Study: Democrats the party of the rich

[Regis Philbin]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

Study: Democrats the party of the rich

By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So? As long as the Democrats continue to support and pass legislation on the issues I care about, it doesn't matter to me. Liberals with money can make things happen. Conservatives with money can make things happen. Guess who I want in office?

[LesterX]

Exactly, DES. You don't have to be poor to care about issues impacting the poor. Not everyone votes based on pure self-interest. Of course, I expect that concept to be lost on a person whose avatar contains Hillary Clinton in front of a hammer and sickle.

This "study" was conducted by the Heritage Foundation's head of government relations, not a researcher. His basis for defining wealth was solely IRS income data. He did not take into account cost of living, family size, etc. His definition of wealth is simplistic at best.

One of his "findings" is that "more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats." Anyone who thinks this through just a little would realize that urban areas are Democratic strongholds. An income of $100,000 in Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York does not make a person "rich."

[pinky]

In addition many, if not most, of these major cities have suburban areas that include wealthy Republican strongholds.

Lots of money, not so many people, so while the votes go Democrat, the money doesn't necessarily do the same.

[Richard Tafoya]

Here's one critique of the study:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/silly_new_wingn.php

Silly New Wingnut Meme: Democrats Are The "Party Of The Rich"
November 23, 2007 -- 3:31 PM EST // //

The basis for this? A new "study" done by the Heritage Foundation that was written up in this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002) in The Washington Times. The study is being touted by Drudge, PowerLineBlog (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/11/019088.php), Blogs For Victory (http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/11/23/the-party-of-the-rich/), and others (http://technorati.com/search/www.washingtontimes.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D %2F20071123%2FNATION%2F111230087%2F1002?language=n&authority=n). The key data point backing up the claim is that Dems "now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts." The study arrives at this conclusion this way:
...the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less. So 84 of 167 of the wealthier House districts are controlled by Dems. That's a hair over 50% -- supposedly proving that Dems are the new party of the "rich."

But here's what's funny about this. Right now, roughly 54% of all House districts are controlled by Dems. So in reality, the percentage of the wealthier House districts controlled by Dems is actually lower than the percentage of districts Dems control overall. What's more, the households where the median income exceeds the national average are hardly all "rich." So this chief data point just doesn't support the claim.


Another point put forth by the study is this: "If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions."


Given that the 58% here is barely higher than the 54% Dems control over all, it's pretty clear that this is statistically insignificant. Indeed, this niggling difference -- combined with the above bogus stat -- again suggests that whatever Dem gains have happened among wealthier districts just reflect overall Dem gains.


Dems may indeed have made the most marginal of gains among generally wealthier districts, due to Dem successes in the suburbs and other stuff. But so what? They gained just about everywhere else, too -- this just means that wealthier Americans, along with everyone else, have figured out that the GOP made a hash of everything and that the Dems are the better choice. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the small question of, you know, which party's policies best serve the economic interests of the rich. Pathetically weak stuff.

So this is based on the assumption that any household earning above $48,201 is "rich?"

[SparkleHugs]

Hell, is 48,200 even middle class these days?