The Dirty Secret of the Rich: They Are Still Voting for Obama
Affluent voters were an important element of Obama’s coalition in 2008. Will that change this year? Some observers believe that Obama might alienate former supporters with attacks on Bain Capital and renewed calls to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. While the assumption that these tactics would alienate upscale voters is superficially appealing, most polls tell a different story.
Voters from households making more than $100,000 year were an important part of Obama’s coalition; especially in the “new coalition” states where Obama primarily drew support from well-educated suburbs and minority voters. In some states, one-third of Obama’s supporters came from affluent households and meaningful losses among these voters would endanger Obama’s chances.
But while a business person with a history of moderate social views might seem like a good candidate for affluent, educated suburbanites, polls show that Obama continues to maintain elevated levels of support among voters from households making more than $100k/year. While some might be tempted to discount the polls, the behavior of the campaigns confirms that the polls are right. Obama hasn’t even spent one million dollars on advertising in the critical Washington media market and they haven’t spent a single dollar in Philadelphia. The Romney campaign has made a similar choice: They’ve spent nothing in either market. Now, Washington and Philadelphia are inefficient markets: Dollars are wasted in Maryland, D.C., and New Jersey, but Obama has spent more than one million on Davenport, Iowa—a highly inefficient market where resources are wasted on Obama’s homestate. If the campaigns thought Virginia and Pennsylvania would be decided by affluent suburbanites, they would be airing at least a few advertisements.