3 ms·
I'm not sure your link supports your claim. The article focuses on wealthy congress people. It does mention Democratic leaning districts having a higher averag
by somebehemoth 11y ago
I'm not sure your link supports your claim. The article focuses on wealthy congress people. It does mention Democratic leaning districts having a higher average income:
"Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle."
That income level is not considered "rich". As for presidential races: "In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls."
You may also want to look at the money Republicans have raised for the presidential race including super PACs. Republicans have a much larger war chest due to large contributions from many very rich people.
- pessimizer 11y agoHow about this from yesterday: How did the Democrats become favorites of the rich? "The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democr... The NYT ain't exactly Fox news.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- plonh 11y agoThat article says that the democrats are getting a growing share of their funding from wealthier donors, while Republicans are getting a larger share of their funding from obscenely wealthy donors.