Mark J. Penn
Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.
This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.
The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.
At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.
While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.
And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.
So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.
But 69 percent of all Americans in polls I conducted in recent years now also call themselves “professionals,” a new class transcending the old class labels or working or middle class or the wealthy. They have white-collar jobs requiring higher education and are earning more than ever before. Because of layoffs and business scandals of recent years, they have become increasingly embittered toward the corporate cultures that would have otherwise been their natural home base.
Unlike the small-businessman who is typically anti-government, these professionals come out of the era of the growth of global corporations believing more than ever before in government intervention, teamwork and collective action. They are the voters who favored the bailout, while the left and the right saw it as a betrayal of their fundamental principles.
These higher educated voters generally believe more in science than religion, in the interconnectedness of the world, and in pragmatism over ideology. They see us all living in a new world and are watching their kids enter it taking new economy kinds of jobs in places increasingly far away from home.
This group is at the core of voters receiving more of their information online and through cable TV in their offices all day long. As they leave many of the problems of working class life behind, this new class is easily captivated by the Sunday shows. What appears on the front pages has more impact on shaping their views than what they experience in their everyday life.
In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them? That is a big question that remains to be seen – they could quickly fragment over the issue if it gets raised early in the Obama administration. And they part company with many other Obama supporters in believing that we need to compete and win in the global economy, seeing trade as a necessity for economic growth.
These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.
The history of revolution usually parallels the history of rising, not falling incomes, and the middle class revolutions of 1848 brought many countries the democratic system in the first place. In the Obama revolution, the upper-classing of America took a front seat – the central question is whether they will remain there.
So why would those who, in theory, not benefit from Obama's tax plan vote overwhelmingly for him?
Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.
This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.
The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.
At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.
While Obama received record votes from the expanded minority communities, that alone would not have led to victory had he not also secured so much support among the growing professional class — and in doing so went beyond the successful 1996 coalition that also climbed the income ladder to include newly targeted soccer moms. Back then, President Clinton got 38 percent of the vote among those making over $100,000. This year Obama earned 49 percent of that vote. He also got 52 percent of a new polling category — those making over $200,000 a year who were no longer among the top 1 percent of earners, as they had been in past elections, but were now the top 6 per cent.
And for all the talk about the surging youth vote, those under 29 went from 17 percent in 1996 and 17 percent in 2004 to a mere to 18 percent of the electorate today — and that youth surge was heavily fueled by the fact that the minority communities are much younger than their white counterparts. Of the 18 percent under age 29 who voted this year, 11 percent were white and 7 percent were minority.
So the fusion of expanded minority voting and the expanded upper class, combined with shifting demographics, were key to Obama’s victory. But while demographers have been predicting the growth in minority voting — especially the Latino increases — for decades, they did not predict the upscale income changes in the electorate or focus on them. Most people in America (over 80 percent) no matter what their income, say they are middle class, which is why that phrase is so powerful on the stump.
But 69 percent of all Americans in polls I conducted in recent years now also call themselves “professionals,” a new class transcending the old class labels or working or middle class or the wealthy. They have white-collar jobs requiring higher education and are earning more than ever before. Because of layoffs and business scandals of recent years, they have become increasingly embittered toward the corporate cultures that would have otherwise been their natural home base.
Unlike the small-businessman who is typically anti-government, these professionals come out of the era of the growth of global corporations believing more than ever before in government intervention, teamwork and collective action. They are the voters who favored the bailout, while the left and the right saw it as a betrayal of their fundamental principles.
These higher educated voters generally believe more in science than religion, in the interconnectedness of the world, and in pragmatism over ideology. They see us all living in a new world and are watching their kids enter it taking new economy kinds of jobs in places increasingly far away from home.
This group is at the core of voters receiving more of their information online and through cable TV in their offices all day long. As they leave many of the problems of working class life behind, this new class is easily captivated by the Sunday shows. What appears on the front pages has more impact on shaping their views than what they experience in their everyday life.
In the end when it comes to a congressional vote, will they support higher taxes if they have to pay them? That is a big question that remains to be seen – they could quickly fragment over the issue if it gets raised early in the Obama administration. And they part company with many other Obama supporters in believing that we need to compete and win in the global economy, seeing trade as a necessity for economic growth.
These new professionals in software, the media, consulting, and mid-management have now declared themselves to be Democrats. After seeing Clinton and Bush back to back, they have switched their votes as part of a rejection of the religious right, the war in Iraq, and laissez-faire economics.
The history of revolution usually parallels the history of rising, not falling incomes, and the middle class revolutions of 1848 brought many countries the democratic system in the first place. In the Obama revolution, the upper-classing of America took a front seat – the central question is whether they will remain there.
So why would those who, in theory, not benefit from Obama's tax plan vote overwhelmingly for him?
13 comments:
I think that those 5% voted for Obama because they new the posistion of the poor and middle class. They were probably also poor once and know that the rich can easily afford to pay higher taxes.
These statistics show the wide range of appeal that Obama has on the American public. Despite the fact that his tax plan will raise taxes for those in the higher echelon of the financial hierarchy, support for Obama in these groups is still high. The current financial crisis has changed the mindset of the American people. Insecurities in today's economy has caused people to vote by their pocketbooks. The failures of the last eight years of Republican rule has engendered a need for change and Obama's timing allowed him to take advantage of the situation. Those who voted for Obama believes that he will be able to stabilize the economy and bring back people's sense of financial security.
I think that since the vast majority of people are not making 250k+ a year, he could appeal to those people more so than John McCain did.
When it comes down to everything I think personally that the people just don't want another George Bush. Pretty much John McCain would have been the remake of George Bush. Which they don't want, we the people wanted something new. I think the reason for Obama being our president is because that 80% that makes over $200,000 a year still consider themselves ''middle class''. This is the main reason for Obama getting elected he said in his campain he would help the middle class and lower class get lower taxes...
I think that a lot of the vote coming in for Obama was in response to the last eight years.
People have seen Bush's plans come and fail. And maybe, hopefully, people are becoming less self interested and more willing to help for the common good.
Barack Obama has also been a very charismatic character this election and really had the anti-incumbent feeling on his side. All of these things together I think are what got him this election.
The elite class is most likely more liberal than conservative. They realize that they have enough money that extra taxes won't really bother them. Also, they've probably weighed out the pros and cons of each candidate and decided that they like Obama's platform better.
well i think obama was right by lowering taxes because the peple that didnt have that much money he made it fair to them and the wealthy peple agreeded with obama so i think its gonna work out
Quite frankly, i believe that those who would not benefit from Obama's tax plan voted for him due to the current economic downfall that we are in now. I don't think that a little increase in their taxes would make as large as a difference as it would to those who make less than $250,000 a year. The now extra money that is made off the taxes could eventually help build our economy back up.
The 5% know their money, and they know a small increase in tax will be nothing more than a small nuisance. They have realized that by increasing taxes on them the government is able to spread the wealth and therefore help the economy and reduce poverty in America. The timing of Obama's election is also crutial in why he obtained most of the 5%'s vote. The economy is awful as of right now, but when Clinton was president the economy was amazing, so they put two and two together and realized that the Democratic's views for the economy was best.
I think these people voted for Obama because, as the article suggests, they are becoming more educated and have faster access to information than ever before possible. Perhaps they were smart enough to pay attention to the news of the last 8 years and realize that the president maybe wasn't doing such a top-notch job. Perhaps they even realized that more of the same would not further the country but would just prolong the dumb. So they decided to go with the candidate who actually wants to make a difference and makes sense. I hope that these people decided to shed their elitist attitudes and give helping everyone a chance.
In the weeks before the election, there was a lot of media attention directed towards the state of the economy. More affluent households, who felt little or no traces of recession, became more aware about the loss of jobs and increasing layoffs that probably occurred more often in lesser-income households. Maybe this 5% viewed a raise in taxes as a way to give charity to the poor.
I think that the people who voted for obama have faith in his economic policies and that even the people that are supposed to get tax increases have faith that their candidate will not raise their taxes.
the failure of Republican, G. W. Bush, was the key point in this election. this failure brought more votes for Democrats, Obama.
Post a Comment