Democrats Becoming New Party of Rich; Obama Can Help To Appeal To Affluent & Independents

When following the trackback from Michael van der Galiën’s link to my earlier post today on socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters backing the Democrats I found what amounts to a related story at his site. Michael is surprised by a story in the Financial Times which shows that the Democrats are becoming the “party of the rich.”

For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new “party of the rich”. More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.

Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America’s wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

The story, coming from a vice president of the Heritage Foundation, only tells part of the story, but there is considerable truth to this–and it comes as no surprise. I’ve previously noted how businessmen and affluent suburbanites are increasingly voting Democratic. An increasing number of people have rejected the Republicans as they identified them with the Iraq war, the policies of the religious right, and incompetent government.

There’s also the realization that Republican economic policies don’t work, except perhaps from those receiving Republican corporate welfare. Even some of the Republican business owners I know who are not yet willing to vote Democratic admit that their businesses do better under Democrats. The stock market also does better under Democrats on the average. While none of us like higher taxes, it is preferable to pay higher taxes on a higher income if it means that in the end we do better than under the Republicans. There’s also a certain degree of infrastructure necessary for a successful business climate, and the slash and burn tactics of the Republicans create the fear that they will destroy the necessary infrastructure while enforcing their no-tax increase pledges.

Whether this trend continues depends largely upon which the direction the Democrats go. If the Democrats adopt populist style economic policies as advocated by John Edwards they will lose the new voters who helped them achieve victory in 2006,

----while a candidate such as Obama is far more likely to appeal to affluent and independent voters. Some on the left see the 2006 victory as a mandate for their views, but we saw what happened when the Republicans earlier misinterpreted an election as a mandate in 2004.

Link: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2354

Who now is the party representing the non-rich? You know, 90% of America?

party are still not the issues that are huring the poor in this country. The democratic party is still better for us all than the republican party but certainly not the answer.

The rich started becoming more and more represented in the Republican Party. Prior to that the Democratic Party was seen as being more friendly to the affluent. Nevermind the issues surrounding slavery. Eventually, the business interests took over the Republican Party after Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent after losing out the Republican nomination. He siphoned off so many progressive voters that the party fell under the control of big business interests, where it has resided ever since. The remaining progressive voters migrated over to the Democratic Party.

under $70,000. Half the country makes under $38,000

Could this explain why Obama stays in the 20s nationally.

I do not have a dog in this fight. Just observing.

These are the same folks who gravitated to Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Bill Bradley...

I wouldn't take anything he has to say on money very seriously. He's in the top 2% and clueless to everything else.

People in East New York, Mott Haven and other working class NYC neighborhoods aren't voting Dem because they're affluent, or strongly support liberal social issues.

That has been the trend in the Democratic Party for more than a decade. Not only is this trend NOT reversing, it is gaining steam as it proceeds.

That doesn't change the way the Democratic Party looks at any group other than the very rich.

On the upside, at least the Dems are willing to pander to the very rich of any race. All that counts is how much money you are willing to give over.

DSB

often out of touch---The situation is there are not enough elites
for their choice candidate to win.

If you look at the data the Democratic party has the most formally educated folks and the least formally educated folks as well as the highest earning and lowest earning folks...

go back to your NIntendo game, junior. Clue" WE ARE THE BIGGEST SEGMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY> Can you win without us?
I don't think so.

Or he'd know Obama was a bigger advocate for the poor and working people than Edwards ever hoped to be. Nothing in his background indicates that he's going to be some sort of pro-business copycat, even the Peru trade agreement which has labor standards IN IT, for a change.