Politics & Current Events

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

margarita_momma — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:04:47 GMT

debJustDeb:
ElizabethD:

I saw different numbers that were even more fascinating - those making 250+ went with Obama with a greater majority than those in the 100-249K group who would benefit MORE under Obama.

Here's my theory on that.

People making well over 250K, especially those making well, well over 250K (the corporate CEOs and the Warren Buffetts of the world), can afford higher taxes. They're not the "working wealthy" to coin a new term. The average corporate CEO could see his or her taxes triple and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to their lifestyle. If they have lavish spending habits, their earnings far outpace their spending even if their tax rate increased.

The group of people in the 100-249K group are probably in the top 5% or so of earners. Certainly they are in the top 10%. These people make good money, but they can't afford to quit or lose their jobs. They get no breaks when their children attend college and the FAFSA people determine they have no need. They see their standard deductions on income tax forms whittled down to nothing because they earn too much money to claim them. They hit the maximum tax amount for FICA every year but they don't hit it in January or February and put it so far behind them they can't see it in their rear view mirror.

These working wealthy people have seen the promises before. They don't believe that when the rubber actually meets the road with respect to tax treatment, they won't be asked once again to contribute more of their "fair share." And they feel every bit of the tax bite.

Well said, Deb. I agree 10000%.

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

SparrowSong — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:15:47 GMT

The thing about these types of articles is that in the big picture, they don't make much sense. Obama couldn't have won without the wealthy vote! Obama couldn't have won without the latino vote! Obama couldn't have won without the youth vote! Obama couldn't have won without the independent secular DINK vote!

Well great. Good thing ALL those people voted.

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

MrsDL — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:48:11 GMT

I saw different numbers that were even more fascinating - those making 250+ went with Obama with a greater majority than those in the 100-249K group who would benefit MORE under Obama

I found this to be interesting as well. Could it be that those who are in the 250K group or higher perceive their income levels to be high enough that the additional tax burden is insignificant compared to the social issues they value (environmental, equality, the war)?

Perhaps those in the 100-249K group still "feel" as if they are working hard to get to that 250K bracket and the idea that taxing a certain group of high-earners is too much of a penalty/unfair? Maybe this notion over-rides their priorities in terms of some of the other issues. Like the article states, it will be interesting to see what happens should Obama roll out his tax plan quickly. It will be hard to raise capital gains and income tax in this economy since those folks in upper brackets are the ones who have the money to spend right now.

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

debJustDeb — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:36:27 GMT

ElizabethD:
I saw different numbers that were even more fascinating - those making 250+ went with Obama with a greater majority than those in the 100-249K group who would benefit MORE under Obama.

Here's my theory on that.

People making well over 250K, especially those making well, well over 250K (the corporate CEOs and the Warren Buffetts of the world), can afford higher taxes. They're not the "working wealthy" to coin a new term. The average corporate CEO could see his or her taxes triple and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to their lifestyle. If they have lavish spending habits, their earnings far outpace their spending even if their tax rate increased.

The group of people in the 100-249K group are probably in the top 5% or so of earners. Certainly they are in the top 10%. These people make good money, but they can't afford to quit or lose their jobs. They get no breaks when their children attend college and the FAFSA people determine they have no need. They see their standard deductions on income tax forms whittled down to nothing because they earn too much money to claim them. They hit the maximum tax amount for FICA every year but they don't hit it in January or February and put it so far behind them they can't see it in their rear view mirror.

These working wealthy people have seen the promises before. They don't believe that when the rubber actually meets the road with respect to tax treatment, they won't be asked once again to contribute more of their "fair share." And they feel every bit of the tax bite.

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

ElizabethD — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:16:42 GMT

I saw different numbers that were even more fascinating - those making 250+ went with Obama with a greater majority than those in the 100-249K group who would benefit MORE under Obama.

And the NYT Magazine featured a story about the wealthiest counties in the nation are "BLUE".... going against the notion that rich are Republican.

Re: Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

debJustDeb — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:03:55 GMT

swrbcarpediem:
Given the attack ads about Obama raising "your taxes" and voters saying they were against Obama for his tax increases, I thought this was interesting...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15471.html

So many comments. So little time.

"Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history."

"The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate."

"...voters who had attended some college are surging."

"But 69 percent of all Americans in polls I conducted in recent years now also call themselves “professionals,” a new class transcending the old class labels or working or middle class or the wealthy. They have white-collar jobs requiring higher education and are earning more than ever before."

All this happened during the Bush administration? Who knew?

Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

swrbcarpediem — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:49:02 GMT

Given the attack ads about Obama raising "your taxes" and voters saying they were against Obama for his tax increases, I thought this was interesting...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15471.html

Most affluent voters key to Obama sweep

Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.

This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.

The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.

At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.

While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.

And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.

So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.

But 69 percent of all Americans in polls I conducted in recent years now also call themselves “professionals,” a new class transcending the old class labels or working or middle class or the wealthy. They have white-collar jobs requiring higher education and are earning more than ever before. Because of layoffs and business scandals of recent years, they have become increasingly embittered toward the corporate cultures that would have otherwise been their natural home base.

Unlike the small-businessman who is typically anti-government, these professionals come out of the era of the growth of global corporations believing more than ever before in government intervention, teamwork and collective action. They are the voters who favored the bailout, while the left and the right saw it as a betrayal of their fundamental principles.

These higher educated voters generally believe more in science than religion, in the interconnectedness of the world, and in pragmatism over ideology. They see us all living in a new world and are watching their kids enter it taking new economy kinds of jobs in places increasingly far away from home.

This group is at the core of voters receiving more of their information online and through cable TV in their offices all day long. As they leave many of the problems of working class life behind, this new class is easily captivated by the Sunday shows. What appears on the front pages has more impact on shaping their views than what they experience in their everyday life.

In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them? That is a big question that remains to be seen – they could quickly fragment over the issue if it gets raised early in the Obama administration. And they part company with many other Obama supporters in believing that we need to compete and win in the global economy, seeing trade as a necessity for economic growth.

These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.

The history of revolution usually parallels the history of rising, not falling incomes, and the middle class revolutions of 1848 brought many countries the democratic system in the first place. In the Obama revolution, the upper-classing of America took a front seat – the central question is whether they will remain there.

Mark J. Penn served as chief adviser to President Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election and to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her Senate and presidential races. He is the author of “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve, 2007).