Middle class leaning Pub for economic interests -- even though data show that's wrong

[KingOrfeo]

John Judis, co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority (2004), now writes about "The Emerging Republican Advantage." Interview here. In Judis' view, the main reason is that the Dems are losing the middle-class vote (defined as persons with college degrees but no post-graduate ed).

One of the distinctive elements of the piece is that instead of focusing as much on the white working class, which tends to get a lot of attention when it comes to Democrats’ woes, you examine the white middle class. What do their politics look like?

A lot of [the white middle class] is in the office economy. A lot of them are in the for-profit rather than the public sector. That group has historically been pretty Republican, but it started moving in the ’90s toward the Democrats … One of the things that’s happened since 2008 is that [the white middle class] really shifted sharply to the Republicans. It had a big role, those shifts, in some of the key races of 2014 — for example, the Senate races in both Colorado and Virginia, where the results really surprised people…

<snip>

Besides the obvious demographic factors, though, is there anything that distinguishes the white working class from the white middle class?

The other thing I’ll say about this group that’s different from the white working class is that there isn’t as much of a populist strain. There isn’t as much of an anti-Wall Street strain as you would find among the white working class. A lot of these voters said they liked Romney because he was a businessman and they thought he could run the economy well, for example. You wouldn’t find those kind of sentiments as much among white working-class voters…

Even though we’re talking in both cases about people who work for wages and salaries — who don’t own the means of production, who are dependent upon the companies — what you find more among middle-class than among working-class voters in an identification with the company, with business, and with the profit motive … This is a growing part of the electorate. They also vote; they vote 10 percentage points more than the white working class.

Funny thing, though -- if the middle class votes Pub because of economic self-interest, that means they are misperceiving their economic self-interest, as economic data show.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Republicans are trying to position themselves as the party of the middle class. In a recent essay, Thomas Edsall writes, “The Republican appropriation of leftist populist rhetoric (and even policies) poses a significant threat to liberal prospects in 2016.” It may well work, but not because Republicans are in fact reformist, but rather because voters and pundits eschew data and instead focus on rhetoric. When it comes to actual empirical evidence, the answer is indisputable: Democrats preside over far more income growth for the middle class than Republicans.

Princeton University’s Larry Bartels has two studies on politics and income distribution, and together they encompass almost a century. His finding: under Republicans, the poor and middle class see almost no income growth, while under Democrats, they see dramatic growth (see charts). As he notes elsewhere, even after numerous controls, these partisan differences remain. “Every Republican president in the past 60 years has presided over increasing income inequality, including Dwight Eisenhower in the midst of the ‘Great Compression’ of the post-war decades,” Bartels writes. “And every Democratic president except one (Jimmy Carter) has presided over decreasing or stable inequality.”

<snip>

In another recent study, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson find that on a number of economic indicators, the country fares far better when a Democrat is in office. GDP growth is 1.8 point higher under a Democratic presidency, unemployment is lower, corporate profits are higher, the S&P grows faster and wages grow faster. This difference is not found in other countries, suggesting that the particularly rabid nature of American conservatism may be an important factor. It could also be that the effect is purely luck (although there is evidence to suggest that left-wing governments can facilitate growth). But the fact that the economy grows faster under Democrats is not enough to explain why the middle-class fares better. As the chart below shows, much of the distribution leg-work occurs after taxes and transfers. This isn’t to say Democrats don’t shape the pre-tax distribution (they do), but rather that simple differences in market distributions of income can’t explain the difference.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obama has described the "Middle Class" as the objective and beneficiary of many of his policies, of course wiser people understand he's going to do nothing to benefit the real Middle Class. He's going to take from the real middle class in order to give to the lower classes he likes to drag into their social category from time to time in order to grease the public message of his agenda.

Defining the Middle Class as those with college degrees removes from the equation millions of high earners who are in the real economic Middle Class.

Democrats are losing the white majority of Americans for one reason and one reason only, their agenda is in opposition to the interests of that majority and are seen as obstacles to success.

Fine, here's the rest of the same article.

As John B. Judis argued — contrary to his seminal proposition of an “Emerging Democratic Majority” — the future now belongs to the Republican party. It’s increasingly likely that Democrats will continue to have a slight advantage in the electoral college, but struggle elsewhere, for reasons I’ve previously discussed. So, while Judis’ thesis that middle-class whites are dramatically shifting right is contestable, he raises an important point: Middle-class Americans like services but dislike taxes, and Democrats currently appear to be the party of taxes. And so, the struggle for Democrats is what Suzanne Mettler refers to as the “submerged state.” That is, the way the government actually benefits the middle class often goes unseen, while taxes, particularly the income tax, are very obvious. Mettler notes that our federal tax code is full of handouts like the Mortgage Interest Deduction, but these tax benefits primarily benefit the affluent and middle class. “Our government is integrally intertwined with everyday life from healthcare to housing, but in forms that often elude our vision,” she argues.

The implication is that many people who believe themselves independent of government support in fact rely heavily on it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 10 largest tax breaks cost the government $900 billion in 2013. But the benefits accrue to the wealthy: The top 1 percent gets 17 percent of the benefits and the bottom quintile only 8 percent. As the New York Times reported in 2012,

“The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits… The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last years.”

As Christopher Howard notes in his book, “The Hidden Welfare State,” “There is, still, a misconception that U.S. social programs primarily benefit the poor. That is not true for the visible welfare state direct expenditures, and it is an absurd claim to make about the hidden welfare state.”

As the political science literature shows persuasively, Democrats are far better for economic growth, and particularly middle-class and poor income growth, than Republicans. Yet even liberal commentators often fail to notice this. (Kevin Drum, for example, argues that “Democrats simply don’t consistently support concrete policies that help the broad working and middle classes.”) By focusing on major policies, these critics miss what Nathan Kelly calls, “market conditioning,” or the ways in which left-leaning governments shift market distributions through regulation, monetary and fiscal policy and other non-explicitly redistributive functions. In fact, there is a strong literature showing that parties on the left shift the income distribution. One notable example: While conservatives savagely attack unions, which dramatically shift the income distribution, while Democrats leave them alone. Further, Democrats tend to favor expansionary economic policies, while Republicans try to clamp down on inflation — which primarily benefits the rich. A cross-country study by Isa Camyar finds that firms perform better under left-wing governments because such governments spend more money on public fixed investment. This will naturally lead to higher wages. And while the real value of the minimum wage has increased 16 cents a year under Democratic presidents, it has decreased by 6 cents per year under Republicans. Liberal governments also do more to reduce unemployment, which is significant for earnings at the bottom of the income distribution.

So, while there is evidence that the in the era of globalization and finance, liberal parties can’t do as much to impact the distribution of income, it is nonetheless clear that liberals matter, as Bartel’s recent data extend to 2012.

On the other hand, the conservative premise — that inequality will increase growth and thereby benefit the poor and middle class — has been so thoroughly demolished that it can’t be stated with a straight face. A large body of empirical literature suggests that massive tax cuts for top earners do little but increase incomes at the top. Branko Milanovic and Roy van der Weide find, “high levels of inequality reduce the income growth of the poor and, if anything, help the growth of the rich.” Dan Andrew, Christopher Jencks and Andrew Leigh find that whatever modest effect that inequality has on growth is mitigated by the impact of inequality on the bottom. Intelligent conservative commentators have essentially surrendered the supply-side debate.

It’s clear a Democratic Party is better for middle- and low-income growth. However, while it’s entirely mythological that the poor tend to vote Republican, it is still true that Democrats have trouble with the white middle class. An important reason for this is that Democrats are often seen as the party that benefits the poor, particularly poor black Americans. My investigation of ANES data shows this phenomenon in action: Whites are opposed to welfare, but support helping the poor (see chart). A large literature shows that opposition to welfare and government is driven by racial animus. To this day, the historical portion of slaves in a county predicts Republican support and racial resentment.

Because of our strange political system, middle-class white Americans can therefore believe that the government only takes from them and only helps black Americans. In fact, government programs frequently exclude people of color, and those that do benefit them are always on the chopping block. Whites, particularly Southern whites, often oppose programs that would help them simply to ensure that people of color remain in abject poverty. They see the bad parts of government in the form of taxes, but their welfare is hidden in a maze of subsidies. If you had to collect the mortgage interest deduction at the welfare office, Democrats would never lose another election.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Obama has described the "Middle Class" as the objective and beneficiary of many of his policies, of course wiser people understand he's going to do nothing to benefit the real Middle Class. He's going to take from the real middle class in order to give to the lower classes he likes to drag into their social category from time to time in order to grease the public message of his agenda.

Defining the Middle Class as those with college degrees removes from the equation millions of high earners who are in the real economic Middle Class.

Democrats are losing the white majority of Americans for one reason and one reason only, their agenda is in opposition to the interests of that majority and are seen as obstacles to success.

The "white majority" huh?

Why not just "the majority"? Why the racial qualifier?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama has described the "Middle Class" as the objective and beneficiary of many of his policies, of course wiser people understand he's going to do nothing to benefit the real Middle Class. He's going to take from the real middle class in order to give to the lower classes he likes to drag into their social category from time to time in order to grease the public message of his agenda.

Defining the Middle Class as those with college degrees removes from the equation millions of high earners who are in the real economic Middle Class.

Democrats are losing the white majority of Americans for one reason and one reason only, their agenda is in opposition to the interests of that majority and are seen as obstacles to success.

Youre right. In reality THE MIDDLE CLASS are the self employed, Class in America is determined by how you make your money NOT how much money you make. Obama is a proletariat working stiff because he collects a check from Uncle Sam. Hillary is middle class.

Democrats treat the self employed like a resource....coal comes to mind. And they wanna harvest self employed wealth till its gone.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Democrat Party has a number of things things working against it, the Law of Economics and the Democrat agenda of income equality being just two.

Economic studies show that's what the Dems have working for them.

The majority of Americans more and more see the Democrat Party as advocating a policy of class warfare that mortgages their economic future and that of their children.

The New Deal never worked out that way, so why should the far, far more moderate measures of today's Dems?

They instinctively know that a society pursuing equality over liberty is a society doomed to division which will achieve neither.

There's nothing special about Americans' DNA -- if they know something "instinctively," then all the rest of humanity knows it too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Non-responsive bullshit.

That is non-responsive bullshit. What I posted is not bullshit, and it is carefully and analytically and relevantly responsive to every single thing you said. Try again.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Democratic Party Still Seen More Favorably Than GOP

Gallup

a Gallup poll conducted April 24-30, 2014, in which the Democratic Party had a favorable rating of 44%, compared with 34% favorable for the Republican Party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169091/democratic-party-seen-favorably-gop.aspx

--------

The Washington Post January 22, 2015

Clinton approaches the nominating season in a dominant position, leading Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...df44e2-a190-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html

--------

The elections of 2010 and 2014 can be seen as referendums against President Obama. Few Democrats seem enthusiastic about him. I know I am not, although I voted for him in 2008 and 2012.

The election of 2012 can be seen as a referendum against Mitt Romney. He failed to excite the Republican base. His remark about the 47 percent made retired people nervous.

In addition, a lot of working class whites do not like either party. They see the Republican Party as the party of the rich, and the Democrat Party as the party of non whites.

And who can blame them? Working class whites do not benefit from tax cuts for the rich. They are jeopardized by immigration and affirmative action policies.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Economic studies show that's what the Dems have working for them.

The New Deal never worked out that way, so why should the far, far more moderate measures of today's Dems?

There's nothing special about Americans' DNA -- if they know something "instinctively," then all the rest of humanity knows it too.

 

[The_Trouvere]

That is non-responsive bullshit. What I posted is not bullshit, and it is carefully and analytically and relevantly responsive to every single thing you said. Try again.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Several years ago I found an essay on the internet I wish I had kept. It said that the Democrats are strongest in places of the country where capitalism is most strongly developed. It defined strongly developed capitalism as an economy where the vast majority of adults are employees.

Government employes of course are immune to appeals of less government and lower taxes. Less government and lower taxes jeopardize their jobs.

Employees in the private sector feel and at times resent the power of their employers more than the combined power of the local, state, and federal governments.

The article said that as time goes on more Americans are becoming employees. Small restaurants are losing ground to fast food restaurants. Small stores are losing ground to chain stores. Family farms are being consolidated into agribusiness.

Consequently, the Democrats have a good future.

 

[Disgustipated]

The Democrat Party has a number of things things working against it, the Law of Economics and the Democrat agenda of income equality being just two. The majority of Americans more and more see the Democrat Party as advocating a policy of class warfare that mortgages their economic future and that of their children. They instinctively know that a society pursuing equality over liberty is a society doomed to division which will achieve neither.

So is now a good time to predict which party will be hosting the POTUS Gala?

 

[mark_j]

Gallup

a Gallup poll conducted April 24-30, 2014, in which the Democratic Party had a favorable rating of 44%, compared with 34% favorable for the Republican Party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169091/democratic-party-seen-favorably-gop.aspx

--------

Quoting a poll that is almost a year old is sort of like predicting the weather for today based on the forcasts of last month...

 

[Disgustipated]

Quoting a poll that is almost a year old is sort of like predicting the weather for today based on the forcasts of last month...

True. Now find us one that shows otherwise.

 

[mark_j]

True. Now find us one that shows otherwise.

What difference would that make?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What difference would that make?

For one, if you can't find a more recent poll that has different findings then it stands to reason that the linked one is still more or less valid, yes?

Simply because a poll is a year old is no reason to dismiss it without providing a reason why, like a newer poll with different results.

 

[The_Trouvere]

For one, if you can't find a more recent poll that has different findings then it stands to reason that the linked one is still more or less valid, yes?

Simply because a poll is a year old is no reason to dismiss it without providing a reason why, like a newer poll with different results.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

^^ Dumbass racist fuck.

For one, if you can't find a more recent poll that has different findings then it stands to reason that the linked one is still more or less valid, yes?

Simply because a poll is a year old is no reason to dismiss it without providing a reason why, like a newer poll with different results.

However, your laziness doesn't mean that the linked poll is still true.

A poll by the same outfit (Gallup) last month shows that the Democratic congress has fallen out of favor compared to the Republicans. The approval ratings for the new congress have republicans sitting at a 27% approval rating and Democrats with only 17% and an overall approval of 16%.

Historically though, a new congressional majority sees a higher bump in overall approval than this one has. For example, after midterm elections that handed over full control to one party in 1994 and 2006, the new Congress' approval ratings greatly improved, relative to the last reading of the previous Congress. In January 1995, the new Republican Congress was 10 percentage points more popular than the previous Congress, controlled by Democrats, was in December 1994. In January 2007, the new Democratic Congress was 14 points more popular than the prior Congress, controlled by Republicans, was in December 2006.

In short, the public's collective reaction to the new Republican majority has been "meh.."

But looking at the same (but more recent) poll that Trouv linked from November 2014 (more recent than TrouvTheRacistFuck's), the Democratic party's approval ratings were much lower, 36% vs Republicans 42%.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For one, if you can't find a more recent poll that has different findings then it stands to reason that the linked one is still more or less valid, yes?

Simply because a poll is a year old is no reason to dismiss it without providing a reason why, like a newer poll with different results.

Polling has been around since the 50s yet the pollsters still aint got it right. And that's becuz they insist on using a PC model that treats every ethnic group as equally viable. Ghetto rats and trailer trash don't vote, cuz theyre ex-felons.

 

[Wrong Element]

Funny thing, though -- if the middle class votes Pub because of economic self-interest, that means they are misperceiving their economic self-interest, as economic data show.

Yet another reason why Citizens United was such a major part of the overall conservative project. The "misperceiving" is no accident.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

^^ Dumbass racist fuck.



However, your laziness doesn't mean that the linked poll is still true.

A poll by the same outfit (Gallup) last month shows that the Democratic congress has fallen out of favor compared to the Republicans. The approval ratings for the new congress have republicans sitting at a 27% approval rating and Democrats with only 17% and an overall approval of 16%.

Historically though, a new congressional majority sees a higher bump in overall approval than this one has. For example, after midterm elections that handed over full control to one party in 1994 and 2006, the new Congress' approval ratings greatly improved, relative to the last reading of the previous Congress. In January 1995, the new Republican Congress was 10 percentage points more popular than the previous Congress, controlled by Democrats, was in December 1994. In January 2007, the new Democratic Congress was 14 points more popular than the prior Congress, controlled by Republicans, was in December 2006.

In short, the public's collective reaction to the new Republican majority has been "meh.."

But looking at the same (but more recent) poll that Trouv linked from November 2014 (more recent than TrouvTheRacistFuck's), the Democratic party's approval ratings were much lower, 36% vs Republicans 42%.

I heard this the other day and naturally thought of you:

Ma asked her kid if he knew what Presidents Day was for.

Sure! Said the kid. Its when Obama comes outta the White House, and if he see's his shadow it means a whole year of bullshit.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

some day, if you can escape your slavery you could join the middle class.

 

[Disgustipated]

For one, if you can't find a more recent poll that has different findings then it stands to reason that the linked one is still more or less valid, yes?

Simply because a poll is a year old is no reason to dismiss it without providing a reason why, like a newer poll with different results.

*reason* does not seem to be in the cards for him. I can't believe that needed an explanation.