The poor have much more at stake in politics than wealthier people

[rob in cal]

   In pondering the continual massive support that liberal leaning candidates rack up in poorer urban communities outside of white appalachia, I think one thing that conservative candidates have to take into account is that for the poor voting for a pro big government candidate is very important, far more important than it is for a middle to upper class voter to support a more conservative candidate.
    I say this because for a poor person, say a struggling single mom who is dependent on taxpayer financed services for foodstamps, school lunches, housing and medical subsidies etc, a cutback of say, 5,000 dollars less in benefits, is far more significant than a tax cut of equal amount to someone making 250,000 thousand dollars.  Also, for many wealthier voters, pure economics doesn't have to enter into things as much.  They can afford to "vote against their self interest" so to speak, but for someone who really needs the taxpayers to come through for them, there is no room for voting for a small government candidate.  When your margin for error is so small, you don't want to engage in electoral experiments. 
 
     

[minionofmidas]

Not at all.
The rich have their investment at stake. The poor have only a choice of lesser evils.

[rob in cal]

     What I'm referring to is today's current politics, where even if the Democrats win total power, the most that they are talking about would be relatively small tax increases, and they don't talk about nationalizing business, or massive employer mandates, which would impact many wealthy people, nor do they talk about massive capital gains tax rate increases, or going to a 95% estate tax rate, or things of that nature, which would definetly energize upper income people I would think.

[DC Al Fine]

     What I'm referring to is today's current politics, where even if the Democrats win total power, the most that they are talking about would be relatively small tax increases, and they don't talk about nationalizing business, or massive employer mandates, which would impact many wealthy people, nor do they talk about massive capital gains tax rate increases, or going to a 95% estate tax rate, or things of that nature, which would definetly energize upper income people I would think.

Very true. For all the talk that Obama= class warfare, he's pretty tame on that front. Nothing to get the rich/upper middle class excited about.

[minionofmidas]

     What I'm referring to is today's current politics, where even if the Democrats win total power, the most that they are talking about would be relatively small tax increases, and they don't talk about nationalizing business, or massive employer mandates, which would impact many wealthy people, nor do they talk about massive capital gains tax rate increases, or going to a 95% estate tax rate, or things of that nature, which would definetly energize upper income people I would think.

As I said, choice of lesser evils versus investments at risk. As opposed to, a lot to hope for vs a lot to fear for.

[DemPGH]

     What I'm referring to is today's current politics, where even if the Democrats win total power, the most that they are talking about would be relatively small tax increases, and they don't talk about nationalizing business, or massive employer mandates, which would impact many wealthy people, nor do they talk about massive capital gains tax rate increases, or going to a 95% estate tax rate, or things of that nature, which would definetly energize upper income people I would think.

Yeah, and this is why the "fiscal cliff" is more like the "fiscal step." I don't think it's a bad idea to let a lot of it take effect. Raising taxes to Clinton levels on people over 250K shouldn't even be a debate. That should be automatic.