Rich Old White Men: Still the Problem

The latest New York Times-CBS News poll identifies the demographic group with the highest level of support for John McCain: rich old white men. Coincidentally, they are also the people who control Wall Street, Congress, and the White House.

The poll defined "old" as "45 or older." Many will take issue with that definition, but those old white men supported McCain over Obama 48-42 per cent. White men under 45, in contrast, supported Obama, 50-43. And white women supported Obama, 45-42, whatever their age.

The poll also shows that rich white people are even more likely to support McCain - no surprise. Here the poll defined "rich" as earning $50,000 or more. Most will take issue with that definition, but those rich white people supported McCain 49-42. (The poll did not provide separate figures for women and men among rich old white people- probably their sample was not big enough.)

White Protestants are even more likely to support McCain, according to the poll: they split 55-34 for McCain. White Catholics in contrast supported Obama, 53-46.

Extrapolating from these figures, we can conclude that rich old white Protestant men are the base of McCain's support -- and thus the number one problem in American politics today.

The poll did contain some signs of progress, even for old white men: fewer of them support McCain than supported George W. Bush four years ago. 62 per cent of old white men voted for Bush in 2004, according to the poll, while only 48 percent plan to vote for McCain this year - a switch of 14 per cent of old white men from the "problem" category to the "part of the solution" group.

The shift away from the Republicans among old white men was dwarfed by the figure for young white men. Their support for the Republican candidate fell from 62 percent in 2004 to 43 per cent today--a whopping 19 percent switch away from the "problem" category. Young white men today prefer Obama, 50-43.

Another recent poll shows Obama winning more white voters than any Democrat in three decades. The Gallup Poll shows 44 percent of non-Hispanic white voters supporting Obama. Politico's David Paul Kuhn calls that "the highest number for a Democrat since 47 percent of whites backed Jimmy Carter in 1976." It's more than Bill Clinton got in 1996, when he won the support of 43 per cent of whites and 38 per cent of white men. The peak support for a Democrat among white voters was for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, who won more than 50 per cent.

The New York Times-CBS News poll was released October 24 and showed that the split among all registered voters was 52 per cent for Obama, 37 for McCain.

Comments (49)

1. "Extrapolating from these figures, we can conclude that rich old white Protestant men are the base of McCain's support -- and thus the number one problem in American politics today."

   LOL!

   Is anyone supposed to take this seriously!?

   Maybe this article and it's "conclusion" was meant to be tongue in cheek..?

   Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 12:10pm

2. Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 12:10pm

   Some of the flourishes may be humorous, jayne....

   but what of the NUMBERS?!??!???

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 12:15pm

3. Funny as the first big rallies and such with McSame showed mainly that demographic -- although later there was more diverse staging behind him so the camera could show a more "PC" slice of America. On a recent news clip was this young blonde girl - obviously disenchanted at being thrust center stage and rolling her eyes and looking at her watch. Meanwhile the old white folks scream and hurl assorted epithets...

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2008 @ 12:21pm

4. I take issue with the "conclusion" as well as the qualifiers of "rich old white men".

   The numbers call over 45 old and over 50,000 rich. I don't consider anyone I know who's 45 to be old. And I think most of us agree people making 50,000 should be considered middle-class at most.

   And to conclude that "rich old white Protestant men are ... the number one problem in American politics today" is laughable at best.

   According to these numbers, little more than half of them support "the other guy" and so they would be as much the solution as the problem. Jon has a serious flaw in his logic here.

   Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 12:30pm

5. Must be tough being being a rich old whitey, a small minority group getting steamrolled, having to watch a younger man of color & great intelligence walk off with what you felt your own kind was always entitled to.

   Posted by sloper at 10/27/2008 @ 12:48pm

6. Income Gap in American Cities As Bad As African Cities World Cities Community / Economic Development Income Inequality Reuters Social / Demographics Posted by: Nate Berg Thanks to: Sightline Institute

   26 October 2008 - 9:00am Income inequality in U.S. cities rivals that of many African cities, which struggle with deep divides between the haves and the have-nots, according to a recent report from the United Nations.

   "The most balanced city in the world is Beijing, with the most egalitarian cities on average to be found in western Europe, the report said."

   "'The authors (of the study) find that though the cities in the United States of America have relatively lower levels of poverty than many other cities in the developed world, their levels of income inequality are quite high,' the report said."

   from planetizen.com

   get the word to mccain that "trickle down" HAS FAILED!!!!

   why are we going to continue a failed policy????

   businesss which are publicly trade will fire people to save a nickel now, so how does that help people at the bottom???

   why hasn't anybody pressed mccain about this, this is a very important policy difference???

   mccain has outsourced thousands of jobs in ohio, a swing state, so people deserve to know the truth???

   so halliburton and cheney getting richer, they just reported better than expected earnings, after relocating to dubai, helps american workers how????

   GOP and McCain are all liars!!!!!!

   McCain does NOT deserve to be the next commander-in-chief based on all his incendiary comments and 100% NEGATIVE MUDSLINGING ADS IN SEPTEMBER!!!!!!!!

   if you vote for mccain, don't complain when you are digging around in the dirt for a nickle thanks to his policies....

   we are so off course it is RIDICULOUS!!!!

   Posted by jrs112 at 10/27/2008 @ 12:57pm

7. I agree with jayne that 45 is not old and 50,000 damn sure isn't rich. aside from all that, what is the point of this blog? Aren't you just regurgitation facts we already knew, Mr. Wiener? I swear, black folks don't spend as much time worrying about what white folks are doing as much as the Nation. How about articles detailing how the power of this country is controlled by two parties and other entities? How about articles encouraging Nader to run for a public office he can win? Anything other than this. I'm tired, Mr. Wiener. Tell me something I don't already know.

   Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 1:11pm

8. Oops, meant "regurgitating"

   Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 1:12pm

9. Thanks for the racist article. Shows what the Nation is all about. Try writing an article that says that "poor black men" are the problem and see what happens.

   Posted by GBGB at 10/27/2008 @ 1:22pm

10. Ha, ha, ha, Now I am a rich old white man. I'm 68, so I guess that is really superold. I view 45 as approaching mature middle age. But $50,000 income defining "rich!" What a joke! $50,000 a year gets you to the middle class, if you live in a place where the costs of living is modest. Imagine living on $50,000 a year in downtown Manhattan, San Francisco, or Cambridge MA. When J.P. Morgan died in the teens his estate totaled about 70 million dollars. John D. Rockefeller, upon being advised of the size of the estate, and considering the huge influence Morgan had exercised in financial matters, remarked, "And to think he wasn't even a rich man!" The fairest financial definition I have seen as a point at which someone can be defined as "rich" is having one million dollars a year income [without working] and ten million dollars in liquid assets.

    Sounds to me like whoever came up with this "$50,000 rich" talk wants to soften up the middle class for the tax increases that are coming.

    Posted by jsens at 10/27/2008 @ 1:22pm

11. Posted by jsens at 10/27/2008 @ 1:22pm

    And who are you voting for?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 1:26pm

12. Hmmmm. I just realized that by his own conclusion, Jon Weiner is part of the problem. LOL!

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 1:30pm

13. Good god! I can barely pay my mortgage and live from month to month, but according to this article I am RICH!? And cripes I am only 4 years from being considered old? I will be a rich old white guy. Guess I only have four years left of sanity until I start supporting the republican ticket...

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2008 @ 1:31pm

14. I'm voting for Obama, of course. Strange since I am, by this definition at least, a "rich old white man." But, given the deep hole the country is in taxes will have to be raised, I don't care what any of these politician say to the contrary.

    Posted by jsens at 10/27/2008 @ 1:31pm

15. Mr. Wiener would have done a better job writing about the nutcase who describes old as 45 or older and rich as making $50,000/yr or more.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2008 @ 1:31pm

    That was funny.

    Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 1:39pm

16. I should have put more space between my statement and my response to extraneous's statement. Oh well.

    Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 1:46pm

17. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:53pm

    I never realized Karl Marx hated white people?!??!?

    Is that in "Capital" or the "Manifesto"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 2:10pm

18. Mask, can I take your non-response to my post at 10/27/2008 @ 12:30pm to mean that you agree there's a flaw in Wiener's conclusion and, therefore, in the title of his article?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 2:18pm

19. I guess all of us "rich old white men" need to buy us up some desert island in the pacific and move there as soon as possible. We then can sit back and watch what's left here in the People's Republic of North America fend for itself.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/27/2008 @ 2:34pm

20. It would be a lot more interesting to know how 60-year -old men of all races who are making at least $100,000 a year are voting. Also, considering that McAncient himself is 72, it seems a bit weird to lump 45-year-olds into the "old" category.

    Posted by habiba at 10/27/2008 @ 2:54pm

21. wow, now obama, and his supporters, are marxists.

    what next?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2008 @ 3:06pm

22. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:24pm

    Rarrghhh! Socialist. You silly conservatives are funny.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:50pm

23. Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/27/2008 @ 2:18pm

    No, I think Mr Wiener is being sardonic.

    If not, he's being silly.

    But the serious point remains....Republicans are on a demographic glide path to disaster. "Old, rich, white, male" is not an electorate that can keep you going into the 21st Century.

    McCain's problem is he still had to appeal to those types to get the nomination...but he was also trying to woo Latino voters with McCain-Kennedy pre-2007. So he ended up with a "I actually supported immigration reform, before I opposed it" moment.

    And he ended up with the Latino vote not trusting him...neither did the nativists.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 3:58pm

24. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:24pm

    Nothing in that article says anything about a disdain for the Constitution by the way. If you actually learned some critical reading you would see that he is talking about the Warren Court and how it was interpreted. He then proceeds to say that they weren't as radical as people think because they were constrained by the Constitution.

    His comments about the Constitution being about negative liberties is true also. The Constitution is more about where government power stops, than where it starts which is why there are arguments over what can the government do.

    In the end he shows more of a regard for the Constitution because he says that you can't approach these things through the court. You have to go to Congress for new legislation to be made.

    "You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it's just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard."

    Key line there. Maybe you should get the context of the entire conversation instead of just one snippet from it and then actually try reading what he is saying because it is overwhelmingly obvious if you aren't looking at it through a lens of trying to demonize Obama.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:14pm

25. Sen. Ted Stevens found guilty on all counts.

    I predict he will not get re-elected.

    Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2008 @ 4:19pm

26. I can only assume that the assertion that 45 is old & $50,000 a year is rich was made by a bohemian living in a major city. Having moved to a large coastal city in the early sixties & secured a job in the headquarters of a railroad, I found that I was earning twice (union job) what others were making in the steamship & airline industry. Inflation had not whalloped this city yet & nice rooms & apartments were to be had cheaply all over town. The now prohibitively expensive Pacific Heights district was full of beautiful old mansions owned by the widows & aging offspring of successful business & professional people. Many of these lodgings were loaded with antique furnishings & their owners wanted tenants who reflected the magic & mystique of a city they themselves loved & wanted to share. The streets of the city were crawling with clerks & office personnel suited up, some carrying attache cases full of paperback books! It was easy to reflect success! An egalitarian spirit pervaded everywhere. Image was easily acquired at discount clothing stores who sometimes awarded credit on the first visit! Walking out onto Market St. in a swell Harris tweed allowed one to experience a degree of opulence that was truly a learning experience.There were still bosses who had started at the bottom & worked their way up. College degrees were not necessary. Education was still thought of by many as a path to personal edification not career advancement. So maybe the pollsters referred to above,were either old or young bohemians who had seen it all or had simply seen enough. Dinner with a lovely date at Coe's Auberge & the memory of that is enough of the "middle class" for this aging Boho.

    Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2008 @ 4:33pm

27. <i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:33pm</i>

    Well, since Marx was German, I strongly doubt he hated white people...

    As to your constitutional stuff...yes, it is a little disturbing. Close reading does not say that he thinks the Court ought not promote more egalitarian policies (though from any framework rooted in the Constitution, they're not there to "promote policies" at all). He says that it would be POLITICALLY DIFFICULT for them to do so. In other words, he would like them to do but is unsure whether there is political support for it. I think that this IS bad constitutional theory (especially from a con law professor!)

    And how about this closing bit:

    <<I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.>>

    Seems telling, no? Makes me second-guess (though only for a moment) my vote.

    Finally...can we all admit the article is dumb and move on?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 4:39pm

28. Sen. Ted Stevens found guilty on all counts.

    I predict he will not get re-elected.--------Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2008 @ 4:19pm

    I predice we "amazingly, suddenly" learn that Sarah Palin doesn't even know who Ted Stevens is!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:46pm

29. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:46pm

    SNL will run with this one!

    Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2008 @ 4:51pm

30. Seems telling, no? Makes me second-guess (though only for a moment) my vote. Finally...can we all admit the article is dumb and move on? Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 4:39pm

    My question is, what is the full context of the conversation? Maybe Larry is pulling only that part because it allows you to draw those conclusions instead of showing the whole conversation which could easily make these quotes wildly innaccurate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 5:27pm

31. The key to this quote is to not provide a context. To only let you grab that part of it. I gurantee you if you could find the whole context of the conversation it isn't what you make it sound like. But isn't that the irresponsiblity of journalists and the schmucks who actually take them seriously? In a politically charged election like this you never trust what they are trying to tell you it says unless you can find the WHOLE conversation. Otherwise you are just a target for liars. Larry is willing to believe it because he doesn't care what they are saying. If it demonizes the left he is on board.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 5:31pm

32. With the mounting bad news for their campaign, McCain/Palin will have no choice but to go increasingly negative in their attacks. Anybody else see this leaked 527 spot?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3y-pdELsg

    Posted by Exredstater at 10/27/2008 @ 5:55pm

33. Here the poll defined "rich" as earning $50,000 or more. posted by Jon Wiener on 10/27/2008

    Hell, I make a little over 50K a year. And I barely make the bills. That's why I had to shop smart, that's (S-Smart) in order to stock my basement laboratory in order to enable me to persue my "Part Time Job" as a Mad Scientist to make ends meet.

    Does this mean that I will have to pay higher taxes under Obama's Tax Plan?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2008 @ 6:28pm

34. But the point is, while Obama might well be able to win the election without the support of successful whites over the age of 45, will he be able to govern the country without them?

    I have my doubts; unless he dances nicely to their tune.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 6:30pm

35. I think that young blonde girl at McCain's rallies is his daughter with Cindy. What about the adopted daughter? I don't remember ever seeing her. I guess she doen't fit it with the audience at McCain's hate fests.

    Posted by k20thmaine at 10/27/2008 @ 6:43pm

36. I'm with Thrawn(Mr. Wiener bit the big one on this one.) although I am enjoying the conversation between him, CCC, and lvlib.

    On anther note: My brother just told me about the two Neo-Nazis arrested for planning to go on a killing spree hopefully ending in Obama's death. They planned to wear white tuxedos and top hats while assasinating. Crazy, huh?

    Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 8:17pm

37. Posted by Len Mosse at 10/27/2008 @ 2:34pm

    hi len.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:53pm

38. You guys on the left are way kooky. Earning more than $50k is rich??? Get a clue. No wonder you salivate when your savior talks about "spreading the wealth". Where do you think you live? Sweden? Cuba?

    Posted by dailyjoe at 10/27/2008 @ 10:22pm

39. <i>Posted by dailyjoe at 10/27/2008 @ 10:22pm </i>

    Yes, yes, earning $50,000 isn't rich; I think everyone's pointed this out.

    Somewhere out there, an expired horse continues to suffer physical abuse.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 12:57am

40. Posted by k20thmaine at 10/27/2008 @ 6:43pm "I think that young blonde girl at McCain's rallies is his daughter with Cindy. What about the adopted daughter? I don't remember ever seeing her. I guess she doen't fit it with the audience at McCain's hate fests."

    I don't know if that was his older daughter or not, but Bridget is still in school so it makes sense she's not there. And it's documented in an article by Cindy that Bridget doesn't like the media attention, and she and John have tried to shield Bridget from it the best they can.

    But it could be that McCain's supporters are all racists. Let's just go with that... *note sarcasm*

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 08:39am

41. Rich Old White Men?

    Why Jon, How Racist of you.

    Do you include yourself in said description?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/28/2008 @ 09:43am

42. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/28/2008 @ 07:30am

    Apparently, if we don't give more tax breaks to the rich and corporations....

    the world becomes "Harrison Bergeron" overnight!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 10:03am

43. My husband and I make over $60,000 annually and we are both retired. I would not consider us wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. We are middle class. We are both over 65 and we both voted for Obama! In fact, most of our family voted for Obama. McCain was not an option.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 10/28/2008 @ 10:10am

44. hi frosty

    The importance of the Obama interview that was done when he was a State Senator is that he makes a point to say that the courts have not addressed economic justice. Obama says that it is the job of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government to resolve this problem. Of course we all know what the code phrase "economic justice" means-----redistribution of wealth and government regulation of major parts of the free market. Obama is not a socialist, but his election as President is taking us much further down that road than we have been in a long long time. I know that the liberals in our society dream of a nation that returns to the "New Deal" and "Great Society" of the 30's and 60's, but in both instances these utopian programs failed miserably. The programs that came out of the New Deal and Great Society while helping in the short run are now bankrupting our nation. We can no longer affort the entitlement programs as they currently function. Compassion for those in need is not measured by how much tax you pay or what government programs are created. It is measured by what you do personally with your time and money----and that is the way it should be.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/2008 @ 10:31am

45. I've seen "Harrison Bergeron" brought up over the years in a number of blogs, both left and right. I'm always struck by the spirited response from the left, proclaiming that it is a satire, a clever story, but absolutely does not represent a possible nor a desired state of affairs. Frankly, the more radical and more academic lefties would love to see something like this happen. They call it "egalitarian", but fervently believe that government must assure equality of outcomes. It may take a long time, and come in little steps, but don't doubt that the goal is an earthly paradise, constantly maintained by government coercion. Rawls vision will be implemented no matter what the cost. The current economic crisis is a wonderful blessing for the collectivists. When do you think the government will actually divest itself of the shares they will hold in the financial institutions? The auto companies? Capitalism may have commit suicide this year, but I'm of no mind that what comes next will be better.

    Posted by sntauri at 10/28/2008 @ 11:48am

46. All one has to do is look at the audiences that McPalin attracts. This needs to be changed. It's somewhat encouraging to see more women and people of different races being elected now....but we need a lot more. It's coming!

    Posted by GGMMINKY at 10/28/2008 @ 12:10pm

47. Went to Sarah Palin rally last night. Over half the crowd were women. I would also wonder if you would make the same subjective judgement concerning the crowd that might attend a speech given by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/2008 @ 12:31pm

48. What problem? What is this so-called problem of these "rich old white men"? There isn't any since there are no rich old white men, nor are the poor old white men, or women; and from Shakespeare, we have this: 'There is nothing that can be either good or bad; that thinking makes it so', in other words, there's no "us and them".

    Posted by jaruss at 10/28/2008 @ 3:45pm

49. Old white men have always been the problem, so what else it new? They are the ones that got us into our current mess and most of the ones in our past..........

    This should be news to NO ONE.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 10/28/2008 @ 4:32pm