Progress Illinois

On November 2, 2008, exit polls showed that the nation's rich (those who make in excess of $200,000) broke for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, and by bigger margins than did the "merely well-off," who supported John McCain. Since then, the Democratic administration has moved to enact the policies it campaigned on (which these voters were ostensibly aware of), including allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and making long-term investments in health care, education, and energy. Yet in a piece republished by NBC Chicago yesterday, Politico's Jeanne Cummings ponders whether Obama is not doing enough keep them in his corner:

But these voters are not being repaid for their support — more like the other way around.

Beyond the obviously wealthy voters, people who in many places are no more than upper middle class find themselves targeted to pay for a wide range of Obama policies aimed at leveling the economic playing field.

Cummings should acknowledge that the rich Democratic trend has a regional component. As FiveThirtyEight's Andrew Gelman has demonstrated, income predicts Republican votes more strongly in red than in blue states. In other words, Democrats are gaining ground among wealthy voters in rich areas where culture war issues -- the GOP's hard-line stances on immigration, choice, and gay marriage, for example -- have turned off those open to Republican economic policies. Places like Chicago's collar counties, for example.

But that's not to suggest that the many wealthy voters don't also favor Obama's economic proposals, which he has spent the first few months in office pursuing. These include long neglected public investment in things like health care, education, and energy. As Steve Benen notes, paying for these will require Obama to return tax rates for the top five percent of Americans back to the marginally higher pre-Bush levels. But these voters have known that was the case for over two years:

If this were some kind of new, post-inauguration proposal, I could see why it might be slightly more controversial. But the point of the article seems to be that wealthy voters may reject the same Obama plans he outlined during the campaign.

In other words, the same people who voted for Obama and his platform might be disappointed if he keeps his promises and does what he said he'd do.

Also, the underlying premise of the piece -- that those making over $200,000 deserve greater political attention because they sided with Obama -- is a bit annoying. If Democratic politicans really decided to pay off their electoral "base," America's poor would have a lot more assistance coming their way. Gelman's work is instructive here, as well. Obama would have won only in California and a handful of Northeastern and Midwestern states if the 2008 election was decided only by the rich. On the other hand, if the poor alone choose the president, Obama would have won every state but two. What is notable about the "degree of class-consciousness" in the White House plans is that so many hidden and explicit subsides are already carved out to protect the interests of the wealthy.

This piece follows perfectly the Politico formula for "must-read" coverage. Don't buy the hype.