Why do rich people support Hillary disproportianately?

[Bonobo]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-black-voters-firewall-primary/
Lake Wobegon may well have voted for Sanders, but the NPR donors expected to chuckle at this gibe probably did not. It is Hillary Clinton who has emerged as the favorite candidate of financially above-average Democrats. In Massachusetts she won over 59 percent of voters making over $100,000 a year; in Texas, she carried the $200,000-plus vote by 72 to 26 percent. In every state polled so far, Clinton has won a disproportionate share of support from wealthy voters.

http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/2016/04/pennsylvania-final-county-benchmarks.html
Bucks county shares a lot of similarities with Montgomery county as they are neighbors. Despite that, the electorate here is more favorable for Clinton and we expect her to win this county. We once again look back at 2008 where Clinton enjoyed a large margin of victory here compared to neighboring Montgomery. A lot of her success here will hinge on her core groups of older, wealthy voters which are more prevalent here than in any other party of the state.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/15/1485536/-Maps-and-Analysis-of-the-2016-New-Hampshire-Democratic-Presidential-Primary
Bedford and Windham are both wealthy, strongly conservative suburban towns in southern New Hampshire (in fact, Bedford is the wealthiest town in New Hampshire). Thus, it is clear that Clinton received a substantially greater percentage of support from wealthy voters than from middle-class or working-class voters.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/poll-hillary-clinton-support-millionaires-113471
Poll: Clinton leads among wealthy voters
In a CNBC survey of the wealthy released on Wednesday, 31 percent of those with assets of $1 million or more said that they would vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came in second place with 18 percent, followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with 14 percent.

Thirty-eight percent of female millionaires support Clinton for president, while 27 percent of males expressed support for the potential candidate.
Among other potential contenders named in the survey were Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who each picked up eight percent.

[firebrand80]

1. because Bernie is promising massive tax increases

Among other reasons

[Bonobo]

3. Voters that are well-informed do tend to vote in their best economic interests. True. nt

[Human101948]

10. You're right and the badly informed poor vote for Hillary as well...

Hillary promises to maintain the status quo, which means that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, as they have under both Republicans and Democrats for the last forty years.

[Bonobo]

13. People can draw their own conclusions.

But a large segment are voting against their economic self interests.

Either that means that they have interests, aside from economics, that are more important to them, or they are unknowingly voting against their self-interests.

I will not make a judgment but it is pretty clear to me that that is the current reality.

[KPN]

52. Exactly the response I expect from Third-Wayers.

It's all about self-interest (greed basically).

[Buzz Clik]

2. Because rich people are often smart and educated and make informed decisions?

[Bonobo]

5. Are you saying poor people don't? Are you saying poor people are "low information voters"? nt

[treestar]

8. I don't think you have proven that poor people are for Bernie over Hillary

Hillary is getting most Democrats. Getting most rich Democrats, most middle class Democrats and most poor Democrats. You are trying to make it out that one should not vote for Hillary merely because the majority of wealthier Democrats are for her. Like that's some sort of black mark.

[Bonobo]

9. What do you think it means to have "disproportionately high" numbers among the wealthy?

Reflect on what the word "disproportionate" means.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Why do so many people reply to me with, "Are you saying..." and then make up a bunch of bullshit?

Did I say that, Bonobo?

Did you mention poor people in your OP at all?

Do you want to ask me me my opinion about poor people, too, or are we sticking to the subject of your OP?

[Bonobo]

21. Yeah, please share with me your opinion about poor people. Go wild. nt

[Buzz Clik]

27. Trolling again. I'll pass.

[JTFrog]

35. You mean always. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. "are often". Unless one infers that this contrasts somehow with Sanders demographic

... then your post makes no sense.

[Buzz Clik]

38. No, that was not what the OP asked.

I answered precisely the question put forward in the OP. Nothing more, nothing less.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. I think it may be because rich people *are often* spiteful, self-interested and dishonest.

There's actually some science to back up my generalities.

[Buzz Clik]

46. That's why they vote for Clinton?

Dear sweet jeebus, this gets dumber every day.

[whatchamacallit]

44. Right, unless they support Bernie, in which case they're the

"heartless privileged who can afford to risk a republican administration...". Hilbots are all over the nav-mesh.

[Buzz Clik]

47. On the other hand, maybe they just cannot support fucking losers.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Lot of fucking losers around

Bernie's not one of them.

[Buzz Clik]

50. Sure he is.

[whatchamacallit]

56. Your obsessive, bordering-on-creepy hate of Senator Sanders is noted.

[Buzz Clik]

60. Actually, all that is reserved for people who go out of their way to insult me.

I have the tendency to rub excrement in their eyeballs and salt in their wounds.

[whatchamacallit]

64. Like I said

creepy

[Buzz Clik]

66. Get a grip.

[Demsrule86]

67. That is debatable

He did lose after all...depends on his behavior going forward.

[Peregrine Took]

55. Actually, the rich are often very stupid and ill informed.

Most of their moolah is inherited and the rest of them are greedy lowlifes and/or sociopathic nutbags.

[Buzz Clik]

59. Hm. Judging only by Bernie's fan base here at DU, ...

... a lot of rich people support Bernie.

[Demsrule86]

68. Sorry

Inherited wealth support the GOP.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Wealthy seek substantial returns on their investments.

They know just what, and more importantly who, to buy.

Hillary is another form of insurance, in their eyes.

[treestar]

6. It is nice to know so many rich people are Democrats

You would think they would all be Republicans. Putting their votes down due to their wealth - real smart that.

[Bonobo]

7. They seem rather confident that Hillary will support their continued economic dominance.

Who needs Republicans, eh?

[treestar]

12. why are you assuming that of these people?

sounds like you just have a bias. They are willing to be taxed for social programs, and they would be the ones paying! Paying for their poorer fellow citizens to have health care! And they are willing to do this as they are Democrats! Geez, they could be Republicans and complain about being the ones paying for other people's health care.

This is ridiculous. I am on the receiving end of the ACA so some of these people are paying for me and they are willing to do so and not complaining like right wingers do.

Would you rather they voted Republican?

Bernie's supporters do him no good whatsoever.

[Bonobo]

16. LOL, you're all upside down!

Hillary has not proposed any large social programs that will be paid for by the wealthy. She has not proposed tax increases on them like Bernie.

You're talking out of your ear.

[treestar]

18. What?

Hillary is for all those things.

You are also sidestepping your own claim, which is that rich people are bad and we don't want their votes, even if they are Democrats.

[Bonobo]

20. You made up claims for me out of whole cloth.

Please post where I said that "rich people are bad and that we don't want their votes."

You're absurd.

[Renew Deal]

24. Maybe they just think she will win

Like most reasonable people do.

[KPN]

53. I support Bernie 100%. But I have to say that I agree with your point.

There is absolutely nothing objectionable about being wealthy. But I do, at the same time, believe that many wealthy Democrats favor Hillary over Bernie in part because they are relatively detached from the larger economic problems dominating so many in our society. There are probably some as well who are really DINOs (at least as I see it).

But on balance, yeah, wwe shouldn't demonize wealthy just because they are wealthy.

[Sunlei]

14. define "rich" , 1% of voters doesn't have enough 'votes' to elect anyone.

[Bonobo]

17. It's relative. Hillary does disproportionately well among the higher income groups. nt

[Human101948]

19. They have enough money to influence what gets done...no need for enough votes

A deeper worry is that even the will of a majority may have little or no
influence on how the country is governed. There’s a widespread conviction
that rich people and corporations determine government actions, and recent
research by political scientists offers at least preliminary support for that
conclusion. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page looked at almost 1,800 cases of
controversial policy issues in the United States and explained: “[T]he majority
does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy
outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or
with organized interests, they generally lose.”
They added, “Even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy
change, they generally do not get it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html?emc=edit_th_20160425&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70251688&_r=0

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. it seems to be human nature that the more someone has, the more they protect it

and the more...well, they want more. During my years of garden speaking, plant selling, events - the most generous people are the ones with the least, and the most stingy the ones with the most. So it stands to reason that those that are the haves will support someone who ensures best that they can keep what they have.

It cuts across politics and religion - to me, it is a genetic failure of human beings in general - lust for money, greed, power.

[RKP5637]

25. Well said!!! Often R=D=I when it comes to $$$$$'s. A "lust for money, greed, power." I think it's

all a part of human nature, survival of the fittest and all of that.

[auntpurl]

22. Hillary is winning by millions of votes - that means both rich and poor (and in between)

are supporting her.

Unless you have evidence to support the idea that Bernie is winning disproportionally amongst poorer voters (and I'd find that very surprising considering by how much Hillary swept the south and most urban areas) then all this means is that Hillary has more support amongst ALL groups of voters (except white men, which we know), and singling out wealthy supporters is image manipulation to make her seem like the candidate of the 1%.

[Bonobo]

23. The word "disproportionate" is an actual word with meaning.

I'm asking why she is getting those voters disproportionately.

[baldguy]

26. Poor people support Hillary disproportianately, too.

Why do you think that is?

[YouDig]

28. Wealth is correlated with education and highly educated voters support Hillary disproportionately.

[quantass]

29. +1

[djean111]

31. Return On Investment - ROI

Yes, not enough to vote her in, but more then enough money to buy her way in. Her supporters were actually BRAGGING about how she should be/would be president, because of all the rich donors. How fucked up is that.

[procon]

32. Your suppositions are false and misleading.

It's very deceptive to base your conjecture on limited data that only represents a very small fraction of the wealthiest of voters, a demographic category that only applies to the top percentile -- let's say, the 1%, yeah? -- not the rest of the 99% who are not in the millionaire class.

Since Clinton has the largest vote count of either party— topping Sanders by over 2.5 million voters -- that suggests the total electorate, people from all demographic subsets, are showing up to vote for Hillary in numbers that no other candidate can boast. We can't afford to be so bourgeoisie that we are actually griping about a tiny fraction of those 1% wealthy voters who choose support the leading Democratic candidate.

The only goal that matters is to defeat Republicans, so good for our side if a few risch folks decide they aren't voting for GOP candidates. That's a minor victory in itself that means we get a little closer to a government with fewer crazy Republicans in it.

[Nonhlanhla]

33. Why do Democrats favor Hilary disproportionately?

Why do women favor Hilary disproportionately?
Why do African Americans favor Hilary disproportionately?
Why do poor people favor Hilary disproportionately?

Etc.

You could easily have asked all of these questions, but you chose not to.

Do you think it is maybe, just maybe, because you are not really asking a question, but really just trying to paint Hillary as the candidate for the 1% (with the implied suggestion that Bernie is the candidate for the 99%, despite the fact that in fact most of the 99% who have voted in the Dem primaries chose Hillary).

Perhaps you should rather ask why do white men favor Bernie disproportionately? Given that white men are the ones who have traditionally had the most power and wealth in this country, THAT might be an interesting question to ask...

[actslikeacarrot]

36. Because there is ALOT of money to be made off war.

"Look at it as a business opportunity" and all that.

[uponit7771]

37. democrats favor Clinton, not Sanders... there are more rich dems than indepents

[Sheepshank]

39. I actually know a lot of hard working rich people that earned their income

Knowledge, massive hours, skills and finding their niche. Then Bernie comes around and demonized them and out loud said there needs to be a redistribution of their income. Fair taxes and fair employment rules is one thing, but a redistribution? That didn't sit well at all.

[elljay]

40. And I know

a vey large number of Silicon Valley millionaires who work no harder than anyone else but got lucky in the IPO lottery. They want to hold onto every last cent of their money because the guy next door has a Bentley and they only drive a Tesla SUV. They never cross the highway to the poorer town, never mingle with people outside their social set, sometimes have no idea that they are even wealthy because they only see people who have more. I once worked for a guy who was sad that he only made 250k at the time because that didn't scale compared to others. I am not in that wealthy set but do very well. Would I rather put more money in the bank for my retirement? Sure. Am I going to vote for Bernie, which means higher taxes and lower retirement savings for me? You bet, because sometimes the right decision is to vote for the general good of society and not for your own isolated personal benefit.

[Sheepshank]

41. I guess I'm not that type of Socialist, then.

Creativity, innovation, adaption and savvy has and should have it's rewards. On the flip side (and before the BSers take this comment to the extreme as they tend to do) I also have never subscribed to pure capitalism because of it's inherent greed and corruption. But the redistribution of wealth that kills incentives and the desire to be innovative is also an extreme that hurts society.

Yes, there are always those that invested well, inherited, won lotteries and fell into their wealth, but just as I shall not demonize all those receiving gov't assistance because of the few bad players, I also shan't demonize all wealthy people. Somewhere in these plans there has to be a balance. Bernie hasn't provided me with a balance, just demonizing carte blanche.

[elljay]

45. Right

No reason to demonized all. However, there is no absolute law of nature that defines how much money someone should have. It is perfectly fine to become rich through talent or hard work. Like a Monopoly game, though, it is no longer fun or fair when one person owns all the property and all the hotels. Our society doesn't need billionaires- what is there, really, that one needs but cannot obtain for 150 million, or some other high number? When there is so much income distortion that most people live one paycheck away from disaster while a few others are competing for how many billion dollar yachts they own because they have nothing else to do with their cash, we need to regulate. Bernie has never suggested we all live like Maoists with our matching gray suits, but that we rein in the excessive greed and power of the oligarchy. I am waiting for Hillary to say the same...

[Sheepshank]

63. as I had said...middle ground is hard to find in Bernie rhetoric. nt

[auntpurl]

58. Good post.

We do well - we're not rich, but we're comfortable. According to some of the posts on DU I should be ashamed of our relative prosperity and voluntarily vote to hurt ourselves with Bernie's huge tax increases.

Look, I'm a Democrat. I am in FAVOR of federal programs and taxing the wealthier at a higher level to help the more needy. But there's a limit! And Bernie is WAY over the line with his hugely expensive proposals.

I do not feel ashamed to be well-off. I grew up dirt poor and my husband and I have worked for every dime. I'm not 1%, but I don't demonise those who are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Because the Democratic Party is currently a business friendly

Chamber of commerce, Conservative party. That is the reason.

[FlatBaroque]

51. They worship the same God

[MattP]

54. Why do most voters reject Bernie?

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. Because they want the government (read treatment and advantages) they're paying for.

That's all I got.

[hobbit709]

61. Could it be that she's one of the 1%ers?

Birds of a feather and all that.

[Zorra]

62. They want to maintain inequality because it makes them feel special.

And superior.

[sadoldgirl]

65. These may be mostly professionals and well

educated people, who worked hard to get into their
positions.

It is the working class( like janitors, bud drivers, and
other low income occupations), which is rebelling. Not
the 15%, who are satisfied with the status quo.

The tax issue, so many bring up as a justification to reject
Bernie, shows the "me" interest instead of the collective
one, which is needed for a healthy middle class.

[CharlotteVale]

69. They know she'll put THEM first.