<p>I’m still wondering how you’re defining “middle class”.</p>
<p>Making between 50K and 150K a year, or something like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, a lot of people’s votes are determined by social issues. Heck, it’s almost as though the South’s political leanings have historically been entirely determined by social issues, whether it’s race or religion.</p>
<p>Minnesota: Republican rich definitely isn’t just southern rich. Its concentrated in the areas of finance and oil. Deregulation, baby.</p>
<p>Agreed. I’d say that for the most part, Republican wealth is heavily concentrated in those two areas (especially finance).</p>
<p>Middle class should NOT extend to 150k. that’s insane.</p>
<p>[File:Income</a> groups.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_groups.jpg]File:Income”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_groups.jpg)</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_groups.jpg]File:Income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_groups.jpg%5DFile:Income){kind=link}
<p>Probably somewhere like 40-90k is the middle 50% of the population.</p>
<p>@MinnesotaTwins: If you read my earlier posts, you’ll note that I’m not remotely “liberal”. I wasn’t actually responding to one post in say “so much hate” but all of the posts. People have so much animosity when it comes to politics, when in the end, its all a compromise between different opinions. If something really crazy was done by one side, the other side would revolt/attempt to make it right. I don’t know why people have to resort to insults and tagging their posts with "i hate liberals, and “*republicans eat possums”.</p>
<p>I’m just making the point that everyone has their own POV. Yes, much of the middle and lower class is Republican, but that also depends on where you live. Just about everyone in Hollywood is liberal, but much of the economic world is conservative: rich people can be rich regardless of politics.</p>
<p>"I don’t know why people have to resort to insults and tagging their posts with “i hate liberals, and “*republicans eat possums”.”</p>
<p>LOL. omg.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree, but I think it depends a lot on where you live. 100K goes a lot farther in some places than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[American</a> Thinker Blog: The Party of Wall Street and Big Mouths](<a href=“http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/the_party_of_wall_street_and_b.html]American”>The Party of Wall Street and Big Mouths - American Thinker)</p>
<p>I happen to be majoring in finance, but the fact that I am a conservative going into this industry happens to put me in the minority.</p>
<p>2008 is not the right year to look at-- Democrats way out-raised Repubicans across the board. These donations are 1) Indicative of the increase in donations to Dems in general and 2) Indicative of hedging their bets-- companies like this tend to donate to the party that’s in power (or going to be in power by their assessment).</p>
<p>And the fact that the dems in Congress as well as Bush and a few other RINOs just handed out a trillion dollars in freebies to Wall Street two months before the election.</p>
<p>Wall Street also happens to not be full of idiots, despite what most people think. Anyone with a brain knew that the momentum had shifted and that the chances of a Republican executive branch was extremely slim. They donate to the winners. But ultimately, their goal is deregulation and less taxes, which is a Republican principle. As someone said before, you’re not looking at the right years.</p>
<p>
I don’t see how your post supports that. The finance lobbies pay Democrats. I’d interpret this as meaning that Republicans already support finance, and do not need to be payed off. Conservatives ideologically support deregulation etc. so this makes sense. It takes money to get the Democrats, and they are worth paying becuase they have all of the power.</p>