Who Elected Obama?

Who Elected Obama?

This column from the November 11, 2008 The Politico reports something that doesn't surprise me at all--the people who are supposedly going to be soaked for taxes by Obama voted 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.

...

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 well-off--and indeed, the extremely well-off--voted for Obama--and the "youth vote" surge turns out to be non-existent. I think we can count on the fact that Obama is not going to raise taxes on a core constituency, but on people making below $100,000 a year.

UPDATE: I thought about this in the shower this morning. I've made the observation in the past that high income voters are overwhelmingly in support of higher taxes and Democrats--as the 2004 pre-election polls showed. One of the reasons that Republicans can't hold onto power is that their policies promoting economic growth and low income tax rates--especially in the higher brackets--end up creating vast swarms of highly paid, undertaxed voters--who reward Republicans for this by voting Democratic. Democrats can't hold onto power because their tax policies wipe out many of these highly paid, undertaxed voters--and middle class voters (those making under $100,000 a year) start to predominate again.

If Republicans want to hold onto power next time the Democrats flub it, they should make these the core of their plan:

1. Under no circumstances should they cut income tax rates on those making above $100,000 a year. This just strengthens the Democrats.

2. The primary focus of tax cuts, even though it is economically unproductive, should be middle class voters. The families making $40,000 to $80,000 a year are the only realistic Republican base.

3. Emphasize policies that help workers at the very bottom--the ones making $25,000 a year, because of competition from illegal aliens. Indeed, stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens would be an example of such a policy.