Saturday, December 14, 2013

Who Voted for Socialist Sawant: Income Map Has Some Surprises

Gene Balk writes for the Seattle Times:
Some well-to-do neighborhoods did in fact vote socialist.

Sawant, who came to prominence as an organizer in the Occupy Seattle movement, and whose campaign platform included the creation of a “millionaire’s tax,” showed strength in some high-income areas around Green Lake, in Fremont, Wallingford, and central Ballard, as well as Portage Bay and Eastlake.

On the other hand, the maps also reveal that Conlin did surprisingly well in some of the poorest areas in the southern parts of the city, such as Rainier Beach, Rainier Valley and White Center.  He also won many of the precincts in Northgate and other less-affluent neighborhoods in north Seattle.

Turns out, not everybody in Seattle votes their pocketbooks.
Bottom line: Low income is not necessarily an indicator of economic confusion. The rich can be as confused as others. The rich generally have more power and influence than the others, but this doesn't mean they have any clue as to how the economy works.


  1. Its simpler than that. Rich tend to be more educated (~70-80% universities in US are liberalism/socialism majority). So, you see the more economically(<= educationally) forward a state, there is atleast a ~20% skew towards socialism (democrats are going to rule the country soon). If a state is lacking economically due to their poorly educated citizens, the liberal media comes in and blames conservatism (not the lack of education, which is rendered by majority liberals)

    we know where this is going. Its like the century old trick. Capture the sheeple brains when they are young. In 20th century that means schools, universities. And liberals are executing the plan perfectly. They are the ones who will write history books. Dont be surprised if ayn.rand is called a (b)witch in ~100-200 yrs., and probably all her writings wiped off history books.

  2. This is not surprising at all. Socialism is not an economic system for the poor and downtrodden. It is a social/economic system for the elites. It is not surprising at all that a society's elites would prefer a social/economic system that consolidates powers to a ruling elite class. The following is an excerpt from Gary Allen's None Dare Call it a Conspiracy Theory:

    "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."

  3. Generally the more "education" you have all the way thru PhDs, the more state indoctrinated you will be. Therefore, the more socialists you will have. That is why so many of our so called " intellectuals", the ones who teach college level are socialist.

  4. Most of our east and west coast upper class thinks that "the rich" are people who have at least $10 more and make at least $1/yr more than they do. They vote for higher taxes and spend hundreds or thousands each year on accountants and lawyers to minimize their personal tax rate.

  5. In Australia, on average, the highest income section of the electorate votes green. The Greens are now the main socialist political party. It has been argued (see here )that this represents their concentration in the health, arts, media and technology industries, where traditional Labor and Liberal (i.e. conservative) voters, tend to be more correlated with other industry groups. It is possible many wealthy Green and socialist voters see opportunities for themselves - or their businesses - in servicing the expanded government machine. Similarly for workers in these industries, carbon taxes, are mostly taxes on the other guy. So maybe they are "hip pocket" voters too. Perhaps some of these same effects are at work in Seattle.

    1. In Australia, on average, the highest income section of the electorate votes green.

      If this were true, then we'd see corporate boardrooms full of Greens voters and rich suburbs full of Greens voters. We see neither. We see middle-class areas like St Kilda and Newtown full of Greens. Rich areas like Vaucluse and Dalkeith are nearly devoid of Greens voters.

      You quoted Possum, which is a good sign that you can't find your ass with both hands (neither can he). A few years ago he wrote a series about how the Labor party was becoming the natural party of government, which shows you how much of a fuckup Possum is (his day job is working for trade unions, specifically the QCU, so he's a rentseeking parasite).