Can Hillary Win?

[Johnny Tremain]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

People do vote their prejudices. But what are the prejudices that they are likely to act on?

Link:
Gallup Poll Diversity » Outside The Beltway | OTB

If the polling results are accurate, John McCain needs to be worrying about prejudice due to his age. In addition, Rudy and Romney confront far more prejudice due to multiple divorces and religion (Mormon) than either Hillary or Obama confront from their gender or race.

I overlooked age discrimination. Thank you for bringing that into the discussion.

I believe prejudice based on race, gender, and religion is more pervasive than what people self-report. Polls are useful indicators of trends, however, I think most people are uncomfortable in revealing their prejudices and will shade the nature and degree to that which they admit in public.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

I overlooked age discrimination. Thank you for bringing that into the discussion.

I believe prejudice based on race, gender, and religion is more pervasive than than what people self-report. Polls are useful indicators of trends, however, I think most people are uncomfortable in revealing their prejudices and will shade the nature and degree to that which they admit in public.

Perhaps you are correct. But as an observation the most popular presidential candidates of both political parties exhibit the characteristics most often connected with prejudice....

Clinton.........Gender/Female
Rudy............Religion/Catholic, Marital Status/Married for the third time
Obama.........Race/Black
McCain.........Age/72 years
Romney........Religion/Morman
Richardson....Ethnicity/Hispanic

If the electorate was giving much weight to gender/age/religious/ethnicity prejudices they would not be supporting the above listing of presidential candidates. Therefore, I conclude that prejudices based on age, religion, gender, and ethnicity are not the defining issues that the electorate uses in selecting candidates.

However polling information does reflect that there are limits to our tolerance; the Gallup Poll I linked in post #74 demonstrates that there is considerable prejudice against electing homosexuals, older candidates, non-Christian candidates, and particularly atheists. But even so there are a limited number of homosexual, older, non-Christians, and/or atheists serving in Congress.

[iceclone]

I think I am in agreement with Johnny in that I don't think most people really vote based on policy, or at least not a nuanced understanding of policy. I also think it is hard to separate prejudice from other intangibles such as “likability.” For example, people vote for candidates they like, which tend to be candidates voters identify with in some way, such as having the same race, religion (at least in a broad sense, such as Christianity), etc. Thus, prejudice against people who are different does become an important factor.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by iceclone

I think I am in agreement with Johnny in that I don't think most people really vote based on policy, or at least not a nuanced understanding of policy. I also think it is hard to separate prejudice from other intangibles such as “likability.” For example, people vote for candidates they like, which tend to be candidates voters identify with in some way, such as having the same race, religion (at least in a broad sense, such as Christianity), etc. Thus, prejudice against people who are different does become an important factor.

Obviously people have their reasons to support or not support a candidate. However, I continue to maintain that racial, gender, and religion prejudices are not the defining issue in terms of electability.

I will again attempt to support my contention with the example of Barrick Obama. In December 2006 and January 2007 Washington Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. When Obama declared his candidacy much of the media was reporting on his appeal to white audiences. In addition, his appeal to both black activists and black voters was being questioned.

As Obama's positions on issues began to resonate with the black population, his favorability ratings have improved significantly with the black population.

There are numerous examples of blacks supporting white candidates when the white candidate is challenging a black candidate. Typically in these examples the black candidate is a conservative Republican while the white candidate is a liberal Democrat. In these cases the black electorate appears to basing their vote on issues and ignoring racial prejudice.

Link:
Blacks Shift To Obama, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com

[iceclone]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Obviously people have their reasons to support or not support a candidate. However, I continue to maintain that racial, gender, and religion prejudices are not the defining issue in terms of electability.

I will again attempt to support my contention with the example of Barrick Obama. In December 2006 and January 2007 Washington Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. When Obama declared his candidacy much of the media was reporting on his appeal to white audiences. In addition, his appeal to both black activists and black voters was being questioned.

As Obama's positions on issues began to resonate with the black population, his favorability ratings have improved significantly with the black population.

There are numerous examples of blacks supporting white candidates when the white candidate is challenging a black candidate. Typically in these examples the black candidate is a conservative Republican while the white candidate is a liberal Democrat. In these cases the black electorate appears to basing their vote on issues and ignoring racial prejudice.

Link:
Blacks Shift To Obama, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com

Specifically regarding Obama, I agree that he appears to have little trouble appealing to white voters. All the surveys support this, including the ones that you have quoted. And while it is likely that some people will not accurately report their prejudices, the available data is very consistent. As yet another example of local interest, according to a recent survey of ISU students, he is leading Hillary 58% to 14%, and ISU students are about as white as it gets!

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by brianhos

After Obamas sock it to the middle class social security tax plan

Obama is conceptually wrong about his social security tax not hurting the middle class. Being rich has nothing to do with percentages. Imagine if everyone in America made less than $30,000 then no one would be rich, not even the top 1%.

Call me an elitist but $97,500 is not a lot of money.

[cmoneyr]

You're an elitist. Sounds like a good sum to me, maybe I'm just poor.

[iceclone]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Obama is conceptually wrong about his social security tax not hurting the middle class. Being rich has nothing to do with percentages. Imagine if everyone in America made less than $30,000 then no one would be rich, not even the top 1%.

Call me an elitist but $97,500 is not a lot of money.

Making $97,500 is definitely not being rich.

People that make in the low six figures are indeed middle class under any definition that I am familiar with; or in more detailed classifications, this group is also sometimes referred to as the professional class or upper middle class. Obama's plan will thus be a tax increase for the upper middle class, but I'm ok with that. I do think it avoids the key problem with social security, and it would not be my plan, but I don't think it is horrible either.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by iceclone

Making $97,500 is definitely not being rich.

People that make in the low six figures are indeed middle class under any definition that I am familiar with; or in more detailed classifications, this group is also sometimes referred to as the professional class or upper middle class. Obama's plan will thus be a tax increase for the upper middle class, but I'm ok with that. I do think it avoids the key problem with social security, and it would not be my plan, but I don't think it is horrible either.

Remember that Social Security only applies to Earned income. Interest, Dividends, Rent, and all other passive income are exempt from Social Security tax.

When you are talking about the top 10% of wage earners making over $100k, it makes it a bit of a stretch to call them middle class. When is the middle, themiddle. If you are in the top 10% and are still in the middle, where in the heck does the middle class stop? Heck, everyone considers themselves to be middle class working Americans.

Probably more accurate to label them the bottom of the upper class.

[iceclone]

Originally Posted by Stormin

Remember that Social Security only applies to Earned income. Interest, Dividends, Rent, and all other passive income are exempt from Social Security tax.

When you are talking about the top 10% of wage earners making over $100k, it makes it a bit of a stretch to call them middle class. When is the middle, themiddle. If you are in the top 10% and are still in the middle, where in the heck does the middle class stop? Heck, everyone considers themselves to be middle class working Americans.

Probably more accurate to label them the bottom of the upper class.

You make a good point about earned income.

I also agree that 'middle class' is a not a very good term since those that the are above the middle class (‘elite,’ ‘rich,’ ‘upper class’) are less than 5% of the population. What defines this upper class group is not just income but wealth, so as alaskaguy pointed out above, it is not possible to define the group as a simple percentage of top income earners. Furthermore, due to accumulated wealth much of the income of an upper class person may not be earned income; and as you point out, much of their income would hence not subject to social security fact.

The group we are discussing (say, upper 90s, low six figures income), are mostly well educated, salaried professional, who do indeed derive most of their income from earned income, and are hence subject to social security tax on most of their income. Since their income is in the top 10% or top 15% or so of all earners, ‘middle class’ may indeed sound like a contradiction. Rather than upper middle class it may be better to use the term professional class. Anyway, while it is clearly very good income, making low six figures does not automatically make your rich. Such income would only qualify you for the upper class if it were accompanied with significant wealth.

[jdoggivjc]

What one thing nobody has mentioned here is $100k salary isn't necessarily a lot of money - it really depends where you live.

To someone who has lived in Iowa all their lives, $100k is going to sound like a tremendous amount of money. However, that same $100k does not go nearly as far as if you were living in say Long Island, Chicago, Washington, or LA. Cost of living in those areas is exponentially greater there than in Iowa (a house that would cost $150,000 in Iowa would cost about $700,000 in Long Island - land values there are that expensive), and earning $100k just isn't the same as earning $100k here. I don't know what the actual proportion is, but I'm pretty confident in saying that someone earning $100k in New York is about the equivalent to someone earning $60-70k in the Midwest.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

What one thing nobody has mentioned here is $100k salary isn't necessarily a lot of money - it really depends where you live.

To someone who has lived in Iowa all their lives, $100k is going to sound like a tremendous amount of money. However, that same $100k does not go nearly as far as if you were living in say Long Island, Chicago, Washington, or LA. Cost of living in those areas is exponentially greater there than in Iowa (a house that would cost $150,000 in Iowa would cost about $700,000 in Long Island - land values there are that expensive), and earning $100k just isn't the same as earning $100k here. I don't know what the actual proportion is, but I'm pretty confident in saying that someone earning $100k in New York is about the equivalent to someone earning $60-70k in the Midwest.

And a person doing the same job in Iowa as the person in New York would be compensated at a much lower rate. lI guess those things are all considerations that one must make when seeking employment. My daughter took a job transfer to NYC a few years back. Big increase in pay. Cost of living is much higher. She had the same type of job, but was paid a lot more money. Actually better off back here in the Midwest, where she is now. Live and learn I guess.