| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Country-club Dems |
| 2007-12-28 |
| By Gary Andres Republicans are the party of the rich. Isn't that an immutable law of American politics? While certainly a popular truism for the past half-century, it's getting a little rusty today, dampened by new information about public opinion and voter behavior. Consider these developments. According to a recent analysis in the Wall Street Journal, President Bush beat the Gucci pants off John Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent among those earning more that $100,000 per year. But these voters became less Republican two years later, choosing the GOP over the Democrats by only a 51 percent to 47 percent margin in the 2006 elections. And now the numbers have flipped completely. According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, those earning over $100,000 want a Democrat to win the White House in 2008 by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin, and prefer a Democratic Congress by 45 percent to 42 percent. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 Ironically, the "country club dems" thing is spot on. I've seen bumper stickers on cars at local CC parking lots that would have gotten the cars owners blackballed back in the day. And as the riff-raff filter in , the old school conservatives file out... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-12-28 11:25 |
| #4 So, the "Tax the rich" works on these people because they know there will be enough loopholes to run a Chinese armored division through and will have offshore accounts so they don't have to pay as well. Wonderful. Remember children, class struggle leads to the death of the privileged in revolutions. Oh wait, you only took how the white people are at fault for everything version. Prepare to be educated. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-28 11:08 |
| #3 I would also add (IMO) that for the most part the person who goes around saying "I'm an economic conservative, but a social liberal", a la Andrew Sullivan, isn't a conservative at all, but rather a cultural Marxist who doesn't like to pay taxes. Look for these people to move increasingly to the Dems (as Sullivan has)over the next few years. Not sure what effect this might ultimately have on the political landscape. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-12-28 07:52 |
| #2 oh please. Like the slave owners of the south weren't "the party of the rich". Like the socialist/communist party weren't the "we are the elite" party. The dem's have always been on the wrong side of history. All that is old is new again. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2007-12-28 05:52 |
| #1 Social and economic conservatives don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue that there is a synergy there. But when they are exclusive, I would advise each that they need each other, due to that synergy, as well as the notion of "hanging separately", as per our Founding Fathers. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-12-28 05:50 |