Wealthy Voters Shift Blue

Steve Bainbridge | Monday, November 13, 2006

Daniel Gross reports:

… the poll for the House vote in the East showed that the 25 percent of the electorate making over $100,000 went big for Democrats overall, 57-42, compared with a 49-48 margin in 2004. In 2006, those making between $150,000 and $200,000 voted for Democratic candidates by a whopping 63-37 majority, and those making more than $200,000 went Democratic by a slim 50-48 margin. That’s a huge shift from 2004, when Republicans took the $150,000 to $200,000 demographic 50-48 and rang up a huge victory among the over $200,000 set: 56-40. In 2006, Democratic candidates racked up big wins among college graduates—63-35, compared with 55-42 in 2004—and among those with postgraduate degrees—68-31, compared with 58-38 in 2004. …

On a nationwide basis, the wealthy still vote Republican. But not by much. According to the 2006 exit poll, on a nationwide basis, of all homes making more than $100,000, Republican House candidates received a 51-47 majority, and among those making more than $200,000, Republicans racked up a 53-46 majority.

Are these voters behaving irrationally? Gross opines:

As the number and relative weight of the wealthy grow, their incomes rising in part because Republicans have cut taxes on their incomes and capital gains, they’re proving themselves less likely to vote their economic interests.

Actually, I suspect that the blue-shifted voters figured they could have their cake and eat it too. With Bush in the White House to veto any tax increases and the Democrats having promised AMT reform, these voters’ economic interests were safe. (To be sure, there’s a modest risk that the Democrats will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire when the sunset provisions begin kicking in a few years down the road, but voters probably gambled that the Democrats will renew most of the key cuts.) With their economic interests secure, they were free to vote based on the war or stem cells or what have you.

The more interesting test will be in 2008, when there will be a real prospect of unified Democrat government, which could more significantly threaten the economic interests of upper middle and upper class voters. If they shift back to the red at the Presidential level, we’ll know that they are economically rational after all.

Tags | Campaign 2006, Economics and Business, Steve Bainbridge

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Why a Board?

Steve Bainbridge | Monday, November 13, 2006

My latest TCS column is Why have a Board of Directors?:

Why aren’t corporations run using direct democracy—putting all major corporate decisions, including the choice of a new CEO, to a shareholder vote? Or by absolute corporate monarchy—allowing management to make all the decisions without oversight?

Tags | Economics and Business, Steve Bainbridge

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Wine Review: Etude Rose Pinot Noir (Carneros) 2005

Steve Bainbridge | Sunday, November 12, 2006

Regular readers of my blog know that wine reviews long were a featured part of the blog, so much so that I eventually carved out a separate blog just to chat about wine. When Sue finishes reconstructing my site, wine and food will again be a major part of the mix. In the meanwhile, perhaps James will not be too annoyed if I avail myself of access to his site to recount some wine and food thoughts.

Dinner tonight was slow cooked pork chops. I soaked a couple of inch-and-a-half thick bone-in pork chops overnight in a store bought brine mix. Around 1 PM this afternoon, I pulled the chops out of the brine, rinsed and dried them. I sauteed the chops in a bit of olive oil until well-browned on both sides (about 5 minutes per side over medium high heat). The chops then went into my small slow cooker. Three ounces of unsulphured dried apple slices were loosely placed on top of the chops. Meanwhile, I julienned one half of a yellow onion and then sauteed the onion in the same pan in which the chops had cooked. There was still plenty of fat in the pan, but I added a bit of butter anyway. The onions got a pinch of salt and a couple of grinds of pepper while they were cooking. Once they were translucent and starting to brown at edges, I added them to the slow cooker. I wiped the excess fat from the saute pan with a paper towel and then deglazed the pan with 1-and-a-half cups of organic, low sodium chicken stock. The stock went into the slow cooker, along with a teaspoon of dried thyme and a lot (~a tablespoon) of freshly ground black pepper. One hour in the slow cooker at high, followed by 5 hours at low. Discard the bone and serve with steamed baby yellow potatoes. Yum.

A lot of wines would have worked with this dinner. A lightly oaked Chardonnay, for example, would have offered apple and stone fruit flavors that would have worked well. In my book, however, a Pinot Noir rose offered a more interesting match. The Etude is fully dry, with just enough acidity to slice through the rich stew. The bright strawberry, cherry, and rose petal flavors and aromas made a piquant summery contrast with the warm fall dinner. It was a nice example of how using contrast in wine and food matching can work just as well as complements.

Tags | Steve Bainbridge

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com

Veterans’ Day

Steve Bainbridge | Saturday, November 11, 2006

My grandfather Irwin served with the 17th Cavalry in Mexico, Arizona, and Hawaii between 1916-1919. In honor of Veterans’ Day, I’ve updated my collection at Flickr of scans of my grandfather’s pictures of the 17th and old Hawaii.

Tags | Military Affairs, Steve Bainbridge

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com
• Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Those Honoring Veterans...

More on Carrying Water

Steve Bainbridge | Friday, November 10, 2006

My thanks to James for inviting me to guest blog here while my home site (ProfessorBainbridge.com) is undergoing construction. After three years of nearly daily blogging, I was ready for a break, but now that my hiatus has gone more than a month, I’m ready to be back.

Steven Taylor’s post below on the “quotes from Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh which appear to promote the notion that they both were cheerleaders for the GOP prior to the election loss to the point that they defended Republicans who didn’t deserve defending, but did so anyway to promote a Republican victory,” is a must read. Regular readers of my blog will recall that Hugh and I went after each other hammer and tongs over Harriet Miers’ nomination to the SCOTUS. Hugh’s admission that he “had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn’t shoot straight” raises the question of whether he really thought Miers was qualified to be a Supreme Court justice or whether he “had” to defend Miers. (Since I still like Hugh, I should note Joe Gandelman’s observation that perhaps “Hewitt was simply saying ‘Thank God we don’t have to defend such a politically inept Congress!’”)

Why would successful talk radio hosts feel that they “had” to defend the indefensible? Limbaugh offers this explanation:

Now, you might say, “Well, why have you been doing it?” Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

Maybe. In which case, we can write off Limbaugh and his ilk as mere party propagandists, no better than the Democrat-leaning MSM. But I don’t buy it. After all, the GOP needs high profile propagandists now more than ever. So why is Limbaugh liberated?

I wonder whether there’s another explanation; namely, access. The currency of talk radio is access to insider info and high profile guests. Did Limbaugh et al feel they had to carry the GOP’s water in order to ensure a steady flow of tips from and interviews of GOP bigwigs? When the GOP politicos thought Karl Rove had created a permanent Republican majority, maybe Limbaugh et al needed the politicos more than the latter needed Limbaugh. If so, perhaps Limbaugh figures the GOP minority now needs him so badly that he no longer needs to carry their water.

Maybe there are other explanations. As a quasi-economist, however, I’m happiest with explanations that follow the money. So, OTB readers, what’s your theory?

Tags | Blogosphere, Campaign 2006, Steve Bainbridge Rush Limbaugh

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• Jon Swift linked with No Holding Back...
• Politics Trend Diary - What’s the buzz on politics & election? Get the latest here!  linked with  More on Carrying Water
• Doug Ross @ Journal linked with Illustrated Guide to Democratic Election Victories...