« I Believe... | Main | In The Jetstream »
November 07, 2004
Republicans: Party Of The Common Man
Sowell debunks another myth:
Election frauds are nothing new and neither are political frauds in general. The oldest fraud is the belief that the political left is the party of the poor and the downtrodden.
The election results in California are only the latest evidence to give the lie to that belief. While the state as a whole went for Kerry, 55 percent versus 44 percent for Bush, the various counties ranged from 71 percent Bush to 83 percent Kerry. The most affluent counties were where Kerry had his strongest support.
In Marin County, where the average home price is $750,000, 73 percent of the votes went for Kerry. In Alameda County, where Berkeley is located, it was 74 percent Kerry. San Francisco, with the highest rents of any major city in the country, gave 83 percent of its votes to Kerry.
Back in September, I wrote about the myth that the Democratic Party is the party of the common man.
The extent to which the parties have flipped positions on the little-guy/rich-guy divide is illustrated by research from the Ipsos-Reid polling firm. Comparing counties that voted strongly for George W. Bush to those that voted strongly for Al Gore in the 2000 election, the study shows that in pro-Bush counties, only 7% of voters earned at least $100,000, while 38% had household incomes below $30,000. In the pro-Gore counties, fully 14% pulled in $100,000 or more, while 29% earned less than $30,000.
For those of you who don't like math, the pro-Gore counties had twice as heavy a concentration of voters making over $100,000.
Likewise, the top individual and corporate donors to 527s were overwhelmingly liberal: in fact, of the top 10 individual donors to 527 committees, all backed anti-Bush or Democratic-allied groups.
Democratic 527s outspent Republican 527s 5-to-1 in the 2004 election season. In general:
Democrats outspent Republicans on the White House race by a $10 million margin, $250 million versus $240 million. They spent another $110 million, of which $70 million was spent in support of Kerry while $40 million went to Bush.
So much for the myth that the "big money" is backing the Republicans. The facts show that Hollywood and corporate America is backing the DNC, and that is also where the votes of the richest Americans go.
- Cassandra
November 7, 2004 at 03:05 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b19169e200d834568fb169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republicans: Party Of The Common Man:
» The Oldest Fraud from Ed Driscoll.com
Back on August 1st, we wrote:In many TV sit-coms and comedy movies from the 1960s through the early 1980s, you'll see the cliché of the wealthy country club Republican, ala Nelson Rockefeller. Jim Backus' blue double-breasted blazer-wearing Thurston Ho... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 7, 2004 4:38:18 PM
Comments
Thanks to the MSM the myth prevails.....e.g. "tax breaks for the wealthy", "out of touch with the middle class", etc.
Denial seems to be the Democratic Party's strong suit...they got "Bush-whacked",
pun intended.
Greg
Posted by: Greg at Nov 7, 2004 4:44:29 PM
I am uncommon.
I respect my peers, but, ever,
Arrogance stills me.
Posted by: spd rdr, sp--d h--k- at Nov 7, 2004 5:30:21 PM
Figures don't lie, but...
I don't have all the statistics nor do I know if they are in yet but, it is misleading to do it by "counties". Because not everybody in a county votes the same way. I did see an analysis on gross numbers showing a lean to democratic in lower income (less than $40K) and a slighter lean to Republicans in all the upper brackets. The individual income factor did not seem to be very significant in party identification. Sorry, can't find the link.
Posted by: Al Peck at Nov 8, 2004 7:05:54 PM
Another factor is the urban/ rural divide, which is unquestionable. The land values and rents you quote are normally higher in urban areas because of the market forces at work there.
Posted by: Al Peck at Nov 8, 2004 7:08:14 PM
That doesn't change the fact that people who don't make as much money can't afford to live there, Al :)
My son lives on the East Coast because he couldn't afford to live in urban California on a policeman's salary. That's where he wanted to live, but he couldn't afford it. It's simple economics - we sat down with the ads and a calculator and he was able to see it very quickly.
Posted by: Cassandra at Nov 8, 2004 7:11:07 PM
And I live in Frederick County (which went R) because I couldn't afford the same size house in Montgomery County. My job is in McLean, but I can't afford to live there, Al.
So your argument really doesn't hold water.
Posted by: Cassandra at Nov 8, 2004 7:12:14 PM
And the truly scary thing about all of THAT is that we're fairly affluent :) And the area where I work went OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic.
Not surprising. You can't touch a townhouse I wouldn't live in there for under half a million dollars.
Posted by: Cassandra at Nov 8, 2004 7:13:24 PM
My house there, Al would probably go for a cool million.
Posted by: Cassandra at Nov 8, 2004 7:13:52 PM
...but then, I can't afford to live near MY job... or my husband's job, which is in Arlingon, VA.
He has over an hour commute every day :)
Not to rub in a point, or anything...
Posted by: Cassandra at Nov 8, 2004 7:14:55 PM

