Carlson wonders why no one mentions that Dems "win" those making more than $100k -- because they don't
On the October 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, discussing third-quarter fundraising totals for the 2008 presidential candidates with The Hill associate editor A.B Stoddard and Politico staff writer Josephine Hearn, host Tucker Carlson asserted: "[H]ere's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions -- Democrats win rich people." He continued: "Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about." However, according to CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, the 2004 presidential election, the 2004 congressional elections, and the 2000 presidential election, voters with annual incomes of more than $100,000 are more likely to vote for Republican, not Democratic, candidates.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, 47 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House, while 52 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 45 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate, while 53 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 presidential election, 41 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 58 percent of such voters cast their ballots for Republican candidate George W. Bush. Additionally, 35 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more voted for Kerry, while 63 percent of such voters supported Bush.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 congressional elections, 42 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, while 57 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 36 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate while 62 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2000 presidential election, 43 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more voted for Democratic candidate Al Gore, while 54 percent of such voters supported Bush.
According to CNN's website, "Due to problems at Voter News Service, exit polls were not available for the 2002 [congressional] election."
From the October 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Third-quarter fundraising totals are in. The Democrats are crushing Republicans. They really are -- outraising the GOP by 3-to-1. Take a close look at the numbers, and you will see why. Wall Street and big business are giving to Democrats, big time. Are they betting on the winner? Of course they are. It's not out of love. An obvious rhetorical question, but in any case, we welcome back to answer it associate editor of The Hill A.B. Stoddard and the Politico's Josephine Hearn.
OK. Because actually, the numbers are unbelievable. And I could bore viewers all day with breakdowns. But here's just one: Goldman Sachs, 71 percent of money from Goldman to Democrats. J.P. Morgan, 68 percent to Democrats. I mean, the obvious explanation is they didn't get to be big business by being stupid. And they perceive Democrats are going to win. Is there another explanation, or is that it?
STODDARD: It's -- I think it's two reasons. I think there's the perception that the Democrats will hold power for the time being, and, on the other hand, also, they're punishing Republicans because they think that if you look back at the last 12 years and the last seven, that they weren't minding the store.
CARLSON: Yeah. So, you think they're legitimate complaints. It's not just hedging against the future.
STODDARD: No, there are. There are economic conservatives who will never vote for a Democrat because they associate the party still with big, unwieldy social programs and -- but you look at lot of moder-- sort of centrist Republicans, right-leaning independents, they're going to break away. They're going to lean the other way.
CARLSON: OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions -- Democrats win rich people. Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about. Drug companies -- this is the most amazing fact of all -- Democrats spend their entire waking hours, Josie, is this correct, beating up the big drug companies.
HEARN: Right, right.
CARLSON: Fifty percent of money from the big drug companies going to Democrats. Is this masochism?
HEARN: Well, I mean, I think overall, business was really upset with the Republicans over the past 12 years. I mean, like, if you're a businessperson, especially a successful one, and you're looking at the sort of, you know, poor management we saw with Katrina, we saw with Iraq, the lack of fiscal responsibility, the lack of accountability, I mean, I think you're pretty disappointed with the Republicans.
Another stupid generality from Tucker with zero facts to support it. Either he or his producers are too damn lazy to actually do some research and report the actual facts.
I have to agree with Tucker on one thing: Corporations ARE betting the Dems will be in power after the next election. And they'll probably give more to Dem candidates than they've given to R's in the past. Because buying the affections of your adversary is much more expensive than buying favors from your friends.
So when payback time comes will the corporate media be in the tank with the Democrats?
The sad thing is Tommy......
You may just be correct in what you are insinuating.....
I hope not, for the sake of the Democratic Party.....
But if they (Dems) do decide to sell their collective souls (corporate run media) to stay or keep power it will be an even sadder day then than what we are seeing today.
The Dems claim to be for 'we the little guy'.... I hope they do if they get full charge of DC or it will be hard to trust anything about our government ever again!
Capt,
I think it's the nature of the beast and the intense desire to hold on to power by both the Dems and Reps. Look at the swaggering corruptness the Republicans displayed when they held all the power in Washington - no checks and balances.
This is why I favor divided government so the scoundrels can keep an eye on each other, and neither gets drunk on their power.
They need to be reminded why they are there and who they work for and are accountable to.....it's not to rub each other's bellies, pat each other's backs to retain power and bulldoze through with some chip on their shoulder.
Tommy,
You suppose that if the Founding Fathers had an inkling about the state of politics 240 years into the future, they might have made it a Constitutional fact that.... No one person can do the work of government for the people for more than say... 8 years max?
Wishful thinking I know
Actually, they did. Articles of Confederation had term limits, 3 years in one stretch, 7 years max. They saw in the English system the evils of allowing one man to hold an office for a lifetime. But then the careerists wrote the next constitution and took out the term limits. They wanted the power that a long term in office would bring. And they got it.
From this morning's White House press conference:
Reporter: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there ...
Bush: I've been planning that myself.
I, too, favor divided government. That way, one side can't steamroll it's agenda into law. However, the Republicans demonstrated in the 90s that a Congress with no scruples can effectively cripple the Presidency with endless investigations. Just think what they could have accomplished if they hadn't spent so much energy trying to destroy Clinton. Now we have a President who really should be impeached, but the Dems are reluctant to do it...probably because of the bad taste left by the Clinton impeachment.
I think we need a third party now, more than ever. Democrats and Republicans have become so polarized that they can't seem to get anything done. There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think this is partly the legacy of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. Propaganda and demonization are not new, but talk radio elevated it to an unprecedented level.
"Now we have a President who really should be impeached"
For what? Fighting an agressive war on terror and not giving the Democrats exactly what they want?
No, for lying about WMD...for lying about secret wiretapping...for lying about why we invaded Iraq...how much do you need? If you truly think he's innocent of these charges, then he has nothing to fear from an investigation, does he?
For what?
For starters, lying us into a war against an unarmed nation.
the "Bush lied" meme is the basis of Bush Derangement Syndrome and the starting point for political talking points by the Democratic Leadership.
They can't argue anything substantive, as they themselves voted for the war, so they had to make this up in order for cover. They think if they repeat the big lie often enough that people will believe it.
Sadly, many do.
the "Bush lied" meme is the basis of Bush Derangement Syndrome and the starting point for political talking points by the Democratic Leadership.
No. I think you guys have this syndrome. Your support this war criminal (in my opinion) borders on derangement. You're willing to throw away what makes America, America (the U.S. Constitution) in order to protect him.
They can't argue anything substantive, as they themselves voted for the war, so they had to make this up in order for cover. They think if they repeat the big lie often enough that people will believe it.
Bush is the one who decided to invade Iraq. No one in Congress was consulted with on his decision to pull the inspectors and commence the bombing and subsequent invasion.
They think if they repeat the big lie often enough that people will believe it.
This is what Bush did.
That is the basis of the Rightwing propaganda strategy: repetition, repetition, repetition. The good news is that it works only on those 24%ers (as of today). The bad news is that it works period.
No, you people on the Right have RDS - Reality Derangement Syndrome.
Okay, then I assume you didn't believe that Clinton raped Juanita Brodderick? After all, there was only one witness. We have numerous witnesses who have stated, on the record, that the Pre War intelligence was cherrypicked and exaggerated, and that the Bush administration was making plans to attack Iraq before 9/11. Oh, and there are those pesky Downing Street Memos. Of course, there is the possibility that Bush is so stupid that he didn't know that the NeoClowns were leading him around by the nose. If that's the case, I guess he didn't technically "lie".
And there really isnt any denying he pulled an IAEA report that never existed directly out of his ass or sent 12 reports on aluminum tubes to congress that excluded the conclusions of ALL OUR EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. Then again to those suffering from Bush Idolotry Syndrome no amount of FACTS or REALITY mean anything. Its all about what the hivemind has been told to say and what is necessary for propaganda purposes
Except I have PROVEN that Bush lied a dozen times or so. The DENIAL of reality on this is the prime symptom of Bush Idolotry Syndrome which has consumed your already substandard brain.
Bush lied, Clinton lied: they all lie. It's part of the job when you're POTUS. Although you would never know that looking at a site like this, which is dedicated to getting democrats elected to office.
Oh, that's the new mission statement? Guess they need to update it, it still says they are dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation...
So if lying about a BJ gets you impeached, what does lying about use of torture, warrantless spying on citizens, arguing against habeas corpus and using propaganda against the American public get you? No big deal?
I think you just demonstrated where you guys have lost all sense of proportion.
No it isnt it is dedicated to outing the outrageous behavior of the conservative press. Your baseless assertions dont define reality. Cough up a single exhortation to vote for Dems on this site. You cant. As for they all lie. True enough. The government always lies to us. It has been doing so as long as I have been paying attention. THAT doesnt make it right.
I think we need an investigation to establish the facts first. There is evidence that the VP's office was pushing for war in a dishonest and illegal way.
An investigation needs to be done in order to find out who in the administration was feeding Judith Miller information and providing access to intelligence that the intelligence community themselves had determined was false and/or unreliable. Any offices or individuals who knew the truth, but allowed lies and propaganda to be told to the US through legitimate news organizations should be impeached and tried for treason and taking part in using tax payer funding to facilitate propaganda campaigns on the American public.
This was the grossest example of a violation of the public trust since Watergate and likely worse. If the WH was part of the coverup, then President Bush should be impeached.
The FISA and alleged torture violations need to be explored as well. It seems the President believes he can do anything he wants under the guise of being at war. If indeed he can - according to court rulings, then that is fine, but understand that future presidents will use/abuse that very same priveledge in the same or even worse manner. Do we want Hillary to have the same claim of unlimitted presidential power?
Oh, by the way...if he'd been fighting the "War on Turr" so agressively, we might not be having to go back into Afghanistan now. Too bad we've wasted so much time and money in Iraq.
Starting a war of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunal, that is the Tribunal WE set up called the Supreme War Crime. And PRETENDING it was a war on terror. Iraq had nothing to do with a war on terror. IF the point is fighting a war against Extermist Islamic terrorists then invading the most secular Islamic Country in the region was shere insanity. Of course those of us with a working brainpan knew that already. Only those who dont know what they believe until the hivemind TELLS them it is a war on terror still repeat the nonsense.
Actually, I believe that the reason we went to war with Iraq in 1991 was because Saddam invaded a smaller, weaker country.
Bush did that, with Iraq, with bogus evidence of WMDs, which Bushlickers claimed "everyone agreed" he had (conveniently ignoring the fact that the tyrants smeared France, Germany and Russia for disagreeing).
Actually, I'm hoping there's no impeachment, because I feel that it might impede bringing "crimes against humanity" charges against Bush and keep him from going on trial for that, because, in our "judicial system", we say "double jeopardy", esp. since the Repukes would keep a conviction out of reach (60 votes needed to convict).
Gosh I have to try and wedge a comment in here on this thread as it zooms away from the topic.
TUCKER CARLSON makes up stuff out of his head! In this case black is white, and white is black. As he says, nobody mentions that rich people vote liberal. That's because it' s not true and goes against a century or more of political history. Frankly I'm surprised the voter ratios are as narrow as was reported here by MMFA.
It's no worse than the moronic twits who claim the "rich" don't pay their "fair" share of taxes.
The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, while the bottom 50 % pay only 3% .
It's no worse than the moronic twits who claim the "rich" don't pay their "fair" share of taxes. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, while the bottom 50 % pay only 3% . - Les (honesty) Is More (spin)
Thank you for providing that little tidbit separate from all context. However, I think it's worth looking at the context.
The top 10% own 69.8% of the wealth and pay 68% of federal taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3.3% of federal taxes while possessing 2.8% of wealth. That looks fairly balanced, with the advantage going to the wealthy.
However, federal income taxes are among the more progressive of taxes. When you look at ALL taxes paid as a percentage of disposable income (not gross or net income) then you find that the higher income groups do, in fact, pay a much lower share of their income in taxes. In fact, three quarters of US taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
If we're looking at tax burden as a percent of income, shouldn't we be looking at all taxes? Rather than be a "moronic twit" who uses statistics to mislead instead of illuminate?
Can somebody help?
Around 25 years ago I saw a study that gave a reasonable examination of actual tax burdens. It gave taxes paid as a percentage of income, but it used all taxes (state, federal, payroll, local, gas, etc) and gave it as a percentage of disposable income. This was income after payments for food, clothing and shelter. It might have also included medical expense and/or heating (this is Minnesota, after all).
This obviously seems like a better method of establishing tax fairness than you see with a simple-minded income tax as a percent of gross income, such as Les used above. At that time the analysis (which I think focused on Minnesota) showed that the total taxes as a percentage of disposable income was fairly balanced, with a slight tilt in favor of the rich. In the 25 years since then, as we are all aware, there have been several rounds of tax cuts that disproportionately favored the wealthy. I'd love to see updated statistics similar to what I've described, but I simply can't find any.
Has anyone seen anything similar in recent years?
I would be willing to accept that you are an expert on moronic twits by the nature of you BEING ONE your entire life. The thing is that pretty much precludes you from being taken seriously as anyone reading your posts can tell. You are ignorant so why should we take anything you post as if it were written by someone with a normal IQ?
Oh, come on! It's just Tucker... no one expects Tucker to get his facts right.
I don't really think this is all that terrible. I don't think your income level neccesarily dictates your political choices as much as your own mindset about income and money and the issues do. There are many who are in a high income bracket that vote for Dems and progressives. Polls may show that Tucker is wrong to claim a majority but it is still a large amount.
I think you have a point. People with a "F**k you, I've got mine" attitude will be more likely to vote Republican, regardless of their own net worth. Sort of like the people who are so hysterical about the possibility that Graeme Frost's family got help from the government, even though they aren't dirt poor. These "compassionate conservatives" have no problem with money being wasted by the ton in Iraq, but don't you dare spend their tax dollar to help somebody who may have made a "bad choice" at some point in their lives!
I guess they would prefer that Graeme Frost had been allowed to die...just to teach his parents a lesson.
Come now NERZOG,
Don't encourage them with that kind of talk.....
You only get them thinking about posting 12 year old kids home addresses on the internets and implying that certain 2 year olds should never been born....... oh never mind
These exit polls cited by MMFA are about as scientifically accurate as Tucker's claim.
Now here in Massachusetts I bet I'd be correct in saying most of the wealthy folks vote Democratic. In fact I'd wager I'm correct in saying most of the middle-class & poor vote for Democrats.
Now of course Massachusetts is Moonbat Central, so it's not hard to figure the odds ;-)
Hey someone rescue me! Get me out of this state!! Nerzog, you live in Tennessee...how about trading places? You'd love it here :-)
Absolutely! I often dream of being surrounded by other latte-sipping liberals!
Most of the "wealthy" folks I know certainly are conservative, though there are a few notable exceptions. On the other hand, Tennessee's middle class seems be even more Republican than the wealthy...in any case, it's very lonely here!
By the way, have they lowered the flags to half-staff at Fenway yet?
I love Tennessee, we'll have to work something out.
The Red Sox fans are really depressed & of course I'm enjoying their pain ;-)
Well, I must confess to being a Red Sox fan, though I really miss Johnny Damon. (I'll bet most Red Sox fans would gladly trade Dice-K to get Johnny back!)
Anyway, the Indians have earned their spot. I'll gladly root for them in the World Series.
Hold on there!! Colorado goes solidly Dem for once, and it's a coinky dink the Rockies suddenly surge from nowhere to the World Series? All TRUE Democrats will be rooting for the most awesome sports team in the history of the world, The Rockies!!
Hey now,
Indians winning the ACLS and the Bucks defaulting into #1 in the BCS.
Not bad for a Red State!
oops. I meant ALCS... Got excited there for a moment.
Not bad, at least until the Indians get pummeled by the hottest team on the planet, the Colorado Rockies!
Oh, and the Buckeyes will lose to Michigan in their final regular season game. That's just karma.
Tress owns Lloyd Carr.
The Bucks will lose before Michigan week, but they will beat the Wolverines. Penn State, Illinois, Wisconsin...The Big Ten is almost as tough to win out in this year as the SEC.
If you are an OSU fan, then you better hope Carr wins this one time so he can keep his job and continue losing to OSU.
The App State loss was bad enough, but if he loses to OSU (yet again), then they'll drop the axe.
My guess is that Carr will retire at the end of this year.
Give a little love to my old Kentucky home!
Why all this animosity in baseball? Why don't the Indian and Sox come together, bring harmony to the ballpark for the pure joy of playing the game? Besides, combining their forces might be the only way to get a halfway competitive series against the mighty Rockies...
NERZOG,
I can one up you right off the bat......
I'm a Die-Hard True-Blue Cubbie fan...... the pain of 1984 and 2003 still hurts.....
Nevermind, lets stay on topic......
Jeter you can move down here to SWMO where there are plenty of repubs to talk to. But I'm staying here to keep my own little tiny island of blue in a currently red state, however I predict it will go deeper purple if not blue in 08.
DUDE! I'm from tennessee! What are the odds of THAT happening? I had no idea there were two libs down here!
There are a few of us here. We're like little blue islands in a sea of red.
Copy that. Memphis is a real tough market...we just lost our air america affiliate.
I chalk that up to our having more churches than gas stations (actual fact about memphis, y'all)
thank god for xm!
The difference is that the polls (whether you trust them or not) are based on actual data. That data totally contradicts Tucker's statement - which he clearly made up out of whole cloth.
I have been watching politics pretty closely for almost 30 years. In all that time I have only seen exit polling attacked ONE TIME. After the 04 election. Exit polls are what WE use to verify elections when we moniter them in other countries. Exit polls are what Ran Sheveradnadze out of office after he tried to steal an election in Georgia. Exit polls have always been considered accurate until they ran afoul of the rightwing.
J2,
What do you think was Romney's appeal to voters in Mass.? I agree Mass does lean heavily to Dems, why was he the exception?
That may have to do with the other statistic that those with higher levels of education tend to vote Democratic.
Most intelligent people would vote Democrat, they also tend to think things through instead of the conservative knee-jerk response the conservatives use. Go Rockies and c'mon Yankees, fire Torre, it won't help anymore than spending millions to buy a World Series.
Go Rockies and c'mon Yankees, fire Torre
I don't think I like you ;-)
I agree - it's not so much the money (although it DOES play a role) but rather the intelligence and educational level that are stronger indicators of how someone will vote.
A simpler and perhaps better approach is to look at the educational attainments of Gore and Bush voters according to the 2000 VNS exit poll:
<!--mstheme--> <!--mstheme-->Vote by Education<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->% of All Voters<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Gore<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Bush<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->No H.S. Degree<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->5%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->59%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->39%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->High School Graduate<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->21%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->48%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->49%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Some College<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->32%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->45%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->51%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->College Graduate<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->24%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->45%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->51%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Post-Graduate Degree<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->18%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->52%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->44%<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->If you weight this data on a 1 to 5 scale, with the high school dropouts as 1, then the two candidates are almost exactly equal once again. Bush edges out Gore by the meaninglessly tiny margin of 3.29 to 3.28. This means the average Bush and Gore voters both fall between "Some College" (3.0) and "College Graduate” (4.0).
Gore did better among those claiming post-grad degrees, but many of the Democrat voters were schoolteachers holding degrees in Education. Also, in the 2002 House races, according to the long-delayed VNS exit poll data that was finally released in 2003, "Republicans won for the first time in decades among those claiming to have post-graduate degrees. They even captured a majority of women with college or post-graduate degrees."
So I'd call this dispute over which party is smarter a dead-even toss-up. And silly.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/brown_debate.htmRats! Sorry about the formatting.
Let me try it again:
Vote by Education % of All Voters Gore Bush No H.S. Degree 5% 59% 39% High School Graduate 21% 48% 49% Some College 32% 45% 51% College Graduate 24% 45% 51% Post-Graduate Degree 18% 52% 44%Sorry, it looked ok when I previewed it.
Oh well..
Don't feel bad...I'm too lazy to even attempt it.
I think I got it AA, interesting, Post grad before intelligence ;-) kicks in.
There are no Democrat Voters. There are DemocratIC voters and ReNAMBLAcan morons
NAMBLA, started by GiNAMBLAsberg, who was a raving Republican. Is the right genius?
When it comes to marketing the right has real genius. When it comes to governing, not so much.
No, intelligent people vote Green or stay at home. It's the sheep keep going back to the polls to vote for the wolves. That's not very smart.
Lies, right-wing lies...
Tucker knew he was lying right through his teeth. Didn't faze him for a second. I guess this is what our media has become:
A forum for nitwit, right-wing frat boys to lie to the American people.
Tucker, what were you thinking? As constantly said by those on this website, why would you vote against your best interests? Why would those making more than $100 G vote D?
Living where I live, in an area with a pretty wide demographic as far as income, I've always found the relationship interesting. Within 2 or 3 miles of me are multi-million dollar homes on the harbor with boat slips, as well as converted garages housing more than one family.
I think there's a lot of variance due to social issues and other factors. I know immigrant laborers who, even if they can't vote, support Republicans for religious reasons.I also know very wealthy people who vote Democrat based mainly on social issues.
I'd like to see a study based not on how much a person makes (or has), but how they got it. From my own little personal and very unscientific study, I see a tendency in those who started with very little and made a lot of money to be more liberal.Generally those people who realize how much work and what a crap shoot success can be.
Those who inherited money (or had a lot of advantages towards getting there) seem to be more "rugged individualist" Republicans.
The median home price in SoCal has multiplied about six fold during my adult life, and I can say one thing, from my observations, that will make an instant Republican is getting the old folks house handed down. I know a few of those, and they're the loudest lecturers on the subject of bootstraps and the biggest whiners about property taxes.