"REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF THE RICH" IS A MYTH
Probably both sides of our debate could claim a bit vindication from these numbers. After all, in the "vote by income" category, the proportion of voters shifts steadily in favor of Bush as income increases. In my opinion, though, these numbers offer a pretty strong case that "Republicans are the party of the rich" is a myth.

First, even if support for Bush rises with income, it doesn't rise by much. Even in the "over $100,000" category, Bush only has a 54-43 advantage: a strangely modest reward for his "upper-class tax cuts." In the lowest income category, Bush is only down 57-37. And as soon as voters hit $30K per year---hardly "the rich"---they're evenly split.

Second, the "vote by class" charts tell a little bit different story. The (self-identified) upper class supports Gore more strongly than any other group, 56-39! They prefer Gore by almost as wide a margin as under-$15,000 income earners do! Who are these people? Since it is a subjective measure, it doesn't necessarily correspond exactly to income. The question to ask is: What would make people identify themselves as upper-class? My personal guess is that people are more likely to identify themselves this way if they are members of groups that self-identify as upper-class: old money, for example, or the upper tiers of corporate America; a thriving small-town businessman would be more likely to think of himself as just a regular guy who happens to be making pretty good money.

Why would the self-identified upper class vote for Gore, when Bush was planning to refund them a lot of tax dollars? I can think of several reasons:

The environment. I can think of several reasons why the environment should be an upper-class issue. There is a trade-off between environmental protection and the economy. Regulation makes things harder for businesses and slows economic growth. Now, if you are upper class, this may be worth it. You make a lot of money anyway, and can afford to sacrifice a little bit for the sake of an abstractly noble (quasi-religious, I think) cause like the environment. If unemployment rises, you won't be the one losing your job. Non-upper-class people have more to fear if the economy is weakened by environmental regulation. Also, if we protect nature, rich people are the ones most likely to enjoy it. They can afford the property located near green space. They can afford to vacation in the mountains of Colorado, or even the Brazilian rainforest. Third, environmentalism can be thought of as an investment in highly expensive public goods, not providable by the market, for which the rich are willing to "pay" more than the poor. Consider pollution. Pollution is very democratic. Everybody walks around the city and has to breath it, rich and poor alike. Poor people, who are accustomed to squalor and have bigger problems, would probably not be willing to give up many dollars to avoid this particular nuisance. Rich people, on the other hand, eat the finest food, drive the finest cars, listen to the finest music, wear the finest clothes, and so on, all thanks to their money. Naturally they are frustrated that money doesn't allow them to breathe the finest air, and would like to see the government provide it for them at everybody's expense. So they vote for Gore.

The rentier class. Gore may have been getting the vote of the rentier class. The "upper-middle class" gets a fat paycheck and wants to keep more of it; but the "upper class" has subtler forms of wealth, an array of stocks and bonds and options and connections on Wall Street. They want things like a strong dollar and a small deficit.

Cultural elitism. In the "vote by education" chart, we can see that people who hold advanced degrees are more likely to support Gore by a 52-44 margin. This suggests that Gore's upper-class vote may really be a knowledge-class vote. My own experience is that cultural elitism is a major reason for people to support the Democrats. Among well-educated people, and certainly at universities, there is often a prevailing assumption that all intelligent people support Democrats.

Ethnicity is obviously a much stronger predictor than income, with whites leaning Republican, Asians, Hispanics and others leaning Democrat, and blacks overwhelmingly supporting the Democrats. This throws a new light on the "vote by income" profile: Gore's 57-37 advantage probably derives entirely from his support among blacks, who vote Democrat for ethnic rather than economic reasons.