Lion of the Blogosphere

Dramatic shift, Democrats now the party of the rich

When I first started posting that the rich supported Democrats and supported Obama in 2008, I got a lot of hostile and disbelieving comments.

But let’s move ahead eight years. Does anyone now doubt that Hillary Clinton is going to win the rich vote? She will certainly win the top 1% rich by a really huge margin, and probably the top 5% rich by a smaller margin.

The shift of the rich from the Republicans to the Democrats has been going on for decades. It accelerated in the 2012 election, and because of Trump will massively accelerate in this upcoming election.

But we still have the weirdness of Trump’s tax plan (the one on his website) supporting tax cuts for the rich, while Hillary presumably inherits Obama’s desire to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000/year.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 28, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Posted in Politics, Taxes, Wealth

50 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes the Democrats are the party of the rich and the urban poor.

    ScarletNumber

    July 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    • Urban poor in the meaning of NAMs.

      JS

      July 28, 2016 at 8:03 pm

  2. This isn’t weird at all, per your explanation of wealth. The R preference is tax cuts for value creators (corporate management types) who make their money in income, while the D preference is to punish anyone with a day job. Everything the D team does is to increase the degree of difficulty for someone to be upwardly mobile into the elite level.

    Jefferson

    July 28, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    • The Dem’s aren’t that smart, and neither are the Republicans for that matter. Dems want higher taxes on rich (whether income rich or asset rich) for social justice reasons, while Republicans want the opposite because they think they are the part for the rich.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      • They’re pretty clever at the leadership/donor level. The reason Peter Thiel chose to speak at the R party is different than the reason he was invited.

        Jefferson

        July 28, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      • But the D’s never propose tax increases that would really affect the wealthy. They aren’t talking about increases in capital gains taxes or eliminating loopholes in the inheritance taxes so that the wealthy actually start paying them. They propose increases in income taxes, which disproportionally affect well-off people with “earned income.” Warren Buffet will continue to pay a marginal rate well below that paid by your local dentist under their plan. And I find it hard to believe they don’t know this to a certain extent.

        verylongaccountname

        July 28, 2016 at 4:47 pm

      • Republicans never tried floating a tax increase for wealth to see if Democrats would go along with it. I am sure they would.

        Just the opposite, it’s Republicans who pushed lowering capital gains taxes and lowering estate taxes, not Democrats. Both happened when George W Bush was pres and Repubs controlled Congress and Dems were opposed to it.

        Liberals genuinely want higher taxes on both income and wealth for Social Justices reasons, to pay for “anti-poverty” programs and better (or at least more expensive) education for inner-city minorities.

        While I am sure there are some hypocritical Democratic politicians who shamelessly pander to big-money donors, they same happens among Republican politicians. But in most cases, the benefits of donating money is that it brings better votes on issues that no one is paying attention to. Usually, tax rates have too much attention from the news media for politicians to vote against what the voters want.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 28, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      • Liberals genuinely want higher taxes on both income and wealth for Social Justices reasons

        What people want theory and what they do in practice are two very different things. Liberals may clamor for higher taxes (on the wealthy). But I strongly believe that they’re more likely to do everything they can to get out of paying taxes themselves.

        destructure

        July 28, 2016 at 5:42 pm

  3. Lion, you did an analysis of Bill Clinton’s convention speech in 1992 a few posts back. Maybe you can do a similar analysis of John Kerry’s convention speech in 2004. If I remember correctly, there wasn’t much or any stuff in it about immigrants, Hispanics, blacks, global warming, etc. Also they played up the patriotism angle, partly because it was soon after 9/11, the Bush wars, and the Bush Admin’s general playing up of patriotism.

    That was much more recent than 1992, and it’s remarkable how quickly the Dem party has changed.

    Tom

    July 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    • Millions more immigrants have flooded into the country since 2004. They went full retard on their leftwing crap the second they thought demographics reached the tipping point. But they may have jumped the gun a little. And they weren’t expecting Trump.

      destructure

      July 28, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    • As I recall, Kerry’s entire campaign was based on his being a combat veteran. That was literally the only reason he got the nomination; the Dems were trying to bridge the patriotism gap after 9/11. So I’m pretty sure his speech is mostly about him in Vietnam.

      Mike Street Station

      July 28, 2016 at 5:52 pm

      • Thats not true- they also felt that it was important that he was taller than W. All he had to do was hold the hand shake at one of the debates and then smile at the camera.

        Lion of the Turambar

        July 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    • Obama changed it, especially his second administration. The change in the country’s culture happened with sonic speed. Obama did all this.

      Did you ever read Larry Auster? When Romney lost, he wrote, “It’s their country now.” I thought he was overdoing it but he was right. He died a year or two later.

      gothamette

      July 28, 2016 at 5:57 pm

      • I used to read Auster’s site and I still think about that comment, “It’s their country now.” That is becoming more and more true. I think the 2012 election (not this one) was the real change election. As Chuck Todd said on election night in 2012, The demographic time bomb just went off.

        And I think he was right.

        Mike Street Station

        July 29, 2016 at 5:57 am

      • I met Larry once. Believe it or not, in person he was genial and breezy. And what he meant by that phrase wasn’t just one election, or two. He meant the entire culture.

        We saw that with these two conventions. No one hates to say this more than I do, but the Republican convention was a wan affair, with creepy circus overtones. The Democratic convention was “their country” – on display. Their culture = the culture.

        His book about immigration, which he wrote in 1992, is a classic. I think it’s online for free. I could never succeed in finishing it – it was too depressing. Despite his surface geniality, he was a difficult man, a far-sighted prophet who saw the important things with a terrible clarity. I sometimes wonder whether his prophetic abilities killed him.

        gothamette

        July 29, 2016 at 7:52 am

  4. Trump has also stated that he’d be willing to raise taxes on the rich while hammering out a deal with the Senate Democrats. I think that the tax cut he’s proposing is a high initial bid, which he’ll barter down.

    I think that Paul Ryan believes in tax cuts for the rich out of ideological conviction. Romney believes in them because that’s what his donors wanted. Trump will support them rhetorically as a negotiating tactic, but he’s vindictive enough that he’ll be glad to stick it to the rich donors who tried to sabotage his campaign from start to finish.

    Sid

    July 28, 2016 at 4:15 pm

  5. We now have a $4T a year Federal government. Thats a lot of cheddar to wet your beak in (so to speak).

    Guys that are really rich (5M+) are going to find a way to tap into all that flowing money and what better way than to give to your Dem politico and then get access to the trough.

    Republicans support shrinking government and how is that going to help you win contracts? Its not like anyone is paying to support the government spending so why not keep it flowing?

    It is interesting to note that Trump is in favor of big government and government doing everything. He just thinks he shoudl be the only one in charge of it. The only point of difference with Obama.

    Lion of the Turambar

    July 28, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    • Even that would work out fine if whites were in charge and blacks had only the roles they deserved.

      tiny blades

      July 28, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    • “Republicans support shrinking government and how is that going to help you win contracts? Its not like anyone is paying to support the government spending so why not keep it flowing?”

      Don’t be naive. Republicans support privatizing services, reforming agencies, and military spending. All of that requires giving money to vending, consultanting, and manufacturing firms owners by people who vote GOP.

      Jimi

      July 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

      • GOP: ” we plan a flat tax and light regulation treating everyone the same”

        Dem: “we are planning targeting some loopholes and 10,000 or so pages of regulation. You might want to be in the room to make sure your interests are protected.”

        Republicans are going to treat everyone the same so whats the point of buying influence? Democrats are going to be very active and you can easily slip provisions in the regulations that either directly help you or block competitors out of your market. So you have to give money to get access.

        Why do you think Chuck Schumer raises more money than anyone? People dont actually want to talk to Chuckie. But very time the Dem talk up how they’d like to do some regulation they get a windfall of donations.

        Lion of the Turambar

        July 28, 2016 at 7:14 pm

      • Why do you think Chuck Schumer raises more money than anyone? People dont actually want to talk to Chuckie. But very time the Dem talk up how they’d like to do some regulation they get a windfall of donations.

        So what you’re saying is the system is rigged. I wish someone would run on that.

        Andrew E.

        July 28, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    • One of the reasons that Trump is the nominee and not one of the other 16 also-rans is that after the base supported Tea Party candidates and won major victories for the GOP (giving the Republicans the largest majority since before the Great Depression), the House turned around and passed an Omnibus budget that gave Obama everything he wanted. It was a sobering realization that the “small government” talk was just that, talk. That helped set of the Republican civil war that’s waging right now.

      (narrated by Ken Burns)

      Mike Street Station

      July 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm

      • Right. What the hell was the point of the 2014 election?

        Dan

        July 28, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    • 5M isn’t rich unless you’re still in your 20’s. For someone nearing retirement it’s comfortably middle class.

      destructure

      July 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm

      • YGBK-ding – Most would be lucky to retire with 5M!

        JS

        July 28, 2016 at 8:11 pm

  6. I always thought the high-low coalition was bizarre and unstable. Countries such as Brazil and Venezuela and Mexico seem to have just two groups:
    (1) Those who want law and order/rich/striving middle class
    (2) The poor masses who want as much socialist freebies as they can get.

    Islamic countries also seem to have two similar groups:
    (1) Secularists, those who want order and rule of law, the educated, the rich
    (2) The masses of religious extremists

    I am surprised that our weird high-low coalition is actually *increasing*! The rich certainly have the most to lose if socialism actually wins. All over the world, when Communist revolutions succeeded, the rich were killed. But even modern socialism hurts them, if implemented. For instance, the left’s love of urban crime would ruin the value of all that precious urban real estate they are reclaiming. High taxes would harm them rather a lot.

    What other precedents are there for our bizarre high-low coalition? Leftists high-society people in France before the French Revolution? We know how they got eaten up….

    Dan

    July 28, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    • The high-low coalition stuff coming from the alt right never makes any sense to me. Democratic economic policies are still much better for the middle class than Republican economic policies. The Democrats are the party of rich but they don’t march to the economic tune of the rich like the Republicans do. If Democrats all had their way government spending would be higher (more economic growth) and there would probably be more and stronger labor unions (more secure, higher-paying jobs), two considerable, unambiguous benefits to the middle class.

      chairman

      July 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm

      • Chairman, please come join us in the 21st century. The Democrat party you describe is a thing of the past.

        The AFL-CIO is open borders now, which is pretty much the opposite of the concept of a union, and which would kill the wages of their members. The AFL-CIO is there (in practice) fiercely anti-labor, which is an interesting development.

        In any case, the high-low coalition is not some pet alt-right theory. It is simply true that the Democrats win overwhelmingly among the very poor and the very rich. The Republicans win the middle. This is an unusual situation as far as I can tell. Does this happen anywhere else?

        Dan

        July 28, 2016 at 7:08 pm

      • Democratic economic policies are still much better for the middle class than Republican economic policies.

        Wealth redistribution isn’t better for the middle class.

        The Democrats are the party of rich but they don’t march to the economic tune of the rich like the Republicans do.

        Sure they do.

        If Democrats all had their way government spending would be higher (more economic growth)

        Government spending isn’t the source of real economic growth.

        and there would probably be more and stronger labor unions (more secure, higher-paying jobs), two considerable, unambiguous benefits to the middle class.

        The reason union members have higher wages is because they artificially restrict the supply of labor. It’s a labor monopoly. That’s great for those in the union but bad for everyone else.

        destructure

        July 28, 2016 at 7:17 pm

      • “In any case, the high-low coalition is not some pet alt-right theory. It is simply true that the Democrats win overwhelmingly among the very poor and the very rich. The Republicans win the middle. This is an unusual situation as far as I can tell. Does this happen anywhere else?”

        It’s because the Republicans are the implicitly white party. People care more about tribalism than economic policy, so middle class whites vote Republican. Very rich whites vote Democratic because it’s trendy and they anti-identify with working and middle class whites. But the Democratic economic policy is still better for the middle class across the board than the Republican economic policy. If not for identity politics, a party like the Republicans would not be the choice of the white working and middle class.

        Republicans are better for the working class than Democrats on immigration but truly restrictionist Republicans are still rare; most are still strongly in favor of wage-depressing foreign worker programs.

        chairman

        July 28, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      • “Wealth redistribution isn’t better for the middle class.”

        Government doesn’t need to redistribute wealth to spend; it can produce currency, which isn’t inflationary if we aren’t close to full employment (we’re not) and if there aren’t significant resource constraints (there aren’t). But lots of wealth redistribution is good for the middle class even if you look at it from that perspective — schools, unemployment benefits, social security.

        “Government spending isn’t the source of real economic growth. ”

        I needs to be a significant source of growth if we’re in secular stagnation and consumer spending is held back by low wages and high personal debt loads.

        “The reason union members have higher wages is because they artificially restrict the supply of labor. It’s a labor monopoly. That’s great for those in the union but bad for everyone else.”

        Unions give their members high wages by forcing employers to pay those wages if they want to hire people to do that jobs. In the post-War decades unionization was much higher and so was employment, labor force participation, wage growth and productivity growth.

        chairman

        July 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm

      • The high-low coalition is due mainly to the Democrats being hard-core Marxists. Marxists are all aligned with their hatred for the bourgeoisie…IOW, the middle class.

        map

        July 30, 2016 at 2:29 am

      • Chairman,

        “Unions give their members high wages by forcing employers to pay those wages if they want to hire people to do that jobs. In the post-War decades unionization was much higher and so was employment, labor force participation, wage growth and productivity growth.”

        I have nothing against unions, but I wish people would stop writing fantasies about how unions work. Unions achieve those high wages by turning businesses into closed shops. This means the company loses the ability to negotiate wages or firings with individual workers, but it still retains the right not to hire. So a fixed labor cost budget is shared among a smaller pool of workers, thus making the marginal worker richer.

        Big deal.

        The price of this is that the closed, union shop has no effect on wages outside the union. If you can’t get a job in the union, then whatever the union pays has no influence on non-union jobs.

        Those wages were higher because of the post-war boom and the fact that everyone had a good job with rising real wages. Nobody noticed this monopolistic effect because their lives were good.

        map

        July 30, 2016 at 6:11 pm

  7. Thomas Frank’s Listen Liberal states it is the top 10% ‘Professional Class’ in charge of the Democrats. They are the Cathedral.

    Working Middle People never had a chance.

    Amazing read. Highlights most of what Lion has sensed and taught.

    Anonymous

    July 28, 2016 at 7:00 pm

  8. It’s easy for rich people to be democrats because their money insulates them from the consequences of the policies they support.

    destructure

    July 28, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    • Its biological parallel is leprosy.

      Heading for same end stage symptoms politically.

      Anonymous

      July 28, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    • It’s for this same reason that it’s also easy for them to be Libertarians.

      Maryk

      July 28, 2016 at 9:54 pm

      • Do you think that’s why Cruz took libertarian positions on free trade and open borders?

        destructure

        July 29, 2016 at 1:28 am

    • or republican for that matter because the republicans support the same policies that people need to be insulated from, like immigration.

      james n.s.w

      July 29, 2016 at 3:00 am

  9. Trump: the Innkeeper at Bree has the Ring of Power! (Better he than Galadriel, let alone Bilbo’s old aunt [Hillary].)

    Garr

    July 28, 2016 at 8:11 pm

  10. No, The GOP is now the party of the Chamberpot of Commerce. They haven’t given a loan to White people since Bush jr got in. That’s why Governor Habib, Habib and Habib are now their tokens at the election galas for their donors. Only AIPAC and Adelson really give a damn about most of these loser dweebs like Little Jebbie.
    The Super Rich like Zuckersperg, Warren “China” Buffet, Hizzoner “soda nazi” Bloomberg and even the perpetually demonised Koch Bros all support Hillary. The poor are just numbers, numbers. They only matter on election day and they get maybe a cheap phone and a few bucks for smokes and alcohol. Its the Rich that really get the payoffs with rich no-pay “loans” and insider contracts. That Income Tax shit is just a ruse. None of these Rich Bastards actually work or collect a paycheck. All their money comes from Capital Gains which are ridiculously low to pad their pockets and pay the bribes to untalented pols like Obama or Hillary.
    Hillary may make like she’s Robin Hood, but actually she’s more like Dennis Moore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-R1o753pM

    Joshua Sinistar

    July 28, 2016 at 9:30 pm

  11. It is an odd coincidence how both parties ended up the party of the rich.

    Mark Caplan

    July 28, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    • Not strange to me since I think we have the best government money can buy.

      cesqy

      July 29, 2016 at 12:24 am

  12. I’m watching Chelsea – what a goofball. What an awkward, overly made up goofball. No amount of plastic surgery will ever make her pretty.

    What was Katy Perry doing there? Talk about a letdown in gravitas. Cheap pop trash. I guess I’m too old.

    gothamette

    July 28, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    • Hillary mentioned “terrorism” but not “Islamic terrorism.” This after a solid month of Islamic barbarity. It’s an OK speech, she’s hitting the buttons, but let’s remember that one.

      I hate to say this, but the Dems put on a much better show than the Republicans.

      gothamette

      July 28, 2016 at 10:50 pm

      • Admit it Lion – Hillary gave a great speech. The white pants suit was a terrific touch. I think women should wear skirts/dresses, but whatever. She made Trump look like a fraud and a buffoon.

        gothamette

        July 28, 2016 at 11:29 pm

      • Hillary mentioned “terrorism” but not “Islamic terrorism.”

        The terrorism she and the DNC care about is the terrorism of Dylan Roof at the black church or the terrorism of White police killing black males.

        No such thing as Islamic terrorism. Islam is the religion of peace.

        Rifleman

        July 28, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      • Islam is a stabby religion, Hillary wants nothing to do with it.

        cesqy

        July 29, 2016 at 12:26 am

  13. Well, I guess the Democrats found some American flags! Have we ever seen such a sea of red, white, and blue? Also, Hilary wearing a totally white outfit. A subtle HBD message, perhaps?

    Maryk

    July 28, 2016 at 11:39 pm

  14. Also, I heard so much at this convention about “LGBT” and all the letters that often come after it, that I think the DNC checked every speech to make sure that gays were mentioned at least once. The power of the gay lobby is incredible.

    Maryk

    July 28, 2016 at 11:41 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: