Thursday, December 11, 2014


Hillary-hating lefties are never going to stop reminding us of this, and we'll also hear it invoked by right-wingers in moments when they're pretending to be populists:
Millionaires' choice for president: Hillary

Millionaires are sharply divided on their choice for the next President of the U.S., according to the second CNBC Millionaire Survey released today. Yet if a vote were held today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the overall favorite among millionaire voters.

The survey polled 500 people with investable assets of $1 million or more, which represents the top 8 percent of American households. According to the survey -- a poll evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- Hillary Clinton is the top choice for 31 percent of millionaires....

The anti-Hillary lefty economic critique is that she's in the pocket of the rich, unlike, say, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- but you'll notice that there's considerable support for Warren and Sanders among the rich people questioned in this survey. In fact, it's a surprising poll -- at least 50% of respondents back one of those three candidates, while only 40% back Bush, Christie or Walker. (CNBC doesn't break out the "other" vote, but the other candidates in the survey were Joe Biden, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul. I must say I'm surprised that Paul didn't rank higher.)

So, do these millionaires favor Democrats (or Sanders) out of greed? (That's the line right-wingers are going to use in citing this poll when they they're in faux-populist mode.) No -- not if we're to judge from the first CNBC Millionaire Survey:
CNBC survey shows millionaires want higher taxes to fix inequality

... CNBC's first-ever Millionaire Survey reveals that 51 percent of American millionaires believe inequality is a "major problem" for the U.S., and of those, nearly two-thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage as ways to narrow the wealth gap.

The findings show that -- far from being a purely self-interested voting bloc -- American millionaires have complicated views when it comes to the wealth gap and opportunity in America.

... millionaires ... believe that cultural and family issues prevent many Americans from climbing the wealth ladder. They advocate improved education, higher taxes on the wealthy and better savings incentives for the poor and middle class as important changes that would reduce inequality....
Both of these surveys were conducted by the Spectrem Group, a market research firm specializing in the wealthy. I have no idea how accurate the surveys are. (I'm skeptical of the notion that the wealthy are "evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents.")

But I'm bringing this up because the poll taps into a pool of millionaires who advocate redistribution of wealth. So the headline shouldn't be "greedy rich people like Hillary" -- it should be "rich people favor liberal economic policies, and like Hillary."

Is that an accurate portrayal of the rich? I don't know. Are the survey respondents making an accurate assessment of Hillary? I don't know that, either. But these rich respondents aren't backing her because they see her as the candidate who'll favor rich people over the rest of us.


Danp said...

Clearly, not every millionaire thinks he can win in a game of musical chairs.

Victor said...

And not all of them are sociopaths and psychopaths.

Nefer said...

It sounds as though a reasonable number of wealthy people realize that economic policies that will help non-wealthy people are also very likely to help wealthy people; a better economy, rising tide, etc.

Wealthy people (especially if they are also sociopaths) may do very well while a nation's economy is in shambles, its citizens are in dire financial straits, and its credit rating is going into the dumpster.

However, they will also do very well in a booming economy, and let's face it, the help are less likely to be sharpening the pitchforks during boom times.

Steve M. said...

I compare the latter category of rich people to drug dealers who operate out of blighted neighborhoods, or terrorist groups that set up shop in failed states -- they benefit from a breakdown in the rule of law.

Ten Bears said...

Because she is one of them. The Rodham family is everybit the old school Robber Baron Hitler financing money as the Bush, Ford, Koch, Kennedy and Rockefeller families. Same country clubs, same schools, same secret orders. She's not with us, and if you're not with us you are against us.

These things have consequence: as noted elsewhere this morning, If there ever were an indication that my No Party Affiliation vote is worthless this is it. I would no more vote for her than I would another Bush. I do not vote Fascist (Repubican) and I will not vote Fascist Lite. And just as I will not vote for anyone on a Republican ticket I will not vote for anyone of the party that runs her. I may be "throwing away my vote," but it's clearly aa valueless vote and it is my vote to throw away.

The lesser of evils is never-the-less evil.

gocart mozart said...

So, Sanders and Walker are equally pro rich? Too much can be read into this.

The New York Crank said...

Wait, wait, wait guys! A million bucks in liquid assets these days is not "rich." It's borderline middle class.

At least that's the way it looks here in New York, where a so-so two bedroom apartment, in a so-so neighborhood, can easily set you back at least a million bucks. And if you bought such an apartment 35 years ago for $160,000 after scraping together a down payment, the apartment is now paid for and poof you're a millionaire. Even though your income might be, oh, $85,000 a year.

Plus another little catch. If you sell the apartment, where are you going to move to?
The truth is, "rich" should be measured by income, or at least assets plus income.

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

Once it meant something if you were a millionaire. Now all it means is, on paper you got a million dollars.

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

Ten Bears said...

Not even on paper, crank, just ones and zeros in a computer.

What happens when the lights go out?

Ken_L said...

First the liberals took over Hollywood ... then they took over the media ... then the schools and colleges ... now they have taken over the rich. Is there no end to their evil campaign to destroy America?

Chris Andersen said...

It really doesn't surprise me that so many millionaires are more progressive then people imagine. The stereotype of the "I got mine screw you" money grabber is as pervasive as any in this culture.

The biggest problem I have with the 99% meme is that it implies that the 1% is a monolithic block that are only interested in protecting what they have at the expense of everyone else. The truth of the matter is that its only a small percentage of that 1% that are really the problem. It's just that they also tend to be the richest of the rich so their influence is huge even with respect to the 1%.

I call them the .1%