Last week, when it was asserted in the NY Times that "Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans," MediaMatters got its panties all in a twist over apparantly contradictory exit polling data from the 2006 and 2004 elections. Since, in my experience (contrary to the stereotype of rich Republicans), wealthy suburbs are generally fairly left-leaning, I was surprised to find such a substantial Republican advantage in exit polls for those with incomes over $200,000 given that America is very nearly split down the middle between parties so a 30-point gap is substantial. The $100,000 number is, I think, not particularly helpful since, if 20 percent of all households earn at least that much, it hardly illuminates the behavior of the wealthiest voters.
The $200,000+ disparity is particularly strange given the current edge Democrats have in campaign fundraising. Of course, it's possible that the few extremely wealthy donors account for a disproportionate amount of donation money, or that self-reported exit polling is not the most accurate way to determine the relationship between income and voting. (Or, as my econ professor would probably point out, income statistics do not appropriately account for wealth.)
However, a quick comparison of 2006 returns in the wealthiest zip codes shows a seemingly smaller partisan gap. In New York and California, these districts voted pretty much in favor of incumbents of either party (Clinton carried the ultra-rich in NY, and Schwarzenegger and Feinstein in CA), but in open races, the Democrats seemed to have a slight, but probably insignificant, edge. For example, Eliot Spitzer won the majority of gubernatorial votes in every wealthy district in NY. The richest zips in Nevada and Arizona tended Republican--in keeping with a regional tendency. In fact, the wealthiest zip codes frequently returned conflicting candidates to the House, Senate, and Governor's mansion. Compared to my home district, which elects Democrats to every single public office, these districts were shockingly balanced. Of course, this is all highly unscientific number-plugging into CNN's vote tracker, and it doesn't reveal any data about returns for local races. Still, it does seem as though, at the top of the income scale, where owning a $2 million home is a reality, the partisan gap is pretty small.
This evidence has been noted elsewhere, but the only explanation for it I've seen so far is that (Democratic) poorer people in wealthy areas have higher voter turnout than the (Republican) super-rich, thereby tipping the district in favor of Democrats. This is possible, but I wonder where these poor people are hiding in districts where the median home price is $700,000 and there are, by all accounts, very few rental properties, no less cheap ones.
UPDATE: Cheryl sends along this from the Atlantic, which includes a link to this study showing a closing partisan gap among wealthy voters.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Why isn't the top twenty percent of the country a good measure of the rich?
My thinking is that regional variations make it harder to determine what $100,000 means absolutely. In central Illinois, that's probably a fortune, but in and around cities like New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, $100,000 for a household of four is an upper middle class income--comfortable, but not upper echelon. It could be less than it seems insofar as 1) it is often based on two incomes, neither of which is particularly high alone, and 2) people living in urban and close-in suburban areas are paying more in local and property taxes and keeping less of their earnings. In the end, $100,000 earners could look very different from their top 20 percent peers in the seven-digits. (I don't mean outliers like Warren Buffett, but, say, your average second home-owner in the Hamptons.) A base like $200,000 or $300,000 might be a more absolute way of pinpointing the rich to whom Brooks is referring.
Ye-es ... but does the internal variation among the top fifth matter more than how they differ collectively from the lower four-fifths? I can't help thinking, every time I hear people try to distinguish the fairly well off from the very well off, that there's some sort of sublimated cringe--"Oh, I'm not rich, not like my neighbor Jones! I'm a salt of the earth middle America type--my family's hundred K doesn't stretch that far, and both my wife and I have to work!" And yet, somehow, four out of five Americans make less than you. And to the extent that a cringe that I find a little dubious informs political analysis, I find that political analysis a little dubious. Not meaningless, but dubious.
Fair enough, but in terms of voting behavior, couldn't this perception, even if it's skewed, have an effect? Most wealthy people (including those making $100,000) don't spend a lot of time with the bottom two or three fifths of the income scale, and so they compare their lives to those of the Joneses. Moreover, would you discount the difference between $100,000 for a family of four in New York City and the same income in Mobile, AL (all other things being equal)?
Discount, no. I suppose what I want to say is, if the top twenty percent of the nation is shifting Democratic in their voting behavior, I'm perfectly willing to simplify that to "the wealthy are shifting Democratic." When talking of variations within that quintile, I'd prefer to talk about variations "among the wealthy." Semantics, I suppose--but not entirely. I think the chattering classes consist in good part of people in that top quintile, and that they prefer to think of "the wealthy" as not-them, the top-twentieth, or the top percentile--whereas for most Americans, I suspect they consider the chattering classes as part of the wealthy. I also suspect significant political effects follow from such differing definitions--that the rhetoric of the chatterati has quite different meanings for poorer Americans, and that the chatterati are not entirely aware of this fact.
Anyway, an exercise in fussiness on my part.
Maybe, but I'm still trying to figure out if they are shifting, and which shifters count.
Oh, you mean an answer to your questions, as opposed to my concerns?
1) I do think the Whig/Tory model--that the wealthiest wealthy indulge themselves in various radicalisms, as the merely wealthy do not--is of some use.
2) The-culture-war-trumps-economics thesis also seems convincing--that a left view on foreign policy, abortion, or homosexuality (to name three hot button issues) determines voting behavior. See also, secularization and its discontents.
3) The idea that doctors (and perhaps other categories of self-employed professionals) are now functionally dependent on corporate bureaucracies, hate it, and therefore have turned anti-corporate, is also attractive.
4) I also like the idea that word-people (lawyers, historians, etc.) are liberally inclined, while number-people (accountants, engineers) are more conservative--some sort of deep-rooted disposition. One would need to follow up and ask whether word-professionals are growing in greater numbers than number-professionals.
5) (I think these trends predated the souring of much of the populace on the Iraq War, but one needs to wait until after the Iraq War ends (or its current phase) to tease out temporary (?) discontent with Republican foreign policy from these other trends.
6) I would be dubious about the poor-people-hiding-out-in-rich-districts thesis, since I recollect other studies talking about increased segregation by income/wealth in the country.
7) I would be most interested in a study detailing shifts in political affiliation by people employed in private business--entrepeneurs, middle management, etc. If the *business* core of the Republican vote--distinct from wealthy professionals--is shifting Democratic, that is cataclysmic for the Republican party.
8) As for subdividing the political trends of the upper quintile by wealth or income, with a pretense to data or statistical accuracy - not just speculating as to cause, but measuring the actual change - no answers here.
Post a Comment