Newsweek: Why The Rich Voted For Obama

For several years, I've been writing about Bushenfreude, the phenomenon of angry yuppies--who've hugely benefited from President Bush's tax cuts--funding angry, populist Democratic campaigns. I've theorized that people who work in financial services and related fields have become so outraged and alienated by the incompetence, crass social conservatism, and repeated insults to the nation's intelligence, of the Bush-era Republican Party, that they're voting with their hearts and heads instead of their wallets.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[lizr]

this article is so d u m b.

It is obvious that Reps in these places are privy to exactly how ba dly the econ omy is doing and are sucking it up and voting for O because they know the country needs a pres w brains if we are going to sur vive the coming mess at all.

[moderngentleman]

The average American is a lot smarter than the GOP believes. The real-life Average American, the nation's most statistically average man or woman discovered after a long non-partisan search, voted for Obama, according to the search's website:

http://www.theaverageamerican.com

[OneLiberalLady]

Ultimately the candidate who is better for America will get the votes of thoughtful people. The idea that we should individually vote for the person who will be most likely to reduce our taxes is ludicrous and irritating. Carried to its ultimate conclusion, a candidate could "buy" votes by just wiping out taxes. Where would America be then? Sometimes smart people are willing to give a little financially for a greater good. The irony is that they may see greater economic benefit to themselves in the long run by taking this approach.

[UserLoser]

Because all the money in the world isn't going to help you if you've got a target on your back.
Because not all of the Wealthy are greedy selfish people
Because Bush and Company have been stealing from the rich more than they have from the poor.

[rollingdivision]

If he proposed a yearly tax on personal assets they'd abandon him in a New York second. But the rubes think the income tax is a tax on the fortunes of the rich so no need.

[rollingdivision]

They know Obama will never tax wealth, only income and they largely have theirs made. The day Obama mentions taxing the cash and investments of the rich is the day they abandon him. Most Obama supporters don't understand the difference between taxing income and wealth and mistakenly think taxing income is taxing the fortunes of the wealthy.

[hesnotforme]

most people already have moved 401k's to cash and or muni bonds which can be tax free, my wife and I have as well as cashing out our stocks at the end of september so as to maximize the profits. we have been day trading with some the rest is cash, we arent rich but we must protect our retirement and it doesnt sound like obama will help us.

[EarthToZoey]

Ahh, Gordon Gecko. Love him or hate him, it's hard to deny that he's a compelling character to watch.

[pittmom]

Painful as the choice was for our bank accounts (we are doing very well and can't hide our income like many- our 500K is printed right on the W-2 form); we voted for the man who has superior ideas, a smarter campaign and is committed to doing the right thing for our ENTIRE country. John McCain 2000 might have been a viable choice, but Sarah Palin made pulling the lever for Obama even easier.

[gotborked]

It may seem odd that the self-proclaimed champion of the middle class lost to McCain among those with an income between $50k and $200k, but won on either extreme.

Why the rich voted for Obama? Because they, unlike the middle class, can afford to vote with their "hearts and heads". They can weather Obama's tax/economic plan better than middle class families who are just "getting by".

[Oregon Ivy]

Actually, the ONLY demographic McCain won over Obama was uneducated white males and set-in-their ways seniors. (progressive seniors voted for him)

Which are you?

[AkiraBergman]

When you consider that about %50 of the popular vote went to McCain, that tells you something about the quality of the current USA mainstream. The wealth and power of the USA created an ignorant and arrogant culture. In a more and more interconnected world these 'qualities' are less and less tolerable.

[DirkNLExpat]

Progressive Senior who cares about the world AFTER I am gone.

[ohiomark]

Anyone who is "rich" and voted for Obama is either s t u p i d or they already have serveral tax havens set up to hide their money once he raises their taxes.

Gee, I guess that's why revenue to the government goes DOWN when you raise taxes.

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

[BabsfromKansas]

I resent that remark.

"Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."

[RFuqua]

Resent it all you want...it's the truth!

[The Lorax]

Riiiiight... it had nothing to do with his policies and vision. Uh huh.

[rollingdivision]

These folks have it made and put away, the income tax isn't a big deal when you have enough of a fortune socked away for the rest of your life.

[KathyinCT]

I actually LIVE in the area this guy is writing about.

And his article shows how statistics can be incredibly misleading.

An "average income" of $220,000 can be the result of one family that earns $1 million and four that earn $25,000.

See the situaiton more clearly?

There are lots and lots of people who live in Greenwich and other wealthy towns who are NOT by any stretch of the imagination wealthy, rich or even close to it. You don't have to look far in Greenwich -- just get out of the back country and into the town itself - to find working class people who are barely getting by.

So just relying on "average" incomes misses the reality.

With those five families I mentioned above, assuming all have Moms and Dads, you've got 10 voters. Two are rich. Eight are barely surviving.

His entire argument is specious -- if you want to look at how rich people voted, do NOT look at BMWs, yard signs or zip codes. Look at data on voters sorted by the voters actual income.

I can't believe Newsweek would publish this or that Huffington Post would pass it along.

[Gate73]

I live in the area, too, and your argument does not hold water.

Even the most affluent districts in Greenwich went for Obama. The data are available on the town of Greenwich website, if you take the trouble to look.

In Greenwich these days (as opposed to days gone by, when there was much inherited wealth), affluent = well educated. Obama was the overwhelming choice of people with graduate degrees, according to the national data. Backcountry Greenwich these days is populated with very smart people. It's no longer the horsey set clipping coupons.

[squander123]

A clue and partial explanation of this phenomen may be found in the article's brief mention that in poorer states, the rich tend to vote Republican. That suggests that there is more than one experience of being rich in America: that of being rich within a broadly prosperous (or at least, not downright deprived) community, and that of being rich whilst also being surrounded by fellow citizens who are notably poor/deprived.

If, in general, only the rich who are surrounded by the poor tend to vote Republican, that suggests that the Republican message/ideology is one suited to a society of vast income inequalities, in which the rich fear the poor as a threat to their own well-being. This seems an especially likely (partial) explanation, given that the Republican neo-con regime has presided over one of the most dramatic increases in income inequality in American history.

[DirkNLExpat]

Perhaps its because the rich realize that BushCo has made America the laughingstock of the world and that translates into lost business. Especially tourism,

I know many people here that will not go to the USA until it stops its warmongering ways.

[Bub]

It's not just that the stock market imploded. So did the dollar. So even before the implosion, all assets denominated in dollars, like U.S. stocks, had lost nearly half their value, relative to the Euro. Now the dollar's made a wee bit of a come back lately, but that's only as 'flee-to-safety-of-US-treasury-notes' on the heals of an economic melt down that Bush created.

The fact is, if you are a trust-fund-baby, the only real thing that you ever, every have to fear about are melt downs: societal or financial.

George Bush has nearly succeeded in destorying modern global civilization. In fact, we don't know yet whether or not he has succeeded in destroying civilization. If the stimulus package fails to appear, or if it's too little to late, then you might want to brush up on core survivals skills, or take one up. Black smithing, primitive carpetnry, that sort of thing.

Heck of job Bushie. You katrina'ed the nation and the world.

Now skedaddle along before you blow something else up.

[BBackSoon]

Just think of his last day pardons.

Can he pardon someone that has not as of yet been brought up on charges? Like himself, or Cheney, Rove or Gonzales?

[BillCarson]

Under George Bush the rich lost FAR more in the stock market than they gained with the tax cuts.

Why the rich should NEVER vote republican: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm