How do Democrats do amongst those making over $400,000?

[Skill and Chance]

This seems like it would be really hard to gauge.  There just aren't that many people (do you mean households?) who make that much money anywhere.  While they are geographically concentrated to some degree in places like NYC, Silicon Valley, and some Mountain West resort counties that are quite left wing, people this wealthy in red states are likely near unanimous R and could cancel it out.  Also, in a relative sense, someone making $400K in NYC or Silicon Valley still has normal people problems and can probably relate more to Dem policies on housing, childcare, etc.  A household in the South making $400K can practically buy a new piece of real estate every year if they want to and can afford to either outsource all of their housework or have their spouse stay home without breaking a sweat.

[Skill and Chance]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

Yes, this only really applies in the NE.  Elsewhere, $400K+ households can get a borderline mansion with a 1/2 hour commute into town and generally do.

Also I would suggest the proper comparison given cost of living would be to compare people making $400K in small cities to people making $800K in average large cities to people making like $1.2M in NYC/SF/Boston.  I would guess all are Lean R.  Or to compare people making $400K in NYC/SF/Boston to people making $200K in average large cities to people making $135K in small cities.  I would imagine all are Lean D except maybe the last group.

[Skill and Chance]

Fun sidenote; pretty sure multiple studies have shown gay men couples on average earn more than their straight peers and are disproportionately likely to be wealthy - really interesting consider the group has only recently gained widespread social acceptance.

I'd be more interested in a study comparing DINK households along these lines.

Yeah, this isn't surprising.  Until like the day before yesterday, they were legally prohibited from raising kids (if out of the closet), and raising kids is just about the most expensive thing you can do.

[Skill and Chance]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

I mean 250k in 2012 is worth around 338k today and housing wasn’t anywhere near as expensive in those days

Yes, it's basically a fit after inflation adjusting.  In terms of housing prices, $400K today is probably worth less than $250K in 2012 LOL.

[Skill and Chance]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

I mean 250k in 2012 is worth around 338k today and housing wasn’t anywhere near as expensive in those days

A family making $250k/yr is in the 92nd percentile of households in the U.S.  If you can't afford a mortgage on that salary, it's not housing prices that are your problem. 

That's beside the point.  Of course the top tax bracket in a progressive tax system will be made up of meaningfully wealthy people! 

The intent of the tax code is generally for tax brackets to adjust with inflation and track the same %ile of household income over time.  Just using normal CPI inflation, $250K in 2012 = $341K today.