The Party of Sam's Club

Now this is telling:

Through May 1, the Democratic presidential field has suctioned up a cool $5.7 million from the more than 4,000 donors who list their occupation as “CEO.” The Republicans’ take was only $2.3 million. Chief financial officers, general counsels, directors, and chief information officers also break the Democrats’ way by more than two-to-one margins. The Democrats’ advantage among “presidents” is a less dramatic but still significant $7.2 million to $6.1 million. And this isn’t new: In 2004 all but one of these categories of top corporate officers broke just as dramatically for the Democrats, the “presidents” being the exception ... Wall Street firms, long a symbol of American elite accomplishment, also tilt decisively toward the Democrats ... Democrats also enjoy enormous fundraising advantages among well-educated professionals — lawyers, teachers, accountants, journalists and writers. They carry practitioners of the hard sciences ... Professors favor Democrats over Republicans by a nine-to-one margin ($3.7 million to $430,000) ... The “objective” media — reporters, journalists, publishers and editors — also breaks heavily for the Democrats ...

Who favors the Republicans? ... In this upside-down campaign season when populist GOP campaigners like John McCain and Mike Huckabee surprised the pundits with their primary victories or, in the case of Ron Paul, their fundraising prowess, it almost makes sense that the party of the country club set has been winning the fundraising race among the common man. That’s right. The white-shirt/red-tie brigade of Republican presidential aspirants holds a nearly three-to-one edge among janitors, custodians, cleaners, sanitation workers, factory workers, truckers, bus drivers, barbers, security guards, and secretaries. While Democrats command the financial loyalty of architects, Republicans successfully woo contributions from the skilled craftsmen who turn their blueprints into reality — specifically, contractors, hardhats, plumbers, stonemasons, electricians, carpenters mechanics, and roofers. This trend extends to the saloons, where the Democrats carry the bartenders and the Republicans the waitresses. The GOP field even secures more financial support from teamsters, steelworkers, bricklayers, and autoworkers.

There are two important points to be made about these numbers, and the deeper reality they reflect. The first, which you hear around these parts a lot, is that the GOP is now a working-class party (with class defined by education and culture more than income, just to be clear; there are plenty of skilled craftsmen who make more money than teachers and journalists and academics), and that it needs to start acting like one if it's going to rebuild its shattered majority. The second is that the GOP can't only be a working-class party; just as the famous Judis-Texeira emerging Democratic majority is built around the mass upper class and the poor but depends on winning some working-class votes to put it over the top, so any future "Party of Sam's Club" Republican majority is going to need to win back at least some of the mass-upper-class votes that the party has hemorrhaged during the Bush years.

Comments

That article reads like an attempt to spin a bunch of anecdotes into a trend without any level of work with the hard data.

2004 Election Vote by Income

Under 15,000: Kerry 63, Bush 36
15,000-30,000: Kerry 57, Bush 42
30,000-50,000: Kerry 50, Bush 49
50,000-75,000: Bush 56, Kerry 43
75,000-100,000: Bush 55, Kerry 44
100,000-150,000: Bush 57, Kerry 42
150,000-200,000: Bush 58, Kerry 42
Over 200,000: Bush 63, Kerry 36

I have seen no evidence, anywhere, that these numbers have changed. Naming off a bunch of occupations doesn't really change anything.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 9:07 AM

I don't know Ross, this analysis seems flawed to me. Fundraising is a very imperfect way of measuring who supports which candidate. For one thing, because so few people actually donate their money to a political candidate compared to the population at large. A think a far more useful measure is votes by income category, and here the story is the same as usual.

Taking the 2004 election as an example:

Voting % Kerry Bush
$15,000-29,999 57 42
$30-49,999 50 49
$50-74,999 43 56
$75-99,999 45 55
$100,000 & over 41 58

Or, since so many of the skilled professions are represented by unions, if your argument is true, then you'd expect them to learn more Republican, but they do not (59 percent of Union households went for Kerry).

These numbers, by the way, come from the Roper Center and are available online at http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html

szr

Posted by szr | May 8, 2008 9:07 AM

One more thing - that article didn't address the massive national advantage that Democrats have in fundraising. Those numbers should have been adjusted for the national trend. Overall, people of all classes are giving way, way more money to the Democrats.

For example, in March the 4th quarter of 2007, Democrats raised 69.5M, and Republicans raised 17.1M. (Data

Overall, Clinton and Obama have combined to raise $435M, while McCain has raised $81M. In this context, the fact that the Democrats have won CEOs and Presidents by a 13-8 margin suggests that these corporate honchos support Republicans at a rate far higher than the general population does.

Doing a straight comparison without adjusting for the overall differential is statistically illiterate, and suggests (shock!) that this National Review article is more interested in partisan point-scoring than data-driven analysis.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 9:20 AM

I'm going to further guess that the reason that Franc didn't release the hard data on those professions he listed, as if a comprehensive list, is that he's dealing with tiny, tiny samples and selecting out particular names for professions instead of others.

Barack Obama has received 43% of his funding from donors giving $200 or less, 29% from donors giving $2,300, the maximum allowed. John McCain has received 20% of his funding from donors giving $200 or less, and a whopping 50% from donors giving $2,300.

Without hard data to back up Franc's piece, I'm just straight calling bullshit.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 9:28 AM

My buddies down at the country club were telling me just this same thing the other day (and they also told me some really funny jokes!).

Posted by ed | May 8, 2008 9:28 AM

Doing a straight comparison without adjusting for the overall differential is statistically illiterate, and suggests (shock!) that this National Review article is more interested in partisan point-scoring than data-driven analysis.

b-b-but, that would undermine the point I thought I was making!

Posted by don't hate douthat | May 8, 2008 9:29 AM

In case anybody was looking for further proof of Franc's mendacity, try this one:

Think of the new subsidies proposed on Capitol Hill for higher education, more generous flood insurance for vacation homes, bailouts for homeowners with mortgages as high as $730,000 and welfare-style health coverage for kids in middle-income families, and you get the idea.

That's just a lie.

The 2007 bill that overhauled the National Flood Insurance Program actually ended the subsidy for vacation homes. Franc is lying.

House Press Release on the NFIP bill:

Ensures the National Flood Insurance Program’s continued viability by phasing out unnecessary subsidies. To make the Flood Insurance Program more actuarially sound, the bill phases out subsidized rates on commercial properties, vacation homes, and second homes built before 1974. Multifamily rental properties are excluded from the phase-out of the subsidy.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 9:39 AM

as the first comment shows, the GOP isn't (and shouldn't try to be the part of the white working class).

it's always been strongest when it's understood that it's the party of the great american middle that plays by the rules -- and left the dems to pick up votes from fringe elements with grievances against the mass of society (economic, cultural, or racial).

Posted by Chris | May 8, 2008 9:43 AM

it's the party of the great american middle

No, as the first comment shows, it's the party of the great American top. Bush's share of the vote was highest among the wealthiest couple percent.

Likewise, the Democrats are the party of the great American bottom.

Elections are fought over the middle class, due to the polarization of rich and poor between the two parties.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 9:47 AM

Uh oh! Chris is on to us lib'ruls.

We were hoping to fool everyone into believing that we vote Democratic because we merely have different preferences regarding the optimal allocation of government resources and perhaps a different approach to foreign policy. But he's cracked our code! He knows we're now just trying to engage a rich-poor comspiracy against "real" Americans!

Fortunately, he hasn't discovered that our plan involves restoring the glory of Ghengis Khan's golden horde! So the war on the mass of society is still safe.

Posted by szr | May 8, 2008 9:50 AM

Yes, the GOP is a working class party, which is why I am so concerned with the Capital Gains Tax and am in love with John McCain's "your on your own" health care plan.

The GOP is a working class party is perhaps the most assinine thing ever written on Teh Internets EVAH!!!

Posted by calipygian | May 8, 2008 9:52 AM

The GOP is the party of the American anti-gay/anti-abortion Taliban (Phyllis Schlafly/Ralph Reed); the country club, golfing on Wednesday, expense account rich (Defense Contractor CEOs) and the "I'm scared of Allah-worshipping brown people" dumb, racist assholes (Joe Lieberman).

The GOP is most definitely NOT the party of the working class.

Posted by calipygian | May 8, 2008 9:58 AM

DivGuy, thanks for the analysis. I knew Franc's article was bs, but I didn't want to do the legwork to comb through ANES data to find it (I'm very lazy.) Good job.

Posted by Sam | May 8, 2008 10:00 AM

While I agree with most of the specifics of the above critiques of Ross' post, and Ross' reliance on Franc is more than a little embarrassing, you guys are missing some context.

Ross consistently makes two points about the Republican party:

(1)It is in trouble,
(2)The way out of that trouble to is become a more working class friendly party.

The second point is very much open to dispute, but it's pretty clear that Ross firmly believes it. And his critique of the current party is that it indeed doesn't do enough to appeal to working class voters, and that's one reason why it is in trouble.

In that context, I think this post becomes a lot more understandable.

Finally, while it is, of course, ridiculous to call the current Republican party a "working class" party, the "working class" is split (albeit somewhat in the Democrats favor) - the idea that the Democratic party is the party of the "working class" is (almost) as false as the notion that the Republican party is.

Of course, part of the issue is defining the "working class." Republicans often define the working class in rather pernicious ways. By "working class," they often exclude people living in poverty, which is absurd; myths about the welfare dependency aside, most of the poor are working poor, and part of the working class by any sane definition.

But the left does the similar thing. Some of the voting groups that some elements in the left denigrate - southerners, the religious right, for example -

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 10:31 AM

Ah, hit "post" before I was done. What I was saying at the end was that many of the southerners and religious conservatives voting Republican also happen to be "working class."

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 10:33 AM

Ross consistently makes two points about the Republican party:

(1)It is in trouble,
(2)The way out of that trouble to is become a more working class friendly party.

I totally agree here, and this is the main reason I read Douthat and want to read his book. He's absolutely right.

The problem is that in this post, he has done nothing but cite a blatantly mendacious article. If he wants to make the case for working class folks coming to the Republicans, he's going to need to rely on things that are true, instead of things that are lies.

I'd add that if Franc's case were correct, then Ross' book would be meaningless. If the Republicans were already the party of Sam's Club, they wouldn't need to institute a variety of neoconservative meliorist and social conservative natalist policies to win these folks - they'd already be Republicans. The point for Ross should be that these folks aren't Republicans, but are winnable for Republicans.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 10:37 AM

I'm still waiting on Douthat's economic model that shows banning gay marriage will buttress working-class salaries. I even suggested he ask 2X4 McArdle for help on the comparative statics. She's probably still fiddling with the Hessian to ensure it's negative definitive so she can get the sign that Douthat wants.

Posted by SavageView | May 8, 2008 10:38 AM

This says absolutely nothing. Look at the fundraising totals for Democrats and Republicans - it's about 2-to-1 in favor of the Democrats. Assuming that political support and contributions from individuals are determined by individual values and politics, and only impacted in a minor way by what benefits one's employer, why would the contributions of [insert job title here] be any different. This is almost certainly the case, as well, seeing as how the party affiliation of the president has little impact on most industries - American business did better under Clinton than Bush.

Signed,
A Wall Street VP for Obama

Posted by TH | May 8, 2008 10:45 AM

Boy, this post doesn't square with the numbers.

Posted by Freddie | May 8, 2008 11:23 AM

"Fundraising is a very imperfect way of measuring who supports which candidate. For one thing, because so few people actually donate their money to a political candidate compared to the population at large."

Political paties are indifferent towards the people who vote for them, and extremely sensitive towards the opinions of people who donate large amouts of money to them. It may sound counter-intutive but it's a a fact all the same. The attitude of both parties is "Give us money and we can always get votes."

The actual policy positions of both parties can be predicted with considerable accuracy simply by looking at who gives them money. (I said actual policy psitions, as opposed to stated policy positions. Watch what they do, not what they say.)

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 11:36 AM

It is no wonder that Republicans are so poor on education policy. The GOP depends on a steady stream of high school dropouts for growth. More education equals fewer Republicans. Worth remembering.

Posted by RAC | May 8, 2008 11:39 AM

For a very smart take on this post, as so often is the case, see Mr. Larison:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/08/mccain-the-populist-thats-a-good-one/

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 11:42 AM

Given that this is a Democratic bellwether year, doesn't it make more sense that big donors are investing in candidates they think will be in a position to make policy?

Posted by Starscream | May 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Nothing is screwing the American working class (and poor) as much as illegal immigration. Both parties are in favor of illegal immigration, but the Democrats are more in favor than the GOP.

Look at the Democrats actual actions as opposed to rhetoric and it's very clear that they despise the working poor even more than Karl Rove does. Of course, Obama's slip in PA showed that sometimes even their rethoric reveals their real attitude.

Politics is America consists of two slightly different elite groups fighting for control of the levers of power. Neither has much interest in the welfare of the American people. In fact both seem activily hostile towards the whole concept of an "American people". We are only employees of America Corp. and the elites will decide who the employees are.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 11:48 AM

I agree that "class" these days is more a function of education than of income. These are 2004 CNN exit poll data broken down by educational level:

H.S. Graduate (22%): Bush 52% Kerry 47%
Some College (32%): Bush 54% Kerry 46%
College Graduate (26%): Bush 52% Kerry 46%
Postgrad Study (16%): Bush 44% Kerry 55%

Kerry did somewhat better among people with postgrad degrees, but even then all four groups were within single digits of each other.

Posted by nodakdude | May 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Given that this is a Democratic bellwether year, doesn't it make more sense that big donors are investing in candidates they think will be in a position to make policy?

This pattern is an old one. The Democratic Party has always recieved more money from the rich than the Republicans do, as least as far back as the sixties. 2004 was a bellweather year for the GOP, and the big money was still with the Democrats.

The politically active bilionaire class in America leans left by about a ten to one ratio. Look up the biggest donors in 2004 at OpenSecrets - Soros, Lewis, Bing and other lefty plutocrats are at the front.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 11:57 AM

"It is no wonder that Republicans are so poor on education policy. The GOP depends on a steady stream of high school dropouts for growth. More education equals fewer Republicans. Worth remembering."

No, I'm pretty sure the high school dropout vote goes to the democrats. The paradigm breaks down when you get to an education level that low.

Posted by scottynx | May 8, 2008 11:58 AM

It is no wonder that Republicans are so poor on education policy. The GOP depends on a steady stream of high school dropouts for growth. More education equals fewer Republicans. Worth remembering.

Behold, douchebag extraordinaire, The Most Over-Rated Genius EVAH, who steered his party from dominance for a generation into oblivion, Karl Rove:

Our education plan allows us to make further gains in the suburbs. It will also allow us to make gains with Hispanics and African-Americans. As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing. Karl Rove, quoted in the "Daily Texan," March 19, 2001

Was there EVER a bigger douchebag in politics? I mean, really?

Posted by calipygian | May 8, 2008 11:58 AM

I think the insight here is that the wealthy to super-rich no longer fear the Democrats. The economic policies of the two parties are more or less identical, people.

I see this as mostly good.

Posted by Tom F. | May 8, 2008 12:11 PM

I agree that "class" these days is more a function of education than of income.

This makes no sense to me. Class is a function of income and wealth, that's just definitional. That someone achieves income after attending Wharton or after dropping out of LSU seems secondary to the question of the life and power he or she can accrue through money. I have never understood this point about education - in some ways education is a good proxy for certain types of social positions, but in no way does it obviate class analysis.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 12:16 PM

.. the wealthy to super-rich no longer fear the Democrats. The economic policies of the two parties are more or less identical, people. I see this as mostly good.

Why? The implication is that economic policies which favor super rich people are good for everyone. That seems suspect, to say the least. And counter to all thinking by economists from Smith to Friedman.

Posted by Jaes | May 8, 2008 12:18 PM

This pattern is an old one. The Democratic Party has always recieved more money from the rich than the Republicans do, as least as far back as the sixties. 2004 was a bellweather year for the GOP, and the big money was still with the Democrats.

Exactly. I remember when Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Douchebag had to hold a bake sale to afford those highly factual Swift Boat ads back in '04. We should pass the had for Rupert Murdoch, Mellon Scaife, and the Country Club Republican Set. Poor dears.

This pattern is an old one. In the face of cold facts that say otherwise, James and his ilk continue to chant, "Liberals are the real racists! Liberals are the Party of the Rich!"

Keep on keepin' on, James!

Posted by ed | May 8, 2008 12:24 PM

Class is a function of income and wealth, that's just definitional.

It's not. A good computer programmer can have a better income than a professor, but it does not follow that he'll have the same cultural/social/economic outlook. The "new class" is defined as a managerial elite who are convinced of their own fitness to order all of human society. Naturally such people had a hard time attacking the Soviet Union - sure the things the Soviets did were bad, but the system in which a smart elite has total control has always been the new class goal.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 12:26 PM

Class is a function of income and wealth, that's just definitional.

100% incorrect, at least as the term has been used historically.

Part of the problem is that, while we are by no means a classless society, class in the U.S. is a very different phenomenon than it was in Europe. I'm inclined to agree that education is also an imperfect marker for class in the U.S., but it probably tracks a little better than income.

Addendum: Hmm, let's see. One definition:

"A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics"

So income and wealth is part of it, but not the whole thing. Interestingly, education isn't mentioned. Only one definition, of course. I'm inclined to think that, in the United States, class has, indeed, become wrapped up with education to a great degree.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 12:29 PM

In the face of cold facts that say otherwise, James and his ilk continue to chant, "Liberals are the real racists! Liberals are the Party of the Rich!"

Can I trouble you to produce a few of those "cold hard facts"? The only cold hard facts in evidence so far say that rich people love the Democrats. Read the above article. Go to Open Secrets and and look up the top donors in 2004. There is no mystery about who the rich support, except to the wilfully blind.

Lets see some facts that say otherwise, if you have them.

Scaife et al were outspent by about twenty to one by their opposite numbers on the left in 2004. You can look it up.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 12:34 PM

Look at the election data. Other than post-graduate degree holders, who went disproportionately for Kerry, education was nearly a useless predictor of one's vote.

Income, on the other hand, was a much better predictor, and we can graph vote pretty easily as in part a function of income.

There's a desire among neoliberals to ignore the way that income and wealth are far better proxies for political allegiance than education, and better proxies for basic political interests. but the data just isn't there.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 12:35 PM

Dubya knows who his base is, and he spoke candidly on this subject (video).

Posted by jukeboxgrad | May 8, 2008 12:37 PM

Dubya knows who his base is

All of a suddem, for the first time in your life, you think Bush is both smart enough to know who his base is and honest enough to tell you?

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 12:59 PM

To me, the Democrats and Republicans resemble nothing so much as the Colorado and Blanco parties in some 19th-century LA country, or perhaps Radicals and Conservatives in early 20th century France. One represents the urban, secular, cosmopolitan elite, the other represents the hinterland, traditionalist, nationalist elite, and each is concerned first and between them they collaborate to rule over a decaying and hollow system. Neither is really concerned with virtue, justice, or charity. As for me, I want no part of either. Perhaps I'll cast a write in vote for Mickey Mouse.

Posted by Hector | May 8, 2008 1:00 PM

james: "you think Bush is ... smart enough to know who his base is"

He doesn't know much, but that's something he knows.

"and honest enough to tell you?"

He wasn't telling me. He was telling some other folks. And he wasn't thinking much about the fact that there was a camera present. Kind of like how George Allen once ignored the fact that he was being taped.

Posted by jukeboxgrad | May 8, 2008 1:05 PM

Div Guy,

The problem is that you and some of the other people here are talking about a different issue than is Ross. The fact that there is a nice tidy relationship between income and voting preferences says next to nothing about class and voting preferences.

Class in America is both more malleable and more fragmented than in other nations. To be perfectly blunt about it, a "working class" southern white making $40,000 a year and a "working class" northeastern African-American making $40,000 a year do not see themselves as belonging to the same class, and they do not, in any meaningful sense of the word. Nor would, say, a professional of any race making the same salary. I could go on and on.

It doesn't help that James, Ross' lone real defender here, is an ... okay, I'll be nice, is merely parroting some of the more absurd Republican talking points without presenting supporting data. The fact that he is 95% wrong doesn't change the fact that race and income are far from the same thing, and that the Republican party, like it or not, does enjoy significant (though not majority) working class support.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 1:08 PM

One represents the urban, secular, cosmopolitan elite, the other represents the hinterland, traditionalist, nationalist elite,

The Democrats do represnt the former. The GOP does not represnt the latter. The Republican Party is best understood as the political wing of the US Chamber of Commerce. No nationalists or traditionalists need apply. Hell, even National Review purged all it's nationalists and traditionalists. There is no such thing in this country as a nationalist elite. Arguably the "liberals" are traditionalist in their defense of the New Deal.

I'm hard pressed to think of who would be part of a "traditionalist, nationalist elite". Douhat? Buchanan? Dobbs?

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 1:10 PM

Ross -

You're not *really* prepared to make this ridiculous argument, are you?

Posted by ross | May 8, 2008 1:17 PM

It doesn't help that James, Ross' lone real defender here, is an ... okay, I'll be nice, is merely parroting some of the more absurd Republican talking points without presenting supporting data.

Have you read the actual post here, which provides plenty of data? Have you done as I suggested, and gone to OpenSecrets and looked for yourself? Exactly what data do I need to shove before your eyeballs before you'll accept reality? You people are like the evolution deniers. No amount of proof will ever be sufficient for you because your religion is threatened by the facts.

Here, I'll do your work for you, not that mere data can ever alter your opinion.

http://tiny.cc/I3Wfu

I repeat, the rich have consistently been major contributors to the Democrat Party, in preference to the Republican. That is simply a fact, and you make yourselves look idiotic in attempting to deny it.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 1:21 PM

I admire the sheer, unabashed mendacity of the Franc article and the comments by James. When presented with data that clearly and unambiguously shows Democrats getting more of their donations and more of their votes from the working class than Republicans, they latch onto bogus cultural markers and finely parsed categories to maintain their symbolic narrative in the face of contrary evidence.

Come to think of it, that sums up the entire state of the Republican Party, circa 2008.

Suddenly, millionaires who lobby for lower estate taxes are jes' common folks as long as they aren't actually corporate officers. And they sure aren't *elitists* like those (gasp) academic professionals. And a well-to-do rural plumber who owns his own business and buys NASCAR collectibles obviously has more working class cred than a single mother who works at a Starbucks. She makes lattes, you know. That's a French word.

The Republicans have built their appeal to the working class on a set of cultural resentments that are distinctively regional and anti-urban, and they've wrung about as much mileage as they can from that model.

To build the kind of party Ross claims to want, they would have to jettison not only the controlling Wall Street faction of the party and its pro-immigration, free trade, low wage, low tax agenda, but they'd also have to jettison the xenophobic, racial resentment wing of the party that alienates the large percentage of the actual working class who aren't white. I'm afraid by the time the purge was over, nothing would be left of the Republican Party except Catholic intellectuals who live within 50 miles of New York, Boston, or Washington and have never set foot in a Sam's Club.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 8, 2008 1:23 PM

I'm assuming that readers are clued in enough politically to know where Shangri-La and Progressive, and Soros and Messinger and the rest, as well as Spanos, direct their money. If you DON'T know, you should not be here having this discussion in the first place. Lurk and read and learn, don't comment.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 1:26 PM

they'd also have to jettison the xenophobic, racial resentment wing of the party that alienates the large percentage of the actual working class who aren't white.

Blacks are not big fans of illegal immigration. Not surprising, since they are the ones screwed by it the most. Even poor non-whites in general are not fans of it, for the same reason. The biggest fans of it are ... rich white people! But hey, don't allow reality to intrude on your fantasy world.

Of course, if you want to see racial resentment in America you need to look a black people. Now there's some racial resentment, stoked constantly by the Dem leadership.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Ah, silly the "your party is elitist," "no your party is elitist," argument emerges once again.

Can we please agree that both parties exist (in large measure) to serve elites, in fact overlapping elites?

And make a distinction between the people calling the shots (mostly the elites, for both parties), and the voters supporting the parties (mostly not elites, in both cases).

I mean, I know people pretend to believe that this isn't the case, but surely no intelligent, informed adult believes otherwise?

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 1:36 PM

When presented with data that clearly and unambiguously shows Democrats getting more of their donations and more of their votes from the working class than Republicans

If any of you nitwits would take the trouble to READ the article, it clearly shows that the Democrats are getting the bulk of their contributions from the opper class. That is the point being made. That is the point you all seem to be spinning like dervishes to avoid addressing, flying off on tangents about voting patterns instead.

Democrats are NOT getting more of their donations from the working class than are the Republicans. They are getting more of their donations from the business elite and from Americas multi-billionaries than are the the Republicans. These are what are known as "facts".

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 1:43 PM

James,

On this blog, as opposed to other blogs, I try to remain civil, but your own incivility, combined with either mendacity or stupidity, will make me bend my rules a bit.

It is certainly true that if one artificially limits an examination of the "rich" to the super rich, that the supper rich give more to Democrats than Republicans. But if one considers the "merely" rich, over time they have given in disproportionate amounts to the Republicans. In this cycle, that isn't the case, for reasons discussed by, among others, yes, conservatives like Mr. Larison and Mr. Goldberg elsewhere.

Of course, the real take away here, which you won't hear much because it is inconvenient for both parties, is that, again for both parties, a greatly disproportionate amount of campaign contributions have always come from the wealthy and powerful.

It's possible that this will change with new internet fund raising strategies, but at this point most of the money for both parties still comes from the rich (or well to do) and powerful.

And as for the linked article, if I were you I'd be a little embarrassed to rely upon it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Franc used the time honored tactic of supporting his point by just making shit up.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 1:46 PM

Moreover, one doesn't even need to accept, as I do at this point, that the numbers presented by Franc at (at least) deceptive cherry picking, if not (more likely, based upon the inability of people to duplicate his "research") entirely fabricated, to realize that the fact that contributions lower than 200 aren't even included makes the whole exercise worthless.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 1:59 PM

Democrats are NOT getting more of their donations from the working class than are the Republicans. They are getting more of their donations from the business elite and from Americas multi-billionaries than are the the Republicans. These are what are known as "facts".

No, the relevant facts are that Democrats consistently get a higher percentage of the vote from lower income brackets than Republicans, and they consistently get a much larger percentage of donations that are below the maximum legal amount than Republicans, which strongly suggests that more of their donors are non-wealthy. While Obama has more donations from certain classes of the wealthy than McCain does; McCain gets a larger percentage of his (much smaller) total donations from these same people. These facts are not in dispute.

The only person who has provided what we call "facts" in this thread is DivGuy. Read what he posted. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I generally hesitate to call someone a liar, but you are either completely oblivious to the fundamental concepts of what we call "math" or you are, in fact, lying.

Have a nice day.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 8, 2008 2:02 PM

I try to remain civil, but your own incivility

I'd ask you to point to examples of my supposed "incivility", but I know I'd be as successful as I have been in asking for data to support the theory that the "rich" support and have supported the GOP.

It is certainly true that if one artificially limits an examination of the "rich" to the super rich

Wow, that is really an "artifical limit", isn't it? I mean, only sombody as "mendacious" as me would ever define the rich as people able to donate over a million to a political campaign. As opposed to those who donate $2,000, who are "rich" as you defne them? But sure, clearly I'm the one being mendacious here. The mere fact that the vast majority of Americans are "rich" as defined by the ability to make a $2,000 donation can be set aside, as some sort of "artifical limit". As can the fact the the GOP has historically depended on lots of small donation while the Democratc Party has depended on a few big ones.

In this cycle, that isn't the case, for reasons discussed by, among others, yes, conservatives like Mr. Larison and Mr. Goldberg elsewhere.

Again, you demonstrate your inablity to see and comprehend what is placed before your eyes.

Larison: "Nonetheless, corporate donors have been more generous to the Democrats generally since the ’90s when the Clintons began cultivating friends in the the financial sector. The other reason is that there is obviously no connection between being a top corporate executive and being interested in what the GOP is selling if the Democrats are perfectly willing to accommodate you. In many ways, corporate executives, especially those who work for multinationals, are going to be more inclined to the views of progressive globalists, and the latter will often find the Democratic Party more amenable to them on a host of issues."

You saw this - "One reason why Democrats are hauling in more CEO and corporate donations is that they are poised to dominate the government, or at least increase their majorities in both houses", and you skipped the "one reason" bit, plus all which followed, and saw what you wanted to see.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 2:11 PM

No, the relevant facts are that Democrats consistently get a higher percentage of the vote from lower income brackets than Republicans,

That is only "relevant' to you because you wish it to be. It has no bearing on the topic of this post, which is who donates what to which party.

[they] consistently get a much larger percentage of donations that are below the maximum legal amount than Republicans

This is factaully untrue. In the days before soft money ws banned, the Democrats consistently revieved less money than the Republicans in amounts "below the legal maximum limit". They made up for this by cleaning up in very large soft money donations.

Though soft money was banned, it lives on in the form of contributions to 527's. Again, in 2004 Democratic 527's spent vastly more than Republican ones. This money came from the rich, or the "super rich" as some people are defining them. It compensated for the fact that the GOP took in more money in contributios at or below the legal limit.

Keep in mind that the legal limit is pretty low. Probably 2/3 of the people in America could contribute the full legal amount if they wished.

While Obama has more donations from certain classes of the wealthy than McCain does; McCain gets a larger percentage of his (much smaller) total donations from these same people. These facts are not in dispute.

Those "facts" are disingenious. True, as far as the go, but they omit to mention which party the "rich" have given money to. Lets go along for now with the idea that the rich are those giving the maximum legal limit, and exclude money to 527's.

Obama has raised 5% from donations of $4,600.
McCain has raised 12% of his money from contributions of $4,600.

But Clinton (who you ommited for some reason) has raised 22% of her money from contributions of $4,600.

So your "argument" only holds if we pretend that the people givng to Clinton are not givng to Democrats.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 2:35 PM

Actually, there are more statistics available online. I went to Opensecrets.org and it actually refutes James' argument, at least as it applies to John McCain compared to Obama (I think we can all agree this will be the November match-up)

According to the site, here are the percentage breakdowns of contributors by amount:

$200-$499
McCain - 26.8%
Obama - 34.1%

$500-$999
McCain - 17.4%
Obama - 22.5%

$1000-$2300
McCain - 22.4% Obama - 21.5%

$2300+
McCain - 25.2% Obama - 20%

$4600+
McCain - 8.1% Obama - 2.0%

Looking at absolute numbers is misleading because Obama is raising a ton more money than McCain, but he's doing is largely among the smaller donations community. This data doesn't include less than $200 donations because those are not reported.

Posted by szr | May 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Probably 2/3 of the people in America could contribute the full legal amount if they wished.

Wow.

And people wonder how Republicans keep losing the votes of working class folks.

Posted by DivGuy | May 8, 2008 2:38 PM

James,

Truly amusing. Sadly I don't have time to dissect your latest - RL calls - but really, given the readership of this blog (which tends mostly to be informed and intelligent), it doesn't matter much. Even your ideological fellow travelers are probably pretty embarrassed for you right now.

But, because I like a good chuckle, and despite the fact that readers here almost certainly already clicked through to Larison on their own, let me at least quote the part of the Larison post which you choose to ignore:

One reason why Democrats are hauling in more CEO and corporate donations is that they are poised to dominate the government, or at least increase their majorities in both houses. The donations are a kind of insurance. If the Congressional GOP didn’t have the look of a three-day old horse carcass that had been picked clean by vultures, they would probably be getting many of the donations that are now going to the Dems, and they were getting many more such donations in the bad old days of the DeLay era. ... What seems to be missing from this analysis and from Ross’ response is any discussion of the GOP leadership’s complete disconnect from its own political base in its consistent, egregious tilt towards corporate interests. One of the continuing problems that will bedevil Ross and Reihan’s project, which has some worthy elements, is that the GOP has been and will to some degree always be a party that more often than not serves corporate interests. They aren’t going to act like a “working-class party” anytime soon. That has its merits and flaws, but it means that those Sam’s Club Republicans will continue to have their interests unrepresented. z

Not exactly consistent with your thesis, is it?

I have to say that 90% of the enjoyment I get out of the internet is laughing derisively at simpletons like yourself, of whatever ideological stripe.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 2:41 PM

Wow.

Wow. And among liberals, saying "wow" is considered an effective rebuttal.

Note that the "working class" by most definitons is not going to be in the top 2/3 of wage earners. Then make at least a token effort at a substantive response.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 2:45 PM

Given the readership of this blog (which tends mostly to be informed and intelligent)

If you are a typical specimen, the readership of this blog is made up of the sort of lberals who imagine that sneering and feeling smug is the same thing as being intelligent.

let me at least quote the part of the Larison post which you choose to ignore

If you took time off from your mental mastrubation, you might see that I quoted the first part of that, which was the only part relevant to this discusion.

That the the GOP has treated working class voters poorly, and that it is a slave to corporate interests, is exactly the same point Ross is making - the GOP seeks to serve a class of people who tend to favor the Demcrats, and it tends to ignore the working class who are a more natural fit for it's (admittedly phony) pretense of being a more nationalistic and traditionalist party.

All of this is perfectly true. And none of it has anything to do with who gives what to whom. On that topic, as I say, the numbers are pretty clear. The rich, who some people want to call the super-rich, have favored and continue to favor the Democats by a very large margin. Nobody here has even attempted to refute that point.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 3:04 PM

Not exactly consistent with your thesis, is it?

I don't have a "thesis". I'm pointing out the fact that rich people who give money to political partys tend to give it to the Democratic Party by a wide margin. This is not really open to debate. The facts are crystal clear.

Larison's remarks about "the GOP leadership’s complete disconnect from its own political base" does not bear directly on my point at all.

To the extent that it does bear on my point indirectly, he is agreeing with my point. Yes, the GOP is disconnected from its base, because it caters to the wishes of a class of people who despise the GOP and support the other party. So says Larison, and I don't disagree with him.

But then, you didn't understand what Larison was getting at, did you? He was NOT saying "Rich people support the GOP."

He WAS saying "The GOP supports rich people, who do not support the GOP in turn."

I'd like to think that this distinction was not too subtle for the "informed and intelligent" readership of ths blog.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 3:20 PM

I just spent a bit of time looking at the top individual contributors (listed as people who have donated more than $50,000). I could find no particular pattern, except very few distribute their money equally. I suppose I could spend some time making an Excel sheet with all the donations and run the totals, but I kind of think that's James' job, since he's arguing against the position you'd assume was true based on (1) votinig patterns by economic demographics and (2) % of contributors by amount.

But seriously, I think we can all chill out a bit, because this is, in the end, an emprical question which can be answered. That the Republican party very much needs to find a new general governance philosophy is pretty much a given - any minority party faces that challenge. And you know what? They will, if for no other reason than trial and error. Eventually, like the Tories in the UK, they'll find their new voice.

Posted by szr | May 8, 2008 3:21 PM

Tell me, do these numbers for how much money Americans are willing to throw at the Democrats include the surprising sums suddenly donated by Chinatown dishwashers?

Posted by tom swift | May 8, 2008 3:35 PM

If its from the National Review, it must be true.

Dream on.

Posted by LazyWhiteGuyForObama | May 8, 2008 4:32 PM

Only Republican janitors, custodians, cleaners, sanitation workers, factory workers, truckers, bus drivers, barbers, security guards, and secretaries can afford to make political donations. The Democrat janitors, custodians, cleaners, sanitation workers, factory workers, truckers, bus drivers, barbers, security guards, and secretaries can't.

The "costs" to CEO's and Presidents is marginal compared to the social and psychological benefits of contributing to the Democratic Party.

Posted by steve | May 8, 2008 4:43 PM

I remember an analysis of voter demographics from the 2000 election by Stanley Greenberg, a democrat pollster, which has a similar theme to this discussion on class. One of the striking differences between Gore and Bush supporters was on education.

• Those without a h.s. education overwhelmingly supported Gore.
• Those with a H.S. degree (or equivalence) slightly favored Gore.
• Those with some college overwhelmingly supported Bush.
• Those with an undergrad degree slightly favored Bush.
• Those with a post-grad degree (Masters, PhD, etc) overwhelmingly supported Gore.

Similar results were seen in 2004, with Kerry losing more of the lower tier to Bush.

With regard to income, this statement seems to confirm this post:

[Democracy Corps] found Bush winning white working class voters by about 24 points. The compares to a 19 point margin in Democracy Corps' 2000 post-election survey and a 17 point margin in the 2000 VNS exit poll.

I know that few on the Left like to recognize it, but corporations are not bastions of conservative or right-wing thought. Championing conservative thoughts isn't profitable.

Nor do corporations abhor regulation or government intervention (unless it's regulation / intervention against their interests). Corporations like regulation because it establishes a barrier to entry for competition. While it may be painful to comply with the regulation, it insulates the company from being attacked by an unknown number of competitors.

And the influence of money in politics isn't a sign that we need more regulation - it's a sign that we have TOO MUCH regulation. It's sad that an excellent lobbying team can be a strategic asset for a company, but that is the reality of our current system.

St Wendeler at
Another Rovian Conspiracy

Posted by St Wendeler | May 8, 2008 4:45 PM

As stated previously, real life has taken over my day, so extended commentary is out of the question. Which is a shame, as the posts of James, especially, would form the basis of a course on logic (as examples of the fallacies to avoid, of course). But I am going to take one moment to make a couple of quick, related points. First, as a matter of simple logic, proving that the Democratic party gets a disproportionate amount of its contributions from the well-to-do (it does, though not to the extent one would think from the incomplete and partially just plain inaccurate data presented by James and company) is not the same as proving that the Republican party doesn't also get a disproportionate amount of its contributions from the well-to-do.

My second point, related in a rather obvious way, arises from this juxtaposition of two quotes from James:

The actual policy positions of both parties can be predicted with considerable accuracy simply by looking at who gives them money.

Yes, the GOP is disconnected from its base, because it caters to the wishes of a class of people who despise the GOP and support the other party. So says Larison, and I don't disagree with him.

Set aside the fact that Mr. Larison is saying no such thing, and that it takes a high degree of either stupidity or mendaciousness to read him that way. Now, why would the GOP do something so perverse? Especially in light of the fact cited (correctly) in the first quote? Man, that GOP leadership must be awfully stupid. Or something.

Or not. The GOP caters to the wishes of the rich and powerful for the same reasons that the Democrats cater to the wishes of the rich and powerful. Those reasons included, but are not limited to, the fact that most political donations come from the rich and powerful.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Republicans really did cast off their corporate sponsors. It wouldn't survive long as a party, for reasons that should be obvious (just as the Democrats wouldn't last long if they cast off THEIR corporate sponsors) though ironically, speaking for myself only, it would make them more not less attractive.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 5:22 PM

And, at the risk of further neglecting my real life responsibilities, let me very briefly respond to this:

I know that few on the Left like to recognize it, but corporations are not bastions of conservative or right-wing thought.

Well, I suppose it depends upon how you define "conservative" or "right wing." There is, certainly, a brand of conservatism that is somewhat hostile to corporate interests (and, in fairness, while I don't agree with some of the details, St Wendeler does a fair job of describing that brand of conservatism). It isn't, though, the dominant strain of conservatism in the United States today, and never has been. Present day "movement" conservatism is, in essence, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.

Another way of putting this is that the quoted statement is only true if approximately 80% of the people who self identify as "conservative" in the United States, and 90% of the conservative leadership, are not "real" conservatives.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 5:33 PM

I hate having to read Ross and Megan at The Atlantic, thanks to the remarkable incivility and imperviousness to logic of the Matt Y fanbase. Too many people are trying to establish an echo chamber and force out voices, rather than dealing with the facts at hand.

As to the differences in donations - Megan and DealBreaker have handled this. You see donations to Dems from groups that benefit from regulation and other Dem policies - accountants, lawyers, "green" businesses, bio-fuels.. As well, you see defensive giving extorted from other industries, mainly finance. Members of committees that affect the financial industry and various activist governors and AGs have very efficiently extorted donations from all aspects of the financial industry. One of the most effective techniques was the threatened changes to capital gains and partnership income.

This is expected, and is tightly related to the basis of regulatory capture. Unfortunately people who are in favor of increased regulation and taxation are immune to accepting these fundamentals, for the same reason why they tell us that communism was just never run properly. Technocrats think that somehow things will work if the "right" people are in place. Unfortunately they will never work because of agency issues, which technocrats/liberals decry as corruption rather than inherent organizational fiction. But then these are the same people that decry CEO greed and rising pay packages caused by the liberal attempt to cap executive pay.

As to class - just shows the mass idiocy of the commenters here. Income is very weakly linked to class: McDonalds and Starbucks employees make similar wages and are both in the fast food industry yet the populations are very, very different. The baristas are more likely to have degrees or be pursuing degrees and to associate themselves with the stereotype of their latte drinking customers. McDonalds employees are high schoolers or full on members of the working class and identify with the "bitter" classes supporting Hillary.

It's much more useful to discuss tribes rather than classes, because you see much more identification across income barriers then within income groups. The builder or plumbing company owner will identify more with his employees in political views and life habits than with lawyers or accountants with similar (or more likely lower) incomes. Accountants, lawyers, and academics depend directly or indirectly on the government for their livelihoods and don't deal with the downsides of regulation/taxation. They identify across incomes with people looking to "solve" "depredations of the market", "protect" the environment, etc.

A better indication of tribe is if one works in a field with easy entry to equity ownership and where one can build equity in a firm one runs. An ambitious plumber who is careful with his money can open his own firm and make a substantial fortune. A senior lawyer at a white-shoe Manhattan firm will retire early in his professional life and will never build up equity that can be sold at more than book value. The lawyer is limited to a few years of a salary of a few million dollars, while the ambitious plumber can build the business for decades and sell it for 5-10 times earnings.

Your Starbucks latte fueled Libertarian insight.

Posted by Hey | May 8, 2008 5:49 PM

If we're going to be the party of a big box retailer, why can't we be The Party of Costco? Costco is arguably the best-run retailer in the country (it's good to associate the GOP's brand with competence). And Costco isn't already a target of every lefty in America (often for bogus reasons, but still) like Sam's Club's parent co. is. And the prices are cheap. Cheap, I tell you! It's a stress-fest shopping there, but you only need to go a couple of times a year for non-perishable stuff.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2008 8:47 PM

Dear Mr. Hey:

Somewhere, an entire nation of strawmen are experiencing a holocaust at your hands.

I especially love your opening with a sad, sad invocation about the incivility of others, followed by a mean-spirited and incoherent guilt-by-association game in which commentators with whom you disagree are reduced to communists. I could spend the time unpacking all the non sequitors but, I'll focus on only a couple of things.

(1) While it certainly is true that the Democratic party has a long and sometimes sordid past with rent-seeking behavior, it was the Republicans who most recently who drove it to a whole new level. Look up the K street project if you don't believe me. Or for a more recent example, telecom immunity for illegal spying on your private information. This, obviously, doesn't make Democratic squeezes vis a ve regulation okay, but it is disengenious to say this is limited, or even primarily, an artifact of the left. It just isn't true.

Democrats are getting more money these days because they're the ones likey to control the government in November. A few years ago, Republicans got most of the money because they were in control during most of the 2000s. Again, rent-seeking behavior is both deplorable and unbiquitous, so I don't think you can single out the left.

(2) I'm in favor of increased taxation and new environmental regulation on carbon emissions. New taxation because we're going to pay for all this deficit spending sooner or later anyway, and I'd rather not leave our children a pile of debt. Carbon regulation because I think the costs of climate change are far greater than the distorting effect of CO2 regulation (though I'd prefer a carbon tax, but that doesn't seem to be in the future). Those positions don't make me blind to the consequences of my preferred actions - I know they will partially distort the free market and create opportunities for rent-seeking behavior - but on balance I think the harm created by not doing them is worse than doing them. And I certainly resent your insinuation that I'm a naive communist because my cost/benefit analysis is different from your's. That's just silly.

(3) No categorization scheme for a country as eclectic as the US will ever work perfectly, but there are real trends in terms of politics and economics. You just pointed it out yourself in the preceeding paragraph! We mass of idiots are pointing this fact out - a fact supported by numerous sources including the numbers cited in the very first post.

I have no idea what you mean by "tribal" differences, but you're probably talking about cultural, religious and regional traditions. Sure, these obviously have a huge impact too. Take your example of the plumber and assume he is black, and replace our academic or lawyer with someone who is working at the American Enterprise Institute and the argument most likely runs the other way.

Also, I guess it is supposed to be some kind of slam against certain professionals that they somehow can only exist within the infrastructure of government, but I'm not sure why. When an organization reaches a certain size, it simply requires one or more persons dedicated full time to its finances. Government or not. Organizations beyond a certain size probably also require a lawyer for contract enforcement, protection of intellectual property, etc. Yeah - sure - these are less tangible goods than plumbing, but that doesn't make them less valuable.

Finally, your example of the plumbing business and the law firm just doesn't make sense. In both cases, these are skilled professionals hired because of their knowledge at solving problems most people can't do themselves, or at least not cost-effectively. But the plumbing business, just like the law firm, requires that its founder, when he or she steps down, to actually have hired people in his or her place with that knowledge, otherwise they're both worth next to nothing.

And before responding, please, think about the strawchildren.

Posted by szr | May 8, 2008 10:17 PM

This issue will be addressed in Thomas Frank's forthcoming book, "What's The Matter With All Those Damn Idiots?"

Posted by Zhombre | May 9, 2008 6:43 AM

Fundraising analysis like this does not strike me as particularly illuminating or sensible, because the correlation between fundraising and voting is uncertain at best. And there is ample anecdotal evidence of a significant number of Americans who talk left - because its momentarily fashionable to do so - but vote right. Bush won precincts in 2000 that one would have thought - from chatter alone - would have gone to Gore in landslides. Personally, I'm curious about who returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are going to vote for. They are the ones who have actually had to fight the wars the left despises so much; the rest of us have not had to do anything but go about our lives and blather. Will they go for McCain or Obama? They're mostly blue collar, right? They are likely to go into trades of one sort or another once they become civilians again. Given everything they have done and seen, the direction in which they break in November will have significant influence on me.

Posted by M | May 9, 2008 5:12 PM