Yesterday’s News Today at the Tired Gray Crone of Gotham

As Wizbang readers are well aware, the Party of the Rich, once popularly held to be the Republicans, has for the last few election cycles actually been the Democrats.

Now even the New York Times (no link) acknowledges this.

How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?

By Thomas B. Edsall, The New York Times
Voters on both the left and the right often claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and of course that isn’t true. There’s a big difference between Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia, for one thing. But there may be more to this argument than you think.

Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters. Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter.

Who’s going to break the news to the Occupy and Black Block idiots?

 

Hillary's New Fairy Tale
"Anger only becomes a sin when..."
  • jim_m

    Even the NYT can’t hide the truth on this one any more.

    • I too took this as a grudging tacit admission of that which was documented long ago.

  • Jwb10001

    Wow what a revelation the Kennedy’s and Roosevelt’s, Soros, Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etal must be shocked to hear the democrats are now the party of the rich.