In contrast, the rich in Mississippi, the poorest state, are much more Republican than the poor.
Ohio, a middle income state, is somewhere in the middle. are showing here is that looking just at states removes critical information; class is a much better predictor of political orientation in poor states than it is in rich states.
In blue states the wealthy are more socially liberal than the poor, but somewhat more economically conservative.
In other words, the wealthy in blue states tend to exhibit a libertarian lean.
Red states often exhibit an inverse pattern; the wealthiest counties are the most Republican! It stands to reason that David Brooks could easily confirm elite media perceptions that downscale locales tend to be more Republican and conservative than more affluent ones; the D. metropolitan area is a classic exemplar of the dynamics operative in blue America. are too gentle for my taste in criticizing the tendency of mainstream pundits, who no doubt fancy themselves cosmopolitans, generalizing from their own parochial existence, but on the merits they wipe the floor with them.
Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated.In a book generously larded with charts I believe this is the most representative and informative one: (cite: Quarterly Journal of Political Science Volume 2 Issue 4, 2007: “Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What’s the Matter with Connecticut?”) In short, as you can see, the rich in Connecticut, the wealthiest state per capita, are not much more Republican than the poor.To a first approximation the rich tend to vote Republican, the poor tend to vote Democratic, the old stereotype holds.But there is also the reality that the wealthier states tend to vote Democratic and the poorer ones tend to vote Republican.