Post-Civil War, have Republicans ever lost the Forbes List?

[Skill and Chance]

Has there ever been a modern election where the 400 wealthiest Americans in that year didn't break Republican?

1912- Maybe Wilson got a plurality, but could also have been too polarized by income?
1964- The national margin and the fact that the very wealthy were very concentrated in the North makes me think this is the most likely answer?
2016- Clinton was likely the top Dem performer in recent history with the extremely wealthy before Trump fell in line on tax cuts, etc.  She might have gotten 40%, but I don't think it was enough?
2020- Pandemic increase in tech representation among billionaires?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'd be surprised if they won the Forbes List in 2020.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd be surprised if they won the Forbes List in 2020.

I think you actually had more net billionaires endorsing Trump the 2nd time than the 1st time, particularly owners of primarily physical businesses.   I think there were several Other 2016 -> Trump 2020 votes on the Forbes List.  Also doubt Dems picked up many additional techies they didn't already win in 2016.  However, it is calculated in September, so overall tech representation would have increased in 2020 after 6 months of COVID.  IDK if that was enough to change the outcome.

[Stranger in a strange land]

They very likely lost it in 1964, 2016, and 2020. Kerry & 2008 Obama probably over-performed with the list but still lost it.

[Bismarck]

The makeup of the richest Americans has undergone a massive demographic shift in the past 40 years and is almost certainly a Democratic leaning group now.

[pikachu]

For 2020, this database of professional sports team owners (which I assume has good crossover with the Forbes 400, had 104 donating to Republicans, 100 donating to Dems, and 92 being bipartisan donors.

[Orser67]

Forbes did a survey of billionaires before the 2020 election; they only got 42 responses but found that 48% planned on voting for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump.

I really doubt that Republicans lost the richest group at any point between the Civil War and WW2, but I agree that 1964 seems like a strong possibility.

[Tintrlvr]

For 2020, this database of professional sports team owners (which I assume has good crossover with the Forbes 400, had 104 donating to Republicans, 100 donating to Dems, and 92 being bipartisan donors.

It should be quite doable to look up the personal donations of the Forbes 400 to do an assessment like this one. I assume most donations are for Congressional, state and local races, though, rather than Presidential races, but if you isolated it to only Presidential races you might get a closer indication of voter intent and fewer who donated to both sides.

[RINO Tom]

The makeup of the richest Americans has undergone a massive demographic shift in the past 40 years and is almost certainly a Democratic leaning group now.

Not sure what your definition is, but relevant:

Meet the Billionaires Funding The Battle For Control Of The House of Representatives

According to that, for the 2022 midterms, donations from billionaires to PACs went like this:

42 billionaires gave $79 million to the Republican PAC
17 billionaires gave $20 million to the Democratic PAC

Also, according to this site, 14 out of the 20 identified billionaire political contributors (70%) gave to Republicans:

1. George Soros: $128 million
2. Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein: $67 million
3. Ken Griffin: $66 million
4. Jeff Yass: $47 million
5. Sam Bankman-Fried: $40 million
6. Stephen Schwarzman: $33 millioin
7. Larry Ellison: $31 million
8. Peter Thiel: $30 million
9. Patrick & Shirley Ryan: $27 million
10. Diane Hendricks: $23 million
11. Michael & Susan Bloomberg: $22 million
12. Stephen Mandel: $18 million
13. Paul Singer: $17 million
14. Koch Industries (Charles and Julia Koch): $16 million
15. Miriam Anderson: $15 million
16. Steven & Andrea Wynn: $15 million
17. Bernard & Billi Marcus: $14 million
18. Jim & Marilyn Simons: $13 million
19. Reid Hoffman & Michelle Yee: $11 million
20. Charles & Helen Schwab: $11 million

A much more poorly organized list for 2020 looks a bit more even, but there are more Republican contributors than Democrats.

I know none of these is the entire Forbes List, but I don't see why it isn't a good proxy.  Democratic gains among "the wealthy" are likely much more concentrated among suburban women in households that make between $200k and $500k.

[Skill and Chance]

The makeup of the richest Americans has undergone a massive demographic shift in the past 40 years and is almost certainly a Democratic leaning group now.

Not sure what your definition is, but relevant:

Meet the Billionaires Funding The Battle For Control Of The House of Representatives

According to that, for the 2022 midterms, donations from billionaires to PACs went like this:

42 billionaires gave $79 million to the Republican PAC
17 billionaires gave $20 million to the Democratic PAC

Also, according to this site, 14 out of the 20 identified billionaire political contributors (70%) gave to Republicans:

1. George Soros: $128 million
2. Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein: $67 million
3. Ken Griffin: $66 million
4. Jeff Yass: $47 million
5. Sam Bankman-Fried: $40 million
6. Stephen Schwarzman: $33 millioin
7. Larry Ellison: $31 million
8. Peter Thiel: $30 million
9. Patrick & Shirley Ryan: $27 million
10. Diane Hendricks: $23 million
11. Michael & Susan Bloomberg: $22 million
12. Stephen Mandel: $18 million
13. Paul Singer: $17 million
14. Koch Industries (Charles and Julia Koch): $16 million
15. Miriam Anderson: $15 million
16. Steven & Andrea Wynn: $15 million
17. Bernard & Billi Marcus: $14 million
18. Jim & Marilyn Simons: $13 million
19. Reid Hoffman & Michelle Yee: $11 million
20. Charles & Helen Schwab: $11 million

A much more poorly organized list for 2020 looks a bit more even, but there are more Republican contributors than Democrats.

I know none of these is the entire Forbes List, but I don't see why it isn't a good proxy.  Democratic gains among "the wealthy" are likely much more concentrated among suburban women in households that make between $200k and $500k.

This is why I don't think 2016 or 2020 are a done deal.  While I'm sure there were more defections against Trump than against House Republicans, all indications are that non-tech billionaires are still extremely R.  They were also extremely pro-COVID reopening. 

Trump would likely have been most concerning to billionaires at the very beginning when it looked like he might go full Euro-populist and there might not be a "party of low taxes/regulations" to vote for anymore.  That, and the probability that it would be easier for a lifelong business R to defect to Johnson or McMullin than to outright cross the aisle for Biden is my rationale for the more likely Dem win being a Clinton plurality in 2016 than a Biden majority in 2020. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Did Lincoln win the 400 richest Americans eligible to vote in the 1864 election?

[Tintrlvr]

Did Lincoln win the 400 richest Americans eligible to vote in the 1864 election?

Interesting question. Seems plausible that McClellan won them as many industrialists would have been pro-peace (but hugely divided based on whether war was good for their personal business or not). Douglas and Bell probably won the lions share of the 400 richest Americans in 1860, too; Lincoln might have been in third.

[King of Kensington]

He was writing long before the Trump era, but I recall the late sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset (one of the leading political sociologists of the postwar era) saying the Republicans were always the party of the more affluent and that Lincoln did best among New England Yankees and the better-off residential sections of cities.

[RINO Tom]

Did Lincoln win the 400 richest Americans eligible to vote in the 1864 election?

It's hard to find good primary sources, as it seems the 1864 election was almost entirely focused on what to do about the Civil War.  However, considering it was restricted to the North, I would guess yes Lincoln won them.

From what I have read, it's my perception that the initial GOP (of 1856) appealed firmly to the upper-middle class but had initial trouble winning over the upper classes that had backed the Whigs.  It seems that in the 1856 election, the poor voted Democratic, the upper-middle class voted Republican and the upper classes were fragmented and actually might have disproportionately supported the Know-Nothings.  These quotes are from pages 204-207 in Half Slave and Half Free by Bruce Levine:

"The Democratic campaign elaborated on these themes, and the party's candidates presented themselves as guardians of national unity, popular rights and regional and cultural diversity .... Especially in the North, Democrats strove to depict the contest between themselves and their opponents as one between cultural tolerance and bigotry (against the South, against Catholics, against the foreign-born).  Only the Democrats were ready to protect the rights of all white residents, native- and foreign-born alike, and regardless of religious faith."

"Just as it stressed its cultural toleration, the Democratic Party presented itself as the true friend of the (white) producing classes.  As in the age of Jackson, the party's 1856 platform declared, Democrats were 'continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many' (i.e., tariffs, appropriations for internal improvements)."

"This remained a potent appeal.  As one Connecticut politician later noted, there were 'mechanics who think they show their independence by voting the ticket dubbed Democratic, to whom a Republican is an old Whig, and an old Whig an aristocrat who would be glad to go back to the government of George 3rd.'  Nowhere did Democrats press these themes harder or more effectively than in New York City.  In 1855, Democratic mayor Fernando Wood expressed support for the slogan of municipal relief or employment for the jobless."

Regardless of how it comes across in a modern context, it seems clear that Northern Democrats were presenting themselves as opposed to an "entrenched establishment," be it the wealthy or Protestants or the economic forces of the Northeast in general - not a message likely to appeal to the 400 wealthiest Americans at a time when this group would have been fiercely Protestant and from the Northeast.  This is obviously eight years before the time in question, but I would imagine that the GOP share of the wealthiest Northerners improved from 1856 (where it was a much more explicitly one-issue, anti-slavery campaign) to 1864.  I feel like the wealthy have tended to vote for stability throughout history, and given the mess that was the remaining Democrats and recent Union military victories increasing support for the war effort, I think sticking with incumbent Lincoln was the safe bet.  Also, the wealthy would have had to have voted Democratic in an election where the national electorate was +10% Republican.  Given how voters were seemingly sorted by class in the previous election, I find that unlikely.  While there might have been initial preference for peace rather than continuing the war, by the time of the election, Lincoln's popularity had largely recovered, and stability WAS continuing the course.  And even if it weren't, the Democratic Party in the North was just fundamentally not trying to appeal to this group, especially not enough to get them to be 10% more Democratic than the population as a whole.

[Skill and Chance]

Did Lincoln win the 400 richest Americans eligible to vote in the 1864 election?

It's hard to find good primary sources, as it seems the 1864 election was almost entirely focused on what to do about the Civil War.  However, considering it was restricted to the North, I would guess yes Lincoln won them.

From what I have read, it's my perception that the initial GOP (of 1856) appealed firmly to the upper-middle class but had initial trouble winning over the upper classes that had backed the Whigs.  It seems that in the 1856 election, the poor voted Democratic, the upper-middle class voted Republican and the upper classes were fragmented and actually might have disproportionately supported the Know-Nothings.  These quotes are from pages 204-207 in Half Slave and Half Free by Bruce Levine:

"The Democratic campaign elaborated on these themes, and the party's candidates presented themselves as guardians of national unity, popular rights and regional and cultural diversity .... Especially in the North, Democrats strove to depict the contest between themselves and their opponents as one between cultural tolerance and bigotry (against the South, against Catholics, against the foreign-born).  Only the Democrats were ready to protect the rights of all white residents, native- and foreign-born alike, and regardless of religious faith."

"Just as it stressed its cultural toleration, the Democratic Party presented itself as the true friend of the (white) producing classes.  As in the age of Jackson, the party's 1856 platform declared, Democrats were 'continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many' (i.e., tariffs, appropriations for internal improvements)."

"This remained a potent appeal.  As one Connecticut politician later noted, there were 'mechanics who think they show their independence by voting the ticket dubbed Democratic, to whom a Republican is an old Whig, and an old Whig an aristocrat who would be glad to go back to the government of George 3rd.'  Nowhere did Democrats press these themes harder or more effectively than in New York City.  In 1855, Democratic mayor Fernando Wood expressed support for the slogan of municipal relief or employment for the jobless."

Regardless of how it comes across in a modern context, it seems clear that Northern Democrats were presenting themselves as opposed to an "entrenched establishment," be it the wealthy or Protestants or the economic forces of the Northeast in general.  This is obviously eight years before the time in question, but I would imagine that the GOP share of the wealthiest Northerners improved from 1856 (where it was a much more explicitly one-issue, anti-slavery campaign) to 1864.  I feel like the wealthy have tended to vote for stability throughout history, and given the mess that was the remaining Democrats and recent Union military victories increasing support for the war effort, I think sticking with incumbent Lincoln was the safe bet.  Also, the wealthy would have had to have voted Democratic in an election where the national electorate was +10% Republican.  Given how voters were seemingly sorted by class in the previous election, I find that unlikely.

What do you think about 1964 and 1912?  Note I accidentally used 1916 when I meant 1912.  I would think Wilson got the plurality, but probably only in the 30's? 

[Death of a Salesman]

The 400 richest Americans as reckoned by contemporary standards in 1860 would have included a large number of Southern planters. Most of these men would have broken for Bell, but some would have voted for Breckinridge. I think that 1860 is early enough in the industrialization of the North that this influence would have been predominant.
 I would expect the following ranking
1. Bell
2. Breckinridge
3. Lincoln
4. Douglas

[RINO Tom]

Did Lincoln win the 400 richest Americans eligible to vote in the 1864 election?

It's hard to find good primary sources, as it seems the 1864 election was almost entirely focused on what to do about the Civil War.  However, considering it was restricted to the North, I would guess yes Lincoln won them.

From what I have read, it's my perception that the initial GOP (of 1856) appealed firmly to the upper-middle class but had initial trouble winning over the upper classes that had backed the Whigs.  It seems that in the 1856 election, the poor voted Democratic, the upper-middle class voted Republican and the upper classes were fragmented and actually might have disproportionately supported the Know-Nothings.  These quotes are from pages 204-207 in Half Slave and Half Free by Bruce Levine:

"The Democratic campaign elaborated on these themes, and the party's candidates presented themselves as guardians of national unity, popular rights and regional and cultural diversity .... Especially in the North, Democrats strove to depict the contest between themselves and their opponents as one between cultural tolerance and bigotry (against the South, against Catholics, against the foreign-born).  Only the Democrats were ready to protect the rights of all white residents, native- and foreign-born alike, and regardless of religious faith."

"Just as it stressed its cultural toleration, the Democratic Party presented itself as the true friend of the (white) producing classes.  As in the age of Jackson, the party's 1856 platform declared, Democrats were 'continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many' (i.e., tariffs, appropriations for internal improvements)."

"This remained a potent appeal.  As one Connecticut politician later noted, there were 'mechanics who think they show their independence by voting the ticket dubbed Democratic, to whom a Republican is an old Whig, and an old Whig an aristocrat who would be glad to go back to the government of George 3rd.'  Nowhere did Democrats press these themes harder or more effectively than in New York City.  In 1855, Democratic mayor Fernando Wood expressed support for the slogan of municipal relief or employment for the jobless."

Regardless of how it comes across in a modern context, it seems clear that Northern Democrats were presenting themselves as opposed to an "entrenched establishment," be it the wealthy or Protestants or the economic forces of the Northeast in general.  This is obviously eight years before the time in question, but I would imagine that the GOP share of the wealthiest Northerners improved from 1856 (where it was a much more explicitly one-issue, anti-slavery campaign) to 1864.  I feel like the wealthy have tended to vote for stability throughout history, and given the mess that was the remaining Democrats and recent Union military victories increasing support for the war effort, I think sticking with incumbent Lincoln was the safe bet.  Also, the wealthy would have had to have voted Democratic in an election where the national electorate was +10% Republican.  Given how voters were seemingly sorted by class in the previous election, I find that unlikely.

What do you think about 1964 and 1912?  Note I accidentally used 1916 when I meant 1912.  I would think Wilson got the plurality, but probably only in the 30's? 

Yeah, I could definitely agree on 1912, with the Democrats getting pretty much their usual (low) percent and the GOP being fractured enough that it was a plurality.  1964 seems likely, but I guess I am not sure.  Per Wikipedia, Goldwater did better with higher income voters than any other group, but that was still a 54-46% loss.  When you watch a period piece like Mad Men, which is honestly a much better source for commentary on this type of thing than some of the posters here lol (not you!), it is clear that a lot of the previously pro-GOP "business class" bailed on Goldwater both because he was seen as too ideological but also because it was seen as such a sure thing that he would lose.  It's also worth noting that Goldwater only lost college graduates 52-48% in an era where it was far less common.

Given a 54-46% loss among those with a "Professional or Business" occupation (which almost reads like simply White Collar) and a 52-48% loss among college graduates, it would at least APPEAR that slightly higher voters within the highest income bracket were MORE pro-Goldwater.  However, from my exposure to that campaign, it would seem like the truly rich revolted against him even more than your "Country Club Republican" types - almost the inverse of what we are seeing with 2020.  I would TOTALLY guess here that Johnson might have won the 400 richest Americans like 53-47% or something.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I would be really doubtful they lost the Forbes list even in 2020, most of them who voted for Trump probably kept pretty quiet about it. The Ultra-wealthy are not fans of redistribution and increased regulation.

[RINO Tom]

I would be really doubtful they lost the Forbes list even in 2020, most of them who voted for Trump probably kept pretty quiet about it. The Ultra-wealthy are not fans of redistribution and increased regulation.

I think people lump "the rich" into way too broad of a category.  A billionaire with his/her hands in TONS of different aspects of the economy is going to have a different economic outlook than a millionaire Hollywood actor.  Most Billionaires tend to be a bit more "out of the picture" than the rich people we usually hear talking down to us on a daily basis, with some obviously notable exceptions like Elon Musk or Bill Gates.

Also, without some objective "analysis" to back this up, it seems INCREDIBLY clear to me that rich Republicans are much less vocal than rich Democrats in our current political climate, causing the former to seem overrepresented.  How many rich professional athletes who lean Republican are talking about it vs. rich actors who lean Democratic?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Republicans are more committed than ever to helping the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, so this seems unlikely.

[Skill and Chance]

I would be really doubtful they lost the Forbes list even in 2020, most of them who voted for Trump probably kept pretty quiet about it. The Ultra-wealthy are not fans of redistribution and increased regulation.

I think people lump "the rich" into way too broad of a category.  A billionaire with his/her hands in TONS of different aspects of the economy is going to have a different economic outlook than a millionaire Hollywood actor.  Most Billionaires tend to be a bit more "out of the picture" than the rich people we usually hear talking down to us on a daily basis, with some obviously notable exceptions like Elon Musk or Bill Gates.

Also, without some objective "analysis" to back this up, it seems INCREDIBLY clear to me that rich Republicans are much less vocal than rich Democrats in our current political climate, causing the former to seem overrepresented.  How many rich professional athletes who lean Republican are talking about it vs. rich actors who lean Democratic?

This rings true. The massive swing left among the wealthy we have seen since 2016 seems to be concentrated among the $250K-500K annual income specialist doctor/senior software developer/biglaw associate level rich, not the business owners with millions in investment income each year.  More generally, those who became rich by explicitly selling something seem to have stayed Republican while those who became rich by having a specific highly compensated skill have become much more Dem, and you generally need business ownership to become a billionaire. 

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The makeup of the richest Americans has undergone a massive demographic shift in the past 40 years and is almost certainly a Democratic leaning group now.

Not sure what your definition is, but relevant:

Meet the Billionaires Funding The Battle For Control Of The House of Representatives

According to that, for the 2022 midterms, donations from billionaires to PACs went like this:

42 billionaires gave $79 million to the Republican PAC
17 billionaires gave $20 million to the Democratic PAC

Also, according to this site, 14 out of the 20 identified billionaire political contributors (70%) gave to Republicans:

1. George Soros: $128 million
2. Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein: $67 million
3. Ken Griffin: $66 million
4. Jeff Yass: $47 million
5. Sam Bankman-Fried: $40 million
6. Stephen Schwarzman: $33 millioin
7. Larry Ellison: $31 million
8. Peter Thiel: $30 million
9. Patrick & Shirley Ryan: $27 million
10. Diane Hendricks: $23 million
11. Michael & Susan Bloomberg: $22 million
12. Stephen Mandel: $18 million
13. Paul Singer: $17 million
14. Koch Industries (Charles and Julia Koch): $16 million
15. Miriam Anderson: $15 million
16. Steven & Andrea Wynn: $15 million
17. Bernard & Billi Marcus: $14 million
18. Jim & Marilyn Simons: $13 million
19. Reid Hoffman & Michelle Yee: $11 million
20. Charles & Helen Schwab: $11 million

A much more poorly organized list for 2020 looks a bit more even, but there are more Republican contributors than Democrats.

I know none of these is the entire Forbes List, but I don't see why it isn't a good proxy.  Democratic gains among "the wealthy" are likely much more concentrated among suburban women in households that make between $200k and $500k.

This is why I don't think 2016 or 2020 are a done deal.  While I'm sure there were more defections against Trump than against House Republicans, all indications are that non-tech billionaires are still extremely R.  They were also extremely pro-COVID reopening. 

Trump would likely have been most concerning to billionaires at the very beginning when it looked like he might go full Euro-populist and there might not be a "party of low taxes/regulations" to vote for anymore.  That, and the probability that it would be easier for a lifelong business R to defect to Johnson or McMullin than to outright cross the aisle for Biden is my rationale for the more likely Dem win being a Clinton plurality in 2016 than a Biden majority in 2020. 

While there's nowhere with enough billionaires to be able to say for sure, there's some evidence that some of the ultra-ultra-ultra wealthy could have been Romney-Clinton-Trump voters.  Or, at least Romney-3rd Party-Trump.

[TDAS04]

Republicans have pretty much been always been the party for the more well-off Americans, and Democrats have basically been more of a party for the working class (though the Jim Crow South was arguably pretty nuanced).  However, it is more true than ever in the era of Trump that the GOP allows the wealthy to get away with everything, without ever attempting to make them pay anything extra, not even to alleviate the deficit.  The fact it was with a billionaire crook that the Republicans underperformed significantly with the wealthiest Americans while achieving a record showing among white working-class voters is kinda fascinating.

[Skill and Chance]

Also, when it comes to 1964, the handful of extremely wealthy Southerners would have been concentrated in the places LBJ still won- Texas oilmen, South Florida real estate developers, and maybe a couple post-WWII government contractors in Arlington.