Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't mean to step on Vox's point, because I think he's largely right. I think the rich are more Democratic today than they were in the past. Some of it is probably because Clinton was a more business friendly type Democrat than the national faces of the party were before him. Another part is because a lot are probably more socially liberal and that element of the Republican party has dwindled.

It's silly to say the ultra rich are either Hollywood liberals or Republicans. Trial lawyers are one of the most Democratic groups in the country, and they do pretty well for themselves. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jon Corzine, plenty of big Wall Street names are Democrats. I would wager most of the people making tons of money in Silicon Valley are liberals.

I disagree. The upper middle class may be more liberal today than in the past, but the rich are CLEARLY republican.

I was making a joke about Hollywood and republicans. I mean, do I really have to explain it. Of course there are plenty of ultra wealthy liberals. But the overwhelming majority of the rich is republican. 8 of the top 10 districts are republican and that is on the far end of the bell curve.

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't mean to step on Vox's point, because I think he's largely right. I think the rich are more Democratic today than they were in the past. Some of it is probably because Clinton was a more business friendly type Democrat than the national faces of the party were before him. Another part is because a lot are probably more socially liberal and that element of the Republican party has dwindled.

It's silly to say the ultra rich are either Hollywood liberals or Republicans. Trial lawyers are one of the most Democratic groups in the country, and they do pretty well for themselves. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jon Corzine, plenty of big Wall Street names are Democrats. I would wager most of the people making tons of money in Silicon Valley are liberals.

I disagree. The upper middle class may be more liberal today than in the past, but the rich are CLEARLY republican.

I was making a joke about Hollywood and republicans. I mean, do I really have to explain it. Of course there are plenty of ultra wealthy liberals. But the overwhelming majority of the rich is republican. 8 of the top 10 districts are republican and that is on the far end of the bell curve.

jerseyhoya wrote:A) What is your definition of rich?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't mean to step on Vox's point, because I think he's largely right. I think the rich are more Democratic today than they were in the past. Some of it is probably because Clinton was a more business friendly type Democrat than the national faces of the party were before him. Another part is because a lot are probably more socially liberal and that element of the Republican party has dwindled.

It's silly to say the ultra rich are either Hollywood liberals or Republicans. Trial lawyers are one of the most Democratic groups in the country, and they do pretty well for themselves. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jon Corzine, plenty of big Wall Street names are Democrats. I would wager most of the people making tons of money in Silicon Valley are liberals.

I disagree. The upper middle class may be more liberal today than in the past, but the rich are CLEARLY republican.

I was making a joke about Hollywood and republicans. I mean, do I really have to explain it. Of course there are plenty of ultra wealthy liberals. But the overwhelming majority of the rich is republican. 8 of the top 10 districts are republican and that is on the far end of the bell curve.

A) What is your definition of rich?

B) What is your definition of overwhelming majority?

Also, the 8 of 10 figure is pretty crude. They're not all hugely Republican districts. I'll figure out what their Partisan Voting Indexes are, and post those. It will paint a better picture, I think.

jerseyhoya wrote:District Party Cook PVI
VA-11 GOP R +1
NJ-11 GOP R +6
CA-14 Dem D +18
GA-6 GOP R +19
CA-15 Dem D +14
NJ-7 GOP R +1
CO-6 GOP R +10
NJ-5 GOP R +4
VA-10 GOP R +5
IL-13 GOP R +5

Avg Cook PVI=R +1.9

Cook PVI is a measure of how much a district favors one party over another using presidential vote from the last two cycles. A Cook PVI of R +1.9 means these districts average out to favor the Republican candidate 1.9% over the national average.

I guess the national average would be somewhere around 50.5-49.5 in favor of the GOP if you did a two party vote share of the two previous elections. So these districts would be 52.4-47.6 in favor of the GOP. That's a lot less shocking than 8 of 10.

This isn't a great proof of anything either, but I think it's better.

Edit: Sorry, the list is ugly as hell. I don't do non obvious things well on the computer.

TenuredVulture wrote:The most meaningful way to measure is to look at how individual socio-economic status correlates with the individual vote. There's no doubt been a shift making the correlation weaker, leading to the post-materialist thesis--that people aren't voting according to their material interests, but according to some other set of interests.

jerseyhoya wrote:This makes Stu's point fairly convincingly I guess - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Just scroll down to the income breakdown.

I'd bet that it's closer in 2008, though, in the $200,000+ segment.

All of this relates to the second reason why I oppose Hillary – the Clintons are so scarred that they’re scared. Nothing bold will come from a second Clinton administration – and there’s a non-negligible chance that she’ll be pressured into doing something hawkishly stupid on the foreign policy front. Whether the flaw is action or inaction, the reason will be the same – they are intensely, neurotically afraid of appearing too liberal. The scars cut too deep.

As Sullivan and others have noted, the Clintons came of age in a different time. In their formative political years in Arkansas, they internalized the lesson of distancing themselves from the dirty hippies. And it worked for them – both in Arkansas and in 1992. And that’s all fine – politicians have to play the cards that historical context deals them. More power to them.

But 2008 is a new world. The modern conservative movement is both intellectually and practically exhausted. It’s still a powerful force, but the fires ain’t burnin’ like they were 20 years ago. There’s a window here to shift the course of the river – to enact not only a stable progressive majority, but to chart a lasting progressive course on the big issues of our day (health care, climate change, foreign policy).

Frankly, I have no idea whether Obama has the potential energy necessary to seize this moment. But I do know that Hillary – and her husband – do not. They too are spent forces. Sure, they know how to get things done, but when have they tried? The one time they tried – in 1994 – they got so badly burned that I can’t imagine they’ll stick their necks that far out again. The 1994 health care debacle, after all, merely reaffirmed the lessons they learned in Arkansas. Stick close to business. Triangulate. Don’t be a dirty hippy.

That’s why Hillary’s “old” Iraq positions are relevant to the future. The burning question on my mind is whether Hillary will be willing to at least try to take advantage of the necessarily-fleeting historical window that Bush’s collapse has made possible. Maybe she was timid in the past, but she’ll be totally different as President, right? Wrong. Iraq illustrates precisely how she’ll act. Whenever she fears her right flank is exposed, she’ll ride off with the nobles. Iraq is therefore relevant not because of what she did, but because it provides the best evidence of what she will do.

TenuredVulture wrote:By the way, this elite/non-elite issue is, in my opinion exactly what Huckabee has tapped into. I've been following much of the Huckabee debate over on Redstate, and few of those people seem to get his appeal.

I think part of the reason the Club for Growth has gone after Huckabee (and they went after him when he was barely an asterisk in the polls) is because he scares establishment and elite Republicans $#@!.

BuddyGroom wrote:I wonder if conservatives have a sense that Huckabee is a Republican that Democrats could live with and that bothers them.

Grotewold wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I wonder if conservatives have a sense that Huckabee is a Republican that Democrats could live with and that bothers them.

That's the conclusion of a piece written about him in the latest New Yorker: that once "talk radio finds out" that he dislikes liberals only to the extent that he disagrees with them on actual policy, he's doomed. What a country.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I wonder if conservatives have a sense that Huckabee is a Republican that Democrats could live with and that bothers them.

That's the conclusion of a piece written about him in the latest New Yorker: that once "talk radio finds out" that he dislikes liberals only to the extent that he disagrees with them on actual policy, he's doomed. What a country.

What a country indeed. The left misunderstands the right so badly that they think the opposition to Huckabee is in some large part because he doesn't hate liberals or that some Democrats like him. Nope, nothing to do with the fact that fiscal conservatives have little to no reason to believe he is one of us.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I wonder if conservatives have a sense that Huckabee is a Republican that Democrats could live with and that bothers them.

That's the conclusion of a piece written about him in the latest New Yorker: that once "talk radio finds out" that he dislikes liberals only to the extent that he disagrees with them on actual policy, he's doomed. What a country.

What a country indeed. The left misunderstands the right so badly that they think the opposition to Huckabee is in some large part because he doesn't hate liberals or that some Democrats like him. Nope, nothing to do with the fact that fiscal conservatives have little to no reason to believe he is one of us.