 elections..
I did so in this thread:
nimh wrote: Bush/Cheney '04: The rich won this election ...
OK, got your attention.
Seriously though. Analyses are abounding about the various electorate breakdowns. Turnout was a record high and new voters were mostly Kerry supporters. But Bush got through by mobilising a massive majority of white protestants and evangelical christians and by securing the preference of older voters. To be fair, he also got through by winning a larger minority of women, Latinos (up from 35% to 42%) and Jews than last time, and half of the Catholics.
But though one can play up the image of Bush propped up by the white, older Christians, or emphasise the inroads he made among minorities, one thing is sure:
He was elected by the wealthy. [If you'll agree with me that earning over $50,000 makes you wealthy. - nimh]
And this cannot be said often enough among all the inane rhetorics about "liberal elites" who've lost touch with "the people".
Here's the
exit poll data for the presidential elections. Note, the exit polls may have been imperfect, especially when it came to predicting individual states; but they've got these overall totals at Bush 50, Kerry 49, so pretty much on-target on the top lines.
Here's the numbers by income:
2003 total family income:
Code:
% Total Kerry Bush Nader
Under $15,000 8 63 36 1
$15,000-$29,999 15 58 41 0
$30,000-$49,999 22 51 48 0
$50,000-$74,999 23 44 55 1
$75,000-$99,999 14 46 53 0
$100,000-$149,999 11 43 56 1
$150,000-$199,999 4 43 57 -
$200,000 or more 3 37 62 1
