The Democrats are the party of the rich (the Bloombourgeoisie)

[Human]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Rich Support McCain, the Super-Rich Support Obama

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Human]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Michael Rubens Bloomberg is the 5th richest man in America, the 6th richest man on planet Earth, the wealthiest resident of New York, the wealthiest Jew (Mark Zuckerberg doesn't count because he's an atheist, although he is ethnically Jewish), and has a net worth slightly above $50 billion (only 6 people on Earth are worth over $50 billion: Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg) as of September 23rd, 2016. He's REALLY rich.

Unlike Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg grew up in a lower-middle class family. Now he's one of the richest men on Earth.

 Despite Bloomberg's massive wealth, he is known for his uber-liberal political views. He is a huge advocate for gun control, environmental protections, gay rights, abortion rights, immigration reform, anti-obesity and smoking measures, supports letting Bush's Tax Cuts expire, supports many leftist anti-poverty programs, supports a generous welfare-state, and etc. He certainly has a few disagreements with the Democratic Party (he supports school vouchers, he supports deficit reduction measures), but he's still mostly a liberal. He's a major donor to Democratic Party candidates.

Bloomberg is Silicon Valley and Wall Street mixed together.He was an investment banker (who graduated from John Hopkins with a degree in electrical engineering and HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL with an MBA) before he got laid off.

Bloomberg used his electrical engineering skills and revolutionized the world of technology with the Bloomberg Terminal. The Bloomberg Terminal is one of the most important pieces of technology ever created and has made Bloomberg one of the richest men on Earth. Bloomberg LP (Bloomberg's company) is also known for Bloomberg News, one of the largest and well respected media outlets in the world. Bloomberg LP is a technology company. Mike Bloomberg is technically a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

[hopper]

The Top 4% in income in terms of voting for D/R Candidates in Presidential Elections has stayed pretty stable from 1996-2016 so basically its a battleground  or purple territory vote. Its shocking how the top 4% in income vote swung so dramatically to Dems in 1992 from 1988.

[Blair]

Gotta love those pink dollars

[Sumner 1868]

It would have be interesting too see how many of them would have voted for Sanders in a general election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ANES samples are small - usually 1000 to 2000 people. 4% of that is not a representative sample by any stretch.

[TJ in Oregon]

The Top 4% in income in terms of voting for D/R Candidates in Presidential Elections has stayed pretty stable from 1996-2016 so basically its a battleground  or purple territory vote. Its shocking how the top 4% in income vote swung so dramatically to Dems in 1992 from 1988.

It doesn't seem like they really swung to the Dems so much as swung to Ross Perot. If Perot's votes would have otherwise gone to Bush, then that datapoint fits the trend from 1984-1996 almost perfectly.

I suspect 2016 will also have a huge swing toward the Democrats with the help of Gary Johnson picking up former Republicans.

[RINO Tom]

Since Human is clearly very, very excited about this, I'm interested to hear, you know, actual progressive Democrats' opinions of being associated with the rich.  Guessing they won't wear it with the same badge of honor as the OP, who, you know, made two massive posts about it.

EDIT: Let's cut the bullshlt: you either take a candidate on what he or she says their views are or you just speculate on everything.  I choose to go by what they're saying, so:

HILLARY CLINTON IS MORE PROTECTIONIST THAN DONALD TRUMP.  It's just 1) more noticeable because Trump is a Republican and breaking with his party on the issue and 2) Hillary is so notorious for flip flopping, pandering to public opinion and just not having any true guiding ideology to speak of that people can just go around claiming that she's literally and actively lying to everyone's face on this issue and no one bats an eye.  She hasn't attacked Donald Trump ONCE from the right on trade, and in fact, she's attacked him from the left several times.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

People still haven't figured out that Human is actually RR1997? lol

I think we're all aware but are just pretending it's still the same account.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since Human is clearly very, very excited about this, I'm interested to hear, you know, actual progressive Democrats' opinions of being associated with the rich.  Guessing they won't wear it with the same badge of honor as the OP, who, you know, made two massive posts about it.

EDIT: Let's cut the bullshlt: you either take a candidate on what he or she says their views are or you just speculate on everything.  I choose to go by what they're saying, so:

HILLARY CLINTON IS MORE PROTECTIONIST THAN DONALD TRUMP.  It's just 1) more noticeable because Trump is a Republican and breaking with his party on the issue and 2) Hillary is so notorious for flip flopping, pandering to public opinion and just not having any true guiding ideology to speak of that people can just go around claiming that she's literally and actively lying to everyone's face on this issue and no one bats an eye.  She hasn't attacked Donald Trump ONCE from the right on trade, and in fact, she's attacked him from the left several times.

Trade strikes me as one of those issues that doesn't quite map left-right as easily as most.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Seriously though, is anyone actually taking these numbers seriously? A Gravis poll is probably more accurate, and that's not a hyperbole.

[Intell]

This is good in anyone as? More reason for the democrats desire to abandon the working class, and abandon and offshore their jobs to foreign countries.

The republicans for the (white) working class, and the democrats for the educated rich elite, how lovely.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/b]

God I hope not.

[jaichind]

A somewhat different but related aspect of this discussion makes me much more excited about the 2016 election is the continued divergence between white working class vote and the minority working class vote.  Gore lost working class whites by 17 in 2000, Kerry lost it by 23 in 2004, Obama lost it by 6 in 2008, and Obama lost it by 25 in 2012.  This year it seems that Clinton will lose working class whites by a margin in the mid 30s.  So it is not just that the wealthy class is split between the two parties but the working class vote is split between the two parties as well.  Of course at the same time, the mostly White managerial class is swinging toward Clinton which would explain some of the numbers being posted in this thread.  The political polarization is now manifesting itself in terms of identity than class.  When politics becomes about identity the political rhetoric might lean populist or left (as seems in the first debate from both candidates) but the policies will lean right.  For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

[Intell]

A somewhat different but related aspect of this discussion makes me much more excited about the 2016 election is the continued divergence between white working class vote and the minority working class vote.  Gore lost working class whites by 17 in 2000, Kerry lost it by 23 in 2004, Obama lost it by 6 in 2008, and Obama lost it by 25 in 2012.  This year it seems that Clinton will lose working class whites by a margin in the mid 30s.  So it is not just that the wealthy class is split between the two parties but the working class vote is split between the two parties as well.  Of course at the same time, the mostly White managerial class is swinging toward Clinton which would explain some of the numbers being posted in this thread.  The political polarization is now manifesting itself in terms of identity than class.  When politics becomes about identity the political rhetoric might lean populist or left (as seems in the first debate from both candidates) but the policies will lean right.  For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

Statistics, because I doubt that Gore and Kerry lost the white working class vote, by that much. They won many working class areas, and though they might have lost the vote, they certainly did better in these demographics then with managerial/white collar whites, or white overall. This is probably the case with Obama in 08', and maybe Obama in 12, though the South may outweigh that, and he may have done worse with working class whites, still probably not.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

A somewhat different but related aspect of this discussion makes me much more excited about the 2016 election is the continued divergence between white working class vote and the minority working class vote.  Gore lost working class whites by 17 in 2000, Kerry lost it by 23 in 2004, Obama lost it by 6 in 2008, and Obama lost it by 25 in 2012.  This year it seems that Clinton will lose working class whites by a margin in the mid 30s.  So it is not just that the wealthy class is split between the two parties but the working class vote is split between the two parties as well.  Of course at the same time, the mostly White managerial class is swinging toward Clinton which would explain some of the numbers being posted in this thread.  The political polarization is now manifesting itself in terms of identity than class.  When politics becomes about identity the political rhetoric might lean populist or left (as seems in the first debate from both candidates) but the policies will lean right.  For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

Go to hell, fat cat.

[jaichind]

The Rich Support McCain, the Super-Rich Support Obama

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In many ways I concur with this.  My social circle are households which are net worth ranging from around $5 mil to $20 million (I do not know for sure in each case but one can infer this things once you hang out with them enough.)  Anyway the voting record for this crowd shifted very clearly toward D in 2008 with the shift being more pronounced at the higher end of this net worth scale  Same in 2012 although there was a swing against D in my social circle but more at the bottom end of this net worth scale.  Now this year everyone in my social circle are for Clinton (at least in public) with a couple private Trump voters.  I am pretty much the only one that is winning to state openly my support for Tump.  There must be a massive shift this year of the HNW crowd toward Clinton if my personal experience is any guide.  One data point I got was that if Kasich was the candidate for the GOP there would have been a large swing toward Kasih for this crowd.  Of course the UHNW gang I know nothing about since I do not share that social circle. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

My social circle are households which are net worth ranging from around $5 mil to $20 million

.......

[DavidB.]

For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

[Badger]

Words fail me as to what an HP Jaichind is. One gets the impression he loves money so much he'd open an overseas teen brothel if it was highly profitable and he wouldn't get sued or lose social status over it.

Not kidding.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

A somewhat different but related aspect of this discussion makes me much more excited about the 2016 election is the continued divergence between white working class vote and the minority working class vote.  Gore lost working class whites by 17 in 2000, Kerry lost it by 23 in 2004, Obama lost it by 6 in 2008, and Obama lost it by 25 in 2012.  This year it seems that Clinton will lose working class whites by a margin in the mid 30s.  So it is not just that the wealthy class is split between the two parties but the working class vote is split between the two parties as well.  Of course at the same time, the mostly White managerial class is swinging toward Clinton which would explain some of the numbers being posted in this thread.  The political polarization is now manifesting itself in terms of identity than class.  When politics becomes about identity the political rhetoric might lean populist or left (as seems in the first debate from both candidates) but the policies will lean right.  For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

Everytime I turn up the rhetoric of "class warfare" and feel guilty about it, I'll be sure to remember this post. What, exactly, do you contribute to society anyways?

[Ebowed]

What, exactly, do you contribute to society anyways?

Nothing.  He's a boorish thief.  He contributes nothing.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What, exactly, do you contribute to society anyways?

Analysis of Japanese politics that isn't prima facie asinine. That seems to be about it.

[jaichind]

Words fail me as to what an HP Jaichind is. One gets the impression he loves money so much he'd open an overseas teen brothel if it was highly profitable and he wouldn't get sued or lose social status over it.

Not kidding.

Thank you for your feedback.  I guess I have several response to this

1) Yes, I would absolutely be willing to invest in the adult entertainment industry if I thought the ROI was better than other industries.  In fact several years ago I looked into a fund which explicitly invested in brothel in Australia.  I did not put any time looking into it further on the basic reasoning that the demand for brothel services must be long term trend decline  the hook up cultural we live in while the liberalization of third world economies would increase supply.  That fund did not go anywhere folded anyway.  In fact I think I read a few economic papers after that which pretty much said the same thing.  The relative drop in the relative compensation of an escort from a hundred years ago is actually quite dramatic.  A friend of my at work did have a chance two decades ago to get into internet porn distribution industry but choose not to and has kicked himself ever since as he missed out on a bundle of money.  Now that was an investment worth getting into a couple of decades ago and perhaps even now.
 
2) The best I would do is to invest in such an enterprise as a passive investor and not try to run it.  While I am fairly successful as a middle/upper management type I would actually be a pretty horrible entrepreneur as I am pretty poor at thinking outside the box.  So even if I would try to make money out of this industry I would not "open" any brothel or related entities but invest in or loan money said  enterprise.

[RINO Tom]

Words fail me as to what an HP Jaichind is. One gets the impression he loves money so much he'd open an overseas teen brothel if it was highly profitable and he wouldn't get sued or lose social status over it.

Not kidding.

Thank you for your feedback.  I guess I have several response to this

1) Yes, I would absolutely be willing to invest in the adult entertainment industry if I thought the ROI was better than other industries.  In fact several years ago I looked into a fund which explicitly invested in brothel in Australia.  I did not put any time looking into it further on the basic reasoning that the demand for brothel services must be long term trend decline  the hook up cultural we live in while the liberalization of third world economies would increase supply.  That fund did not go anywhere folded anyway.  In fact I think I read a few economic papers after that which pretty much said the same thing.  The relative drop in the relative compensation of an escort from a hundred years ago is actually quite dramatic.  A friend of my at work did have a chance two decades ago to get into internet porn distribution industry but choose not to and has kicked himself ever since as he missed out on a bundle of money.  Now that was an investment worth getting into a couple of decades ago and perhaps even now.
 
2) The best I would do is to invest in such an enterprise as a passive investor and not try to run it.  While I am fairly successful as a middle/upper management type I would actually be a pretty horrible entrepreneur as I am pretty poor at thinking outside the box.  So even if I would try to make money out of this industry I would not "open" any brothel or related entities but invest in or loan money said  enterprise.

No comments on the morality of such a venture?