For years, and certainly throughout this campaign, the media contention has been that only the rich have done well since Bush was elected, and that his economic policies did nothing for lower and middle income wage earners.
Yet, a comparison of the 2008 and 2004 exit polls tells quite a different story about what voters made in those years.
In fact, the percentage of poor voters showed a huge decrease since 2004, while the percentage of folks making over $200,000 doubled.
Yes, doubled.
Here are the particulars:
- In 2004, 8 percent of the electorate earned $15k or less; that dropped to 6 percent in 2008, a 25 percent decline
- In 2004, 15 percent made between $15k-$30K; that dropped to 12 percent in 2008, a 20 percent decline
- In 2004, 23 percent made $30k or less; that dropped to 18 percent in 2008, a 22 percent decline
- In 2004, 11 percent made $100k-$150k; that rose to 14 percent in 2008, a 27 percent increase
- In 2004, 4 percent made $150k-$200k; that rose to 6 percent in 2008, a 50 percent increase
- In 2004, 3 percent made $200k or more; that rose to 6 percent in 2008, a 100 percent increase
- In 2004, 18 percent made $100k or more; that rose to 26 percent in 2008, a 44 percent increase.
Add it all up, and the electorate, when viewed strictly from an income perspective, did awfully well the past four years.
Think the election results might have been different this year if the electorate was aware of this data?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well..
November 5, 2008 - 12:16 ET by pwozWhy hasn't Fox or talk radio been getting the word out about this since the campaigning began!?!?
Because McCain...
November 5, 2008 - 13:02 ET by mbuelBecause McCain was a HORRIBLE Campaign manager. He tried controlling Palin and that failed. He waited until the SECOND week of October to call Obama a Socialist. He tried promising liberal (mortgage programs to stop foreclosures?) that didn't differentiate him from the smooth talker.
In short, was it the JOB of Fox or Talk Radio to get this info out?
Sure the MSM will care now.
November 5, 2008 - 12:16 ET by averageschmoeSure the MSM will care now. They will say that this was a result of the Democrats taking over the Congress in 2006. Bush messed it up and the Dems fixed it.
Facts are hate-speech
November 5, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Mica the MagnificentNothing matters anymore. Facts are hate-speech.
The American people want their benefits, they want it now, and they want 'the rich' to pay for it.
Bush will be blamed for all the Obama/dems failure for at least the next 8 years.
Retirees moved from the northeast to escape high taxes, settled in North Carolina and voted for the same people that caused them to flee in the first place. - - Rush Limbaugh
Precisely
November 5, 2008 - 13:05 ET by mbuelThat's why "CONSERVATIVES" and the new republican party moving forward need to seperate themselves from the liberal policies of the Bush administration. Because those policies and Obama's extension of them WILL FAIL. And when they do, we have a chance to present small government policies and massive government cuts to save our country.
Where's all the "change" we were promised?
November 5, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Ten7sAfter proclaiming Obama messiah for the past year, it seems impossible to paint him as a victim. Why is the market still going down even though Obama was elected? Why did Medvedev just announce that they are placing missles on the EU border even though Obama was elected? Why are conditions getting worse in Gaza even though Obama was elected? Where's all the "change" we were promised?
Already reneging on his
November 5, 2008 - 13:23 ET by semolina_filcherAlready reneging on his "promise of change". Didn't catch his speech, didn't want to. But he said it will take time, a month, a year, even a term. Not yet inaugurated but already flip-flopping. Is he really up to the job or just fulfilling an ambitious agenda?
Change is on the way
November 5, 2008 - 13:29 ET by LionKingChange is on the way already. The GOP got b*tch-slapped yesterday on all levels. Change is in the air for the GOP.
The GOP should not oppose any of the radical, liberal legislation. Just vote present and let it slide. We all know that eventually the house of cards will come crashing down. Give them enough rope to hang themselves. Maybe, once and for all, we can cripple liberalism.
"Is he really up to the job...?"
November 5, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Ten7s"Is he really up to the job...?"
His only tangible professional accomplishment is 'running a large Presidential campaign organization'. So running for President qualifies him to be President? Aside from the inherent absurdity, did he really run his campaign? Most candidates have a campaign manager.
Obama's had everything handed to him. And he has no executive experience; he hasn't had to make tough, important decisions. And POTUS is the most difficult executive position in the world, a job where every decision is large and some are critical and absolutely massive. POTUS is a job for only the best executives, administraters, managers, leaders. Obama's a third rate legislator with an overblown ego, and his supporters don't have a clue about the difficulty and complexity, if they did he would never have been nominated much less won the election.
It doesn't matter now.
November 5, 2008 - 13:35 ET by mattmIt doesn't matter now. This can go into the "Dan Quayle Was Right" file and be used to prove the media is objective...hey, they covered it, right?
Besides, they're too busy boo-hooing about the unprecedented and "daunting challenges" The Punk will inherit....
Funny though - I don't recall the MSM lamenting the challenges Bush inherited: Stock Market crash, declining growth, increasing deficit, Enron scandal, weakened national security system, disgraced presidency and a blatant attempt by Gore and his Chicago cronies (no coincidence there, eh?) to steal the election, or at least taint Bush's presidency.
Class A hypocrites, that's what they are.
I'll be the first to call
November 5, 2008 - 12:26 ET by dmntd1I'll be the first to call B*LL&(^% on this.... but not because I don't believe that incomes have risen.
Exit polls.... This year, we had a HUGE influx of voters, both 'wealthy' and poor. The poor came out in huge numbers to steal, via higher taxes, from the rich, and the rich came out in even higher percentages than the past, to protect their incomes from the poor.
My precinct had a near-80% voting rate this year. Not sure how it faired in past elections, but the precinct committee-woman was rather shocked and pleased.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill
Exit Polls
November 5, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Remixer96I wouldn't put too much faith in exit polls, especially when it comes to self-reported income.
However, the US census bureau seems to indicate that real median income has risen since 2004. The data doesn't exist for 2008 yet, so recessionary and inflationary forces can't be accounted for, but the graph on page 5 of this document should ge tthe point across.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Wage increases
November 5, 2008 - 12:57 ET by bailmeoutDoes anybody know where to find these stats. I have been researching the so called "Clinton Surplus" and found a great site for that but I would like to investigate these stats as well. If anyone knows where to find this information please let me know.
Thanks!
That's great news Noel!!
November 5, 2008 - 13:56 ET by c5thenThat means that there are more people available for Obama to fleece. We'll soon see the top 20% of the population supporting the bottom 50% through Government forced redistribution of the wealth. Isn't this a great country!
Nonsense
November 5, 2008 - 15:19 ET by ZuccoZoid"Income" means nothing, especially as a "percentage" - this is a phony story; if this were true, there would be no financial crisis; "income" would be enough to assuage consumer and other debts - in fact, there wouldn't BE any debt if "income" was on the rise (which it isn't).
The TRULY rich (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Rockefeller, etc) are always miraculously exempt from taxation - how do they STAY rich? By avoiding taxation - and it takes money to KEEP money.
"Rich" of course, is being redefined to classify middle-class people as "rich" therefore worthy targets of taxation; funny how there's always plenty of cash to bail out execs "too big to fail" but there's never enough $$$ in gov't for "infrastructure" and "necessities".
The housing "bubble" - cute term - is far, far worse than reported: 1 in 5 home "owners" now have a property worth LESS than their mortgage, all in the space of 2 years! Not by a little, but a LOT less, to levels where home "owners" may never recover lifetime investments - no selling the home to retire to a condo; no refinancing for tuitions; no reason to "own" a home in the first place. The Bankers own it.
And by the way, those Bankers are wallowing in luxury spas, awaiting their "bailout" at your expense.
""income" would be enough
November 5, 2008 - 20:50 ET by ckc1227""income" would be enough to assuage consumer and other debts - in fact,
there wouldn't BE any debt if "income" was on the rise (which it isn't)."
Talk about nonsense. Debt isn't a static figure. It doesn't matter how much one earns if they choose to spend more than they earn, and folks who take on more debt than they can handle typically continue to do so, even when their incomes go up. Instead of getting the $200,000 house they can't afford, they get the $300,000 house they can't afford.