DescentBB

caught my eye somewhere on a webpage.
(blurb quoted in full - link to full study at bottom)

The Rich Are Different From You and Me

What makes a red state red, and a blue state blue? It’s the voting habits of their wealthiest residents, according to a study from Columbia University. Although the GOP has traditionally been considered the party of the wealthy and the Democrats the party of the poor, lately Republicans have tended to win in the poorer states in the interior of the country, while Democratic victories have been concentrated in the wealthier states along the East and West Coasts. This trend has led pundits to argue that the Republicans have developed a common touch, while the Democrats have become elitist and alienated from the masses—but actually, the study’s authors argue, the red-blue gap is best explained by the fact that rich people in poor states are much more likely to vote Republican than rich people in well-off states. In Mississippi, for example, there is a strong relationship between income and voting patterns: the wealthier the Mississippian, the more likely he or she is to pull the lever for a Republican presidential candidate. But as a state’s average income rises, the correlation between being wealthy and voting Republican disappears. In Connecticut, for instance, there is almost no connection between income and voting behavior: both the poor and the rich tend to vote for Democratic candidates.

—“Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What’s the Matter With Connecticut?” A. Gelman, B. Shor, J. Bafumi, and D. Park, Columbia University

As it seems the gap between the haves and the have nots is a Democratic talking point?
see:

I don't know much about American 2 party politics, so this is interesting to me anyway.

Party lines and polocies have changed radically over the last 30 years. The Parties that were in power when my Dad was graduating from HS are not the same as they are now.

this doesn't really surprise me. What DOES surprise me is that someone actually published this observation.

I think the conclusions drawn in that blurb are suspect. For instance, they connect the higher average income levels to the rise in democrat votes:

But as a state’s average income rises, the correlation between being wealthy and voting Republican disappears. In Connecticut, for instance, there is almost no connection between income and voting behavior: both the poor and the rich tend to vote for Democratic candidates.\"

Democrat votes could just as easily be caused by living near high concentration of low income people.
When you have to depend on and move among the poor...when the associated higher crime rates are in your face everyday etc you are more succeptable to suggestions of social engineering to relieve you of those undesirable conditions. It's kind of like people laugh at the silly alternative medicines until they come down with cancer and then all of a sudden they are willing to try anything to buy some time no matter how poor the science is behind the remedy!

Connecticut is full of rich people who work in NY city and has a few big cities with a nice size of low income areas within. Filter them out and check the voting habits among the rest of the wealthy people in Connecticut and see if the rich people living away from the urban areas who don't work in NYC and see if they don't fit that profile...

Once people live away from all that welfare and free clinics and free lunch and free daycare etc. etc. and they don't have to walk among the homeless and druggies, muggers and street creatures to get to and from places they tend to depend on themselves and reject some government solution scheme to improve their living conditions.
You can even look up the trend among welfare recipients who move from the northern urban to southern rural enviroments and see how they get off the welfare program sooner and become self sufficient because their new enviroment and peer group leans that way. People who are self reliant tend to not vote for the democrats.

I think there is some incomplete science behind the conclusions drawn by the author of that blurb. Was it because they were looking for some 'data' to support a preconcieved position or because they didn't keep the study objective enough...I don't know.

Will Robinson wrote:Democrat votes could just as easily be caused by living near high concentration of low income people.

Ah yes, that would explain a lot of it!