The real party that represents the rich in America

[Value Buy]

Interesting article about Congressional district representation on who represents the country's really rich districts.

Hint. It is not all the Republicans.

[Virgil Showlion]

Uh... where?

[Tennesseer]

Here-though it doesn't mesn much in the whole scheme of things..

news.msn.com/us/party-of-the-rich-in-congress-its-the-democrats

[Value Buy]

Thanks, Tenn, I thought I put the site in my message.

Do not know why it did not show up.

Does it mean anything?

Maybe, maybe not, but it does show the rich of the rich are not necessarily Republican Party members.

Same for the actual Representatives who represent their districts.

[Tennesseer]

All it means is the per capita income of the rep/senator's constituents is a certain amount.  This includes the income of Republicans and independants in the area represented.

[djAdvocate]

the Koch Brothers live in NYC, apparently.

that is a very blue district.

[Lizard King]

At the risk of belaboring the obvious point, even if some of the people in wealthier districts don't vote Democratic, the majority of voters in wealthy Democratic districts do.

If the majority of districts that have high median incomes vote Democratic, that does tend to undermine the talking point that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Most millionaires live in very blue districts. Part of the Democratic base that has endured the longest is the elites who believe they have the right to impose their values on the plebs their penthouses overlook.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 17:02:22 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

At the risk of belaboring the obvious point, even if some of the people in wealthier districts don't vote Democratic, the majority of voters in wealthy Democratic districts do.

of course.  but not a majority of the rich in those districts.

If the majority of districts that have high median incomes vote Democratic, that does tend to undermine the talking point that Republicans are the party of the rich.

no, it really doesn't.  the rich are a very small minority.  they are a very small minority that can distort the income statistics of a district significantly.  let me illustrate how:

let's say you have a classroom with 10 people in it.  let's say that 8 of them make half the median income, and two of them make 10x the median income of the US.  in the next room, you have a the same number of people, and they make the median income, on average but evenly distributed.

if it is true that 75% of the people below 50% of median income vote Democratic, and 75% of the people above 2x median income vote Republican- how would the two classrooms vote in an election?  which one is richer?

Most millionaires live in very blue districts. Part of the Democratic base that has endured the longest is the elites who believe they have the right to impose their values on the plebs their penthouses overlook.

your syllogism has a false premise.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 31, 2014 17:02:22 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

At the risk of belaboring the obvious point, even if some of the people in wealthier districts don't vote Democratic, the majority of voters in wealthy Democratic districts do.

If the majority of districts that have high median incomes vote Democratic, that does tend to undermine the talking point that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Most millionaires live in very blue districts. Part of the Democratic base that has endured the longest is the elites who believe they have the right to impose their values on the plebs their penthouses overlook.

It makes sense when you think about it.  People who live in cities are typically higher income, and urban areas are far more likely than rural areas to be blue.  You won't find too many millionaires in rural Idaho or Texas.

And there's also truth to your "elite" democrat statement.  After all, it's the democrats who brought you the sugery drinks ban.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 17:24:06 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 31, 2014 17:02:22 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

At the risk of belaboring the obvious point, even if some of the people in wealthier districts don't vote Democratic, the majority of voters in wealthy Democratic districts do.

If the majority of districts that have high median incomes vote Democratic, that does tend to undermine the talking point that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Most millionaires live in very blue districts. Part of the Democratic base that has endured the longest is the elites who believe they have the right to impose their values on the plebs their penthouses overlook.

It makes sense when you think about it.  People who live in cities are typically higher income, and urban areas are far more likely than rural areas to be blue.  You won't find too many millionaires in rural Idaho or Texas.

urban areas also have disproportionate numbers of poor.  median income is a lousy measure of income distribution.

And there's also truth to your "elite" democrat statement.  After all, it's the democrats who brought you the sugery drinks ban.

not following how that is related in any way.  but whateveaz.

[djAdvocate]

have any of you guys looked into voting patterns by income quintile?  it is quite well studied. 

this argument comes up over and over again, but the stats are really quite clear on it:

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ssqfinal.pdf

i really thought this issue was settled a long time ago.  there is another article that presents the data in html, and is much older.  if i find it, i will add it to this post.

question for you guys: does it make you feel better to think that rich democrats are spoiling the game for you?  i really want to know.  personally, i find the power that my party wields very gratifying. 

[djAdvocate]

this is one of those issues like media bias.  the data is way behind the rhetoric. 

[Value Buy]

Saw a graph on the one percenters, and how they have a divergent disparity within their grouping.

It seems there is a pecking order in the one percenters too.

The top .01 of the one percenters are at the top of a skyscraper in the penthouse.

Everyone else classified as a one percenter, lives at ground level, or maybe up to the 10th floor at best.

Yes, I know it does not mean too much if you are living in the skyscraper, but ask the guy at ground level living, if he does not feel poor compared to the upper level apartments.

[djAdvocate]

there are a lot of rich Democrats out there.  but not as many as rich Republicans.

this paper is (4) years old, but it is still really good:

www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[djAdvocate]

for the record, i think that both parties represent the rich, and neither represent the poor.

my beef with the OP is the implication that most of the rich vote Democrat.  they don't.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 31, 2014 17:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have any of you guys looked into voting patterns by income quintile?  it is quite well studied. 

this argument comes up over and over again, but the stats are really quite clear on it:

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ssqfinal.pdf

i really thought this issue was settled a long time ago.  there is another article that presents the data in html, and is much older.  if i find it, i will add it to this post.

question for you guys: does it make you feel better to think that rich democrats are spoiling the game for you?  i really want to know.  personally, i find the power that my party wields very gratifying. 

I thought the issue was settled a long time ago too, when you took umbrage to my claim that the Democrats are the US welfare party. Now you've just gone and proved that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat, especially in red states.

[EVT1]

And forgetting who is doing the voting for a minute- it is quite obvious which party's policies are geared to benefit the rich- all that is really important when saying who represents who.

And I would take issue with your claim as well- while democrats may support policies that help the poor- that is a far cry from wanting said population to continue existing.  Both parties at heart want to eliminate welfare (or the need for it depending on which side of the fence you are on). 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 20:28:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 31, 2014 17:36:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have any of you guys looked into voting patterns by income quintile?  it is quite well studied. 

this argument comes up over and over again, but the stats are really quite clear on it:

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ssqfinal.pdf

i really thought this issue was settled a long time ago.  there is another article that presents the data in html, and is much older.  if i find it, i will add it to this post.

question for you guys: does it make you feel better to think that rich democrats are spoiling the game for you?  i really want to know.  personally, i find the power that my party wields very gratifying. 

I thought the issue was settled a long time ago too, when you took umbrage to my claim that the Democrats are the US welfare party. Now you've just gone and proved that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat, especially in red states.

no.  i took umbrage to your claim that illegals vote, and that people on welfare are a reliable constituency for Democrats.  neither are true. 

edit: the red state argument had to do with makers and takers (tax policy) not voting.

question for you, Virgil: why do you consistently dredge up old threads that have little to bear on current discussions?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 21:14:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And forgetting who is doing the voting for a minute- it is quite obvious which party's policies are geared to benefit the rich- all that is really important when saying who represents who.

And I would take issue with your claim as well- while democrats may support policies that help the poor- that is a far cry from wanting said population to continue existing.  Both parties at heart want to eliminate welfare (or the need for it depending on which side of the fence you are on). 

the 47% argument is almost unimaginable coming from the Democrats.  it is really not hard to figure out why.

[EVT1]

The whole makers/takers thing is bullshit.

As someone that votes Democrat when I vote- and not since the 08 election- I do not support a single policy that pays people that are capable of working and choose not to- but what I will support in a minute is a policy that will take care of people that cannot work or cannot find work that are willing and able to.  And I reluctantly support our shitty corporate welfare system that soaks the taxpayers to provide cheap labor to large corporations in this country that have already had enough government largesse laid at their feet.  One minimum wage fix and that shit is over- and guess who is standing in the way......We need to throw down the law and tell any corporation operating within this country that they will pay a wage sufficient to not invoke any welfare payments or they can go somewhere else.  The shit is getting ridiculous- and to use the old punching bag Wal-Mart those family members still alive have more money than they can ever spend and yet will beat down their employees at every turn- why?  They can still be the richest people on the planet and pay well- yet they have some sort of mental block/greed streak preventing it.  For fucks sake when is enough enough in this country?  We still have the GOP fighting to keep the hedge fund manager loophole, fighting to eliminate the estate tax, fighting to keep investment income paying less taxes than actual work- and that is supposed to be a path to national prosperity?  Why does anyone not in the club vote for these clowns?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 31, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 31, 2014 20:28:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I thought the issue was settled a long time ago too, when you took umbrage to my claim that the Democrats are the US welfare party. Now you've just gone and proved that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat, especially in red states.

no.  i took umbrage to your claim that illegals vote, and that people on welfare are a reliable constituency for Democrats.  neither are true. 

Your crack counterargument to the detailed article I posted indicating that illegals do in fact vote was "i don't buy it. but whatever. not going to argue about it, either."  So you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

As for people on welfare not being a reliable constituency for Democrats, it seems to me that this is precisely what your Columbia University article is telling us. The article clearly shows that Republican vote share of the richest third of Americans is consistently 10-30% greater than vote share of the poorest third of Americans. Moreover, that margin has been widening as time goes on.

Since there's a negligible third party vote, it is therefore perfectly accurate to suggest that electoral races whose outcome falls anywhere between 42 and 58% of the popular vote are won for the Democrats by the poor, or for the Republicans by the rich. Granted, not all elections fall between 42 and 58% in favour of the elected party, but given the vast number that do, especially at the federal level, the poorest third of Americans are "reliable constituency for Democrats" indeed.

edit: the red state argument had to do with makers and takers (tax policy) not voting.

Your own article states: "Higher-income Americans are more likely than low-income Americans to vote Republican. This gap—about 15 percentage points in recent years—is no surprise: these groups have differing economic interests, and the two major parties really do stand for different economic policies."

And the "red state" argument is introduced by your article thusly: "This will come as a surprise to some, who observe the recent pattern of Republican presidential candidates faring best in poor states and infer that perhaps poor persons are now as or more likely than the rich to vote Republican. Gelman et al. (2007, 2009) resolve this apparent paradox. Using multilevel modeling to explore the patterns of income and voting within and between states, they find that different states show different patterns of partisan voting by income. In poor states such as Mississippi, richer people are much more likely than poor people to vote Republican, whereas in rich states such as Connecticut, there is very little difference in vote choice between the rich and the poor."

question for you, Virgil: why do you consistently dredge up old threads that have little to bear on current discussions?

question for you, DJ: why do you characterize old threads that indeed have a good deal of relevance to the current discussion as having little to bear on the current discussion?

Responses inline.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 1, 2014 0:15:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 31, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no.  i took umbrage to your claim that illegals vote, and that people on welfare are a reliable constituency for Democrats.  neither are true. 

Your crack counterargument to the detailed article I posted indicating that illegals do in fact vote was "i don't buy it. but whatever. not going to argue about it, either."  So you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

i don't recall responding in that way, but i don't recall your article, either.  if you would like, post me a link to the ARTICLE rather than your thread, and i will read it.  chances are you caught me at a time that i didn't have the opportunity to read it.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 1, 2014 0:15:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 31, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

As for people on welfare not being a reliable constituency for Democrats, it seems to me that this is precisely what your Columbia University article is telling us. The article clearly shows that Republican vote share of the richest third of Americans is consistently 10-30% greater than vote share of the poorest third of Americans. Moreover, that margin has been widening as time goes on.

true.

i knew you would bring this up, and that i would need to clarify it, so i will do so, here.

the poor vote for Democrats about 60% of the time.  those are good numbers.  but they are not nearly as good as the minority vote, the gay vote, and several other constituencies.  but the reason that i said what i did is this: the poor have notoriously BAD turnout.  that is because of the obvious impediments that the poor experience voting.  they are more transient, so it is harder to keep registered, and have current address on file, and to find the polling place (and, thanks to the wonderful sanctity of vote movement, also quite unlikely that they will have the proper identification).  also, the polling places are staffed less well, and the lines are longer.  and finally, they have greater difficulty getting to the polls.  for these reasons, they are not a "reliable constituency", though they are RELIABLY DEMOCRATS.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 1, 2014 0:15:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 31, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

edit: the red state argument had to do with makers and takers (tax policy) not voting.

Your own article states: "Higher-income Americans are more likely than low-income Americans to vote Republican. This gap—about 15 percentage points in recent years—is no surprise: these groups have differing economic interests, and the two major parties really do stand for different economic policies."

i was talking about our PREVIOUS exchange, Virgil- not this one.  in the PREVIOUS exchange, i was pointing out that the red states are the takers, and the blue ones are the makers.

in THIS exchange, and the articles posted, we are talking about VOTING PATTERNS, which are, indeed, as you stated: the poor tend to vote Democratic.  sorry if that was confusing.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 1, 2014 0:15:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 31, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

question for you, Virgil: why do you consistently dredge up old threads that have little to bear on current discussions?

question for you, DJ: why do you characterize old threads that indeed have a good deal of relevance to the current discussion as having little to bear on the current discussion?

Responses inline.

you answer first, please.  i will gladly answer in kind.

[djAdvocate]

never mind, Virgil- i will answer first.

the discussion you linked was about two topics: one- how the red states take more than they give in federal dollars, and how a surprisingly large number of poor voters vote Republican.  i never denied that the poor are largely Democrat, and i have reinforced that, here.  however, this discussion is the OPPOSITE one: who do the rich vote for, and who (best) represents them?  i don't think we have any disagreement on that subject:

it is Republicans.

[Lizard King]

however, this discussion is the OPPOSITE one: who do the rich vote for, and who (best) represents them? i don't think we have any disagreement on that subject:

it is Republicans.

Legislatively speaking, is this true?

gawker.com/the-rich-are-paying-a-smaller-share-of-taxes-under-obam-1484917689

www.nationalreview.com/corner/371907/2000-there-are-29-percent-more-big-banks-and-24-percent-fewer-small-banks-veronique-de

www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-obamacare-strokes-fat-cats

All the regulatory bumf is just a barrier to entry to that closed shop of wealthy benefactors of Democratic crony capitalism.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 1, 2014 10:47:01 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

however, this discussion is the OPPOSITE one: who do the rich vote for, and who (best) represents them? i don't think we have any disagreement on that subject:

it is Republicans.

Legislatively speaking, is this true?

dunno.  i was talking about VOTING PATTERNS.

as i said earlier in the thread, i don't think EITHER party represents the poor.  the reasons for this should be abundantly clear to anyone watching our political system.

[Lizard King]

Apr 1, 2014 11:01:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 1, 2014 10:47:01 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

however, this discussion is the OPPOSITE one: who do the rich vote for, and who (best) represents them? i don't think we have any disagreement on that subject:

it is Republicans.

Legislatively speaking, is this true?

dunno.  i was talking about VOTING PATTERNS.

... and WHO (BEST) REPRESENTS VOTERS.

If you don't want the topic to broaden, don't broaden it. It's not hard to do. Just rein in the broad brushstrokes a bit.

[Lizard King]

as i said earlier in the thread, i don't think EITHER party represents the poor. the reasons for this should be abundantly clear to anyone watching our political system.

This being the case, the choices in our two-party system are between a party that doesn't care about the poor (I don't actually believe this is true of Republicans as a matter of political principle, although I accept its a function of the two-party state) and a party that is so contemptuous of them it openly lies to them while raping their wallets for campaign donations.