Wealthy Democrats Stand by Obama

[progressoid]

Wealthy Dems Stand by Obama

By David Paul Kuhn


Affluent Americans are Barack Obama's most secure class of support. They have stuck by this president at three to six times the rate of all other income groups since early 2009, based on a RealClearPolitics analysis.

It's a familiar story that wealthy voters have moved toward Democrats in recent years. But the remarkable steadiness of Obama's affluent support has continued with little notice. The national media has instead heavily covered Obama's tepid flings with populism.

You would think Obama's rich support was running to Republicans. It's not. Wall Street money has recently come to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/30/wall_street_turns_on_dems__105380.html">favor Republicans. But in broad terms, the affluent Obama vote has barely cracked.

Obama's approval rating has plummeted by 24 percentage points among those with a household income that is less than $50k annually. He's dropped 13 points within the $50k to $100k bloc over the same period. And he's fallen 17 points within the $100k to $150k bloc.

What about those households with income exceeding $150k? Obama has merely declined 4 points, based upon Gallup polling from February-March 2009 (after Obama's honeymoon ended) to June-July 2010.


...

more:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/10/rich_dems_stand_by_obama_106686.html

Dunno if this has been posted yet - I just ran across it.

[Romulox]

1. "Membership has its privileges"

The rich have little complain of from this President.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

4. Why aren't they complaining of his plan to drop the tax cuts for people like them?

[Romulox]

5. Because even a sow must step back from the trough from time to time. nt

[deaniac21]

9. It's incredibly easy for the rich to dodge taxes.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

13. Thanks for not answering my question.

[Romulox]

16. The question was based on an erroneous premise, so there's little point in taking it seriously...

The article refers to "households with income exceeding $150k". Obama has pledged to "renew" the Bush tax cuts for households making up to $250,000/year (top 5% of earners.)

So, the premise of your question is simply erroneous, and you're lucky that I gave it even this much consideration, knowing as I do that you don't care one whit about the accuracy of this or any of your other shaky premises. :hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

And they only polled people making between 150K to 250K?

Oh wait, they didn't. The baseline was at 150K with no endpoint, which means it included some people who would earn more than the 250K cutoff.

:hi:

[Romulox]

20. Like I said, you care not a whit to correct your previous error

it's always on to the next talking point with you. It's a snooze.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

22. Coming from a guy who uses rejected sayings from Poor Richard's Almanac.

:rofl:

And my point still applies because the polled group also includes people at the 250K level and up, so it looks like you can't even admit your own mistake, genius.

:rofl:

[Romulox]

25. Um, huh?

You are just full of bizarre non sequiturs. My original inclination was correct--you're not worth any effort.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

26. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8917598&mesg_id=8917989

The article refers to "households with income exceeding $150k". Obama has pledged to "renew" the Bush tax cuts for households making up to $250,000/year (top 5% of earners.)

My mistake was in assuming the poll featured people making 250K and above. You pointed out that it starts at 150K and that people making 150K would still have their tax cuts, yet the poll's baseline was at 150K, so that means some of the respondents had to be in the 250K-and-up range, so my basic point still stands. If they only polled people making 150K-250K, then you would have a point. But they didn't.

[applegrove]

30. Because they know the alternatives are all bat**** crazy and they know

they still make alot of money even if they pay 40% income tax. They are doing well but they want a country with a middle class.

[TBF]

32. If you make $150K or more a few thousand doesn't really matter.

At that level you are either republican or you are voting on cultural issues.

[JI7]

2. what is the percentage of support he got from those originally ?

[TBF]

33. I posted the list of top campaign donors in another thread -

It includes big investment banks, well-known tech companies (google for example), universities (professors).

He got quite a little bit of money from that group. It's not his true base but it is the group he feels comfortable with is my guess.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. No surprise there.

[geek tragedy]

6. From the same article

"Obama has tested his upper class support more than any modern presidency. He's continuously pledged to oppose tax hikes on everyone but the wealthy. That pledge is at the center of the current debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. The healthcare overhaul will increase wealthy voters' tax burden. And financial reform was hardly celebrated by the investing class."

Never mind that, of couse.

[Donnachaidh]

7. elitists -- they don't run out of unemployment benefits.

They got themselves covered.

[ProSense]

8. The title and the highlights don't match.

The title is about Democrats, but the highlights are about Americans in general.

Obama won this affluent bloc by a 50 to 48 percent margin. Bush won 60 percent of the bloc in 2004.

Affluent Americans are not broadly pleased with the president. Only 43 percent approved of Obama in June and July. But few of Obama's affluent supporters have turned on him. That's the salient point. In effect, almost half of affluent adults can be considered part of the Democratic base.

[NC_Nurse]

10. I suppose because they don't believe in the fairy tales that the Repubs are

Spinning. This country can't afford the tax cuts and they don't want their country to go down the tubes...perhaps?

I bet a lot of it has to do with intelligence, not money.

[rufus dog]

11. Wow 10 responses and three slams!

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.


“Because even a sow must step back from the trough from time to time.”

“It’s incredibly easy for the rich to dodge taxes.”

“Elitists – they don’t run out of unemployment benefits. They got themselves covered.”

You might want to consider that some make 150k plus through honest means, pay their fair share of taxes, and in a bad economy sometimes go months without taking any income.

[Romulox]

12. The well-to-do are the TRUE victims! nt

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Seriously. eom

[rufus dog]

15. not sure where you got that from - never stated that in my post.

Is it acceptable to call those making 150k pigs, tax cheats, and elitists?

Very broad brushed, very close minded.

[Romulox]

17. Where indeed! nt

[rufus dog]

19. another non response

nice class warfare though.

[Romulox]

21. "class warfare"? Mega-Dittoes!

Oh brother. :hi:

[rufus dog]

23. read your comments

somehow you feel that those making over 150k got everything they wanted from Obama, are pigs, are tax cheats, are elitists. You can't answer a basic question, based upon your stereotypes wouldn't a Dem making over 250k be complaining about Obama?

[Romulox]

24. You *do* understand that not all of the comments to this thread are authored by me, right?

Right?

"somehow you feel that those making over 150k got everything they wanted from Obama, are pigs, are tax cheats, are elitists."

Link or it didn't happen. :hi:

[rufus dog]

28. Here are your posts only!

Comments and Generalizations:

1. Membership has its privileges -- the rich have little complain (sic) from this President.

2. Because even a sow must step back from the trough from time to time.

3. The well to do are the true victims (assumed sarcasm)

So in your mind is it not possible for someone making over 150k to:

1. Be gay and unhappy with some policies?
2. Want the wars to end?
3. Want a larger stimulus?

[laughingliberal]

18. Well, I guess that explains a lot. nt

[Odin2005]

27. That's why us little people are being shat on.

[Political Tiger]

29. "upper class Democrats are not voting on tax policy"

"This is why The Wall Street Journal headlined a story last summer, "Democrats' New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters." But polls have continuously shown that Democrats have far more reason to worry about those who are anything but rich. This is partly because upper class Democrats are not voting on tax policy. If they were, they'd be Republicans."

[mike r]

31. Noblesse obligé vs. the fucking retards

[Catherina]

34. Nice to see it in print n/t