http://www.pentaxforums.com/f...
Is Mitt Romney a 'Williams-Sonoma Republican'?
SodaHead News
2012/05/28 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
51 votes
|
|
46% | |||
|
60 votes
|
|
54% | |||
Though he's only recently acquired the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney has had it firmly in his grasp for months. But there's still one glaring issue that some Republicans have with the guy -- he's what The Atlantic called a "Williams-Sonoma Republican." Statistically, his "sweet spot" seems to be a very specific demographic of upscale voters: people who make $75K to $150K a year, family-centered, amateur gourmet cooks.
A lot of this Williams-Sonoma talk originated in a Los Angeles Times article that described how Team Romney mined for consumer data to construct a specific, accurate model of potential support, and Williams-Sonoma shoppers apparently scored exceedingly well. That would suggest that other Republican demographics -- religious, low-income, or socially conservative -- are being ignored in favor of these upscale voters. Does that sound like an accurate assessment, or is it just political scruff? Is Mitt Romney a "Williams-Sonoma Republican"?
A lot of this Williams-Sonoma talk originated in a Los Angeles Times article that described how Team Romney mined for consumer data to construct a specific, accurate model of potential support, and Williams-Sonoma shoppers apparently scored exceedingly well. That would suggest that other Republican demographics -- religious, low-income, or socially conservative -- are being ignored in favor of these upscale voters. Does that sound like an accurate assessment, or is it just political scruff? Is Mitt Romney a "Williams-Sonoma Republican"?
Top Opinion
-
Yes
+11I haven't forgotten how much Romney is well liked. Nice turn out, Romney. Paul 2012
http://www.pentaxforums.com/f...
Williams-Sonoma Republican is an oxymoron.
Household income is not to be confused with family or personal income. Household income is often the combination of two income earners pooling the resources and should therefore not be confused with an individual's earnings. Even though the term family income may sometimes be used as a synonym for household income, the U.S. Census Bureau defines the two differently. While household income takes all households into account, family income only takes households with two or more persons related through blood, marriage or adoption into account.
In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007).
For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively).
The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all h...
Household income is not to be confused with family or personal income. Household income is often the combination of two income earners pooling the resources and should therefore not be confused with an individual's earnings. Even though the term family income may sometimes be used as a synonym for household income, the U.S. Census Bureau defines the two differently. While household income takes all households into account, family income only takes households with two or more persons related through blood, marriage or adoption into account.
In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007).
For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively).
The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.
12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.
You say 75,000 is equal to 150% of the median households in the US?
"Median household income 2006-2010 $51,914"
Yep, just as I suspected--not a huge difference there.
The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round 2007, was $45,113.
For women, $35,102
The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States.
12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.
You think this is not something to be concerned about?
My idea of "UPSCALE" - would be a heck of a lot more than $75-150! Especially since that would make a "nice comfortable" living in NYC!
Note; the CHEAPEST decent 1 bdrm loft in nyc goes for about $1500/mo - not including parking
Keep your ideals - but temper them with what is realistic. And push Obama hard to pursue democratic principles and policy.