 |
|
|
Economics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what effect does economics have on voting? Well, try this map on for size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the John Kerry landslide that would have happened if only those making less than $50,000 per year had voted. Even some of the south would have voted Democratic. So what if we make the cutoff $100,000 or less? Does Kerry still win? Yep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
People making less than $100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
This map actually looks a lot like the electoral strategy the Kerry folks probably mapped out. It contains all the state Kerry won but once you exclude folks making over $100,000, all the battleground states fall quickly into place as well. Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Iowa and Ohio all go blue. So what about the other side of the coin? How do the wealthy cast their ballots?
|
|
|
|
People making more than $50,000
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
People making more than $100,000
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Next time someone tells you that the Republicans are not the party of the rich, show them these maps. No matter what one might hear about "limousine liberals," the truth is that darn few of our most well-to-do citizens vote Democratic.
|
|
|
|
The most interesting thing to look at though is that in many of the states in the Great Plains and the upper Rocky Mountains, the poor and the rich vote almost identically. The rich folks certainly know which side best represents their interests. The challenge for the Democratic Party is two-fold.
1) To get more of the rural poor in the Great Plains and Rockies to understand the Democratic Party benefits them.
2) In key battleground states like Ohio and Florida, the focus must be on the middle class. While Ohio's poor voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, the lower middle class ($30,000-$50,000) split almost evenly and Kerry lost every other economic group by double digits. A similar story played itself out in Florida and Michigan. Pennsylvania's middle class was sharply divided.
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2006 Land of the Blue
|
|