The Hillary/Sanders disparity is actually about class and income

[Bonobo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/upshot/iowas-electoral-breakdown-and-the-democratic-divide.html?_r=0

The big difference is class and income.

In 2008, Mrs. Clinton was pummeled among affluent voters. She lost voters earning more than $100,000 by 41 to 19 percent, according to entrance polls.

This time, she won big among voters making more than $100,000 per year, by 55 to 37 percent.

Mrs. Clinton’s strength among affluent voters is partly because of age: Affluent voters tend to be older, and Mrs. Clinton excels among older voters.

But that’s not the whole explanation: Among voters over age 30, she won those making more than $100,000 by a 31-point margin, more than twice her 14-point lead among those making less.

Mr. Sanders’s weakness among affluent voters is potentially a bad sign for his chances. In 2008, voters making more than $100,000 a year represented 25 percent of the national electorate but just 19 percent of Iowa caucus-goers, suggesting that the state may be a relatively good one for a candidate, like Mr. Sanders, who does best among less affluent voters. On Super Tuesday, the most liberal states happen to be particularly affluent ones, like Massachusetts, Colorado, Virginia and Minnesota.

[Wilms]

1. It's true...if a bit awkward.

We've seen them here claiming, "$250K is middle class...", oblivious to the fact that it's somewhere in the top 5-10%.

[Bonobo]

2. People with money don't want to pay for people without money.

It's an old story with new clothes.

[hill2016]

3. can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?

[Bonobo]

4. Absolutely not sarcastic.

1. Bernie proposes taxes on the wealthier in the US to pay for financial programs that will help people with less money.

2. Hillary is more Wall St. friendly.

The result is that Hillary garners the votes of people with more money and more Wall St. investments.

That's 2+2=4.

There is some over-simplification here to make a point, yes, but that is essentially what we are looking at.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Yep. "Tax cuts for me, austerity for thee".

For 35 years now the wealthy have been paying nearly the lowest tax rates since the federal income tax was introduced. Over the same time, workers wages have only slowly crept up. Adjusted for inflation (the 'official' rate, not even the real rate) they have in fact fallen for those in the lowest bracket. Basically, all the profits from increased worker productivity, and wealth created, has been funneled directly to the top.