New Wingnut Meme: Democrats Are The "Party Of The Rich"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

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 in The Washington Times. The study is being touted by Drudge, PowerLineBlog, Blogs For Victory, and others.

...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.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/silly_new_wingn.php

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

[Turbineguy]

1. $48,201?

Call us Mister and Missus Rich Bitch. And yes, we're Democrats.

Next: Representation by intellect. :rofl:

Whatever it takes to keep the country divided.

[baby_mouse]

2. Nex stop homophobia.

Within a year. Possibly less.

[UrbScotty]

3. Dems? Party of the rich? Right, and Einstein was an idiot.

:eyes:

[Democrats_win]

4. We are the party of success. Easy to find Republican failures.

The Republican-designer economy apparently has made Republicans poor now? What a failure!

It's funny, that they can't even succeed at being family values people.

Or, at being gay eh Larry Craig?

Where is Osama bin Laden?

The dollar is fading so fast we need a microscope to see it.

Bring me Democrats! Let America succeed again.

[gratuitous]

5. They're just getting desperate, aren't they?

If all the damage these fuckers have inflicted on our country and the world wasn't so murderous, it would almost be humorous to watch them flailing about so ineffectually. Let's face it, the only people even remotely likely to believe this nonsense will be the backwash of the backwash, probably about 8 or 9% of the electorate.

But such is their audience anymore.

[Vickers]

6. New slogan: "Vote Democratic! Get a pay raise!"

:P

[rufus dog]

7. I believe 2004 election

was the first time males earning over 100k voted in the majority for a Democratic Presidential candidate. The old idea was if you wanted to be successful you voted R. I am sure the early poll numbers show that the Rs have fallen further behind with the group so they are changing tactics. Also known as flip flopping.

[spooky3]

8. According the CNN exit poll results, no

They show that a pretty large majority of voters (58%) with incomes over $100K voted for Bush in 2004, as did the majority of males, and I would infer that higher income males tended to vote for Bush, if you believe these polls, which you may not.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[WeCanWorkItOut]

9. But Thomas Frank's comment--Dems so eager to win over suburban professionals

This is from Nic Kristof, NYT, in 2004:
"Thomas Frank ... says that Democratic leaders
have been so eager to win over suburban professionals
that they have lost touch with blue-collar America."

Kristof's answer was to offer blue-collar America some religion.
I wonder if we don't need to think more about money.

Are blue-collar workers losing out partly because the Democratic
leadership is prone to neglect bread-and-butter questions?

One example of a neglected idea is Robert Reich's suggestion that
we offer some help with the Social Security tax on the lower-earning workers.
It's one of many ideas that could help. But are these ideas
getting the attention they deserve?

[blindpig]

10. A half truth

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both the parties of the rich. They might have different facades, but in the end they serve the same masters. It's the good cop/bad cop scam, with the Dems providing the smiling, sympathetic face, ensuring docility and cooperation, but you're still busted. It allows the appearance of difference, while the program goes on full speed ahead and anything outside of the pretend D/R dichotomy is written off as "unrealistic".

Look at how the corporations are shifting their financial support to the anointed Dem front runner. Do you think they would do that if they expected her to restrict their power? It's all of a piece, that's why Mr Penn is there, to stack the deck for the vile interests who have been his bread and butter. In the unlikely event that she is derailed her replacement will be equally suborned. The fix is in.

[Armstead]

11. Alas, I agree with that

These days, the Democratic establishment is just as much enablers of corporate power as the GOP. It's just that the Democratic party is less overt about it.

[Cass]

12. Suzanne Malveauex on CNN also covered this yesterday.

Seems to be an emerging talking point.

[rucky]

13. Blue states and districts do tend to generate more GDP wealth.

And have more population. But gov't funds are disproportionately doled-out to red states & districts.

So maybe we can all the GOP the "welfare party"

:shrug: