Jophiel wrote:
You're the one trying to use this as a basis for "The GOP is the party of the middle class!". Pointing out what "middle class" is isn't "obsessing" about it, it's questioning your metric.
If that's all I said, you'd still be wrong, but at least not quite as wrong. My primary point was that the Democrats are a "tail of two statuses". The very poor and the very rich. That was my primary comment, and the fact that your initial responses were all about how many votes Obama or Romney got in the "$200k or above" category shows that you understood the primary point was about who the "very rich" vote for.
I said that the GOP is "largely the middle class". Which is absolutely true. If we ignore the top bracket and look at the freaking charts, we see that the Democrats have a large advantage among those earning less than $30k, a modest advantage with people between $30k and $50k. And the GOP gains a modest advantage that runs from the $50k range up to the $200k range.
Let's not forget that the entire category of "above $200k" only makes up about 5% of the population. So yes, it's not inaccurate to say that most GOP voters are "middle class". Even if we magically decide that the break point between middle class and rich is right at $200k/year, this is true.
And it's still also true that the "very rich" lean overwhelmingly Democrat. So both of the statements I made are factually true. I get that you don't like to have this pointed out to you because it violates the "GOP is the party of the rich" narrative, but it's absolutely true.
Quote:
Apparently your metric here is to be vague so you don't have to actually defend it. The fact that a handful of extremely wealthy people go Democratic likewise doesn't negate the fact that the majority of wealthy voters in the nation go Republican.
So what? The majority of "wealthy voters" aren't the "very rich".
Quote:
You're so frantic to try and flip the narrative that you're not even making sense.
Lol. Yeah. Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror. I'm seeing near panic going on there. I made a pair of absolutely correct statements, and you've been desperately trying to find some way to twist around the numbers to make it seem like it's not true.
I guess what's funny to me is that you'd be perfectly within the realm of sanity to point the tin foil hat at me for my comments about the motivations of the very rich and why they support the Democrats. That's at least a completely subjective (and pretty darn conspiratorial) opinion you could call BS on and no one would bat an eye. But you can't even get to that point because you're too busy denying the completely objectively true part of what I said. Which kinda speaks volumes about the need for maintaining that "rich==GOP" narrative on your part.
Quote:
The "self-sufficiency" model for middle class is flawed for this intent since you're REALLY saying "The GOP stands for families making enough to be self-sufficient" when a great many families making the median wage don't feel that way at all.
Sure. But the median wage (right around $50k or so IIRC) is the bottom of the middle class Joph. The bottom is the point at which "some people" will obtain some financial security (I said the model was "based on self sufficiency", but that's about degrees, not a black or white condition). You do understand the concept of a range of incomes, right? Also, as I clearly stated earlier, the exact number varies based on the family dynamics (and frankly, where you live). So yes, a family earning a dollar amount that I said was the bottom level for a single person with no dependents not feeling self sufficient doesn't in anyway invalidate what I said.
it's like you're just looking for some way to attack the words I'm writing without bothering to read for comprehension. Stop. Take a deep breath. Read what I wrote. Take some time to let it sink in. You'll find that it makes perfect sense.
Quote:
If you have to be in the upper quartile to be self-sufficient (savings, education, health care, taking a vacation and other marks of financial stability) than that doesn't really fall into anyone's definition of "middle class" so much as make one wonder WTF happened to destroy the middle class and force one to be rich to feel stable.
Who said "upper quartile"? My range starts right around the median income, which
is right where most academics place it.
And again. I did not say that you must be self sufficient to be middle class. I said it was "based on self sufficiency". Meaning that's the yardstick we're using. A working class person is not able to work towards self sufficiency (insufficient earnings to be able to invest/save enough to achieve that condition). Middle class is the starting point at which one can begin to work towards that goal. And it contains the bulk of 50% of the population, so it's not like we're excluding a huge number of people here.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue here.