Poll: Most voters are ready for a political revolution to redistribute wealth

A poll conducted by Morning Consult and Vox shows that 54% of registered voters either strongly or somewhat agree with the statement that, “In the next decade, a political revolution might be necessary to redistribute money from the wealthiest Americans to the middle class.” Just 30% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement.

As Vox reported on their findings:

Bernie Sanders, via AFGE / Flickr

Bernie Sanders, via AFGE / Flickr

Liberals and liberal-leaning demographics were most likely to agree with the statement. But majorities of independents, white voters, evangelicals, and even Tea Party supporters in our sample agreed too — showing that redistribution may no longer be a dirty word in American politics.

Majorities of registered voters also approved of Sanders’s economic agenda when they were presented in isolation. 73% support raising taxes on the wealthy, 66% support raising taxes on big corporations, 55% support single payer health care and 59% support free college.

Bear in mind that this is simply one poll in a vacuum, and could easily change if, say, meaningful wealth redistribution became an issue in the general election and was subjected to months of conservative attacks. While a majority of registered voters agreed with the need for a political revolution to redistribute wealth from the top to the middle, a similar majority also agreed that “big government” is a greater threat to the country’s future than “big business.” Voters hold inconsistent political opinions; go figure.

However, this finding still serves as one point of vindication for Bernie Sanders’s argument that he is as if not more electable than Hillary Clinton in the general election — an argument based on the premise that he can expand the Democratic electorate by bringing in non-voters and social conservatives who are frustrated with the ongoing decline of the American middle class.

Case in point: Majorities of both Tea Party supporters and registered voters who sat out the 2012 election are in favor of redistribution:

Source: Vox

Source: Vox

There are a number of explanations for these findings. For starters, it isn’t news that non-voters are more economically liberal than voters; whether an economically progressive platform is enough to turn them into voters without major changes to our electoral system remains a more open question. Additionally, members of the Tea Party are likely responding to the words “middle class” much more favorably than they would if the proposition was redistribution “from the wealthiest Americans to the poor.”

In any case, this poll goes to show that when Bernie Sanders says that Americans are hungry for a political revolution, and that they perceive the current distribution of wealth as unfair and in need of change, he isn’t making stuff up.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

8 Responses to “Poll: Most voters are ready for a political revolution to redistribute wealth”

  1. 哈嘍早上好 says:



  2. Blackbird says:

    President Obama promised us these very items almost verbatim in 2008, remember all the change-y thing he had going, but once in office rather than keeping those promises to the American people and especially the millions of young people that came out in huge numbers… he had to answer to the big banks and Wall Street.

    The American public demanded this of Obama 8 years ago and what they got was someone working with the very people that had put us in that terrible great recession in the first place.

    Today, income inequality in America is the highest it’s been since 1928. Americans are becoming comfortable with confronting Wall Street greed. Especially after the 2008 financial crisis cost the United States over $12.8 trillion, 2.6 million jobs. According to the Levi Economics Institute, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in “a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.” These very thieves and banks crooks all appear to be in bed with Ms. Clinton – donating millions to her present campaign.

    Young people lost “HOPE” 4 years later during Obama’s re-election in 2012 and especially during the mid-terms.

    Personally, I’m will to go out on a branch here and say that even if Ms. Clinton wins the White House in November she’ll be lucky to keep it past 4 years. The greater American public, the “Have-Nots”, according to this poll will not be willing to sit idly by treading water for survival for another 8 years… if we don’t see “this revolution” that Sanders’ is referring to in this election year – we are guaranteed to see it in 4 years after Ms. Clinton’s first term. Enough is enough!

  3. perljammer says:

    Agreeing that a political revolution might be necessary for wealth redistribution is not even close to the same thing as agreeing that a political revolution might be desirable. That’s probably the reason for the results on the question as to whether big government or big business is seen as a greater threat to the country.

  4. Peter Lewis says:

    Although I appreciate your optimistic attitude, it is wishful thinking. There is no such thing as environmental “balance” or political “balance”. All systems are in constant flux. Thomas Piketty’s recent research on wealth inequality strongly argues that the regular reversal of wealth-concentration is not a historically-supported trend; i.e., we may get to a point where wealth and power imbalances never become “re-balanced”.

    Political revolution being an inevitability is a pleasurable sentiment, but it’s not fitting with science. Once the powerful put a lid on the pot, the frog is stuck. This is to say that we’d better jump hard, fast, and with little regard to tangential risks – or we may not get a chance to jump, ever again. That’s what the science says, anyway.

  5. Grant Saw says:

    Obama should push for this now to get the ball rolling.

  6. FLL says:

    Hence Bernie’s surprising success touting the “radical socialist” policies of Dwight D. Eisenhower throughout the 1950s. Under Eisenhower the oft-quoted maximum corporate tax was about 90%, but the actual percentage that the very rich paid was around 50%. Even 50% is a far cry from the obscene legacy that Reagan has left this country with. Let’s have a round of applause for that radical socialist, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Modern voters weary of Reaganomics would say “I like Ike.”

  7. BeccaM says:

    Certain elements of history can and do repeat themselves. One of these being when the population of a country, nation, or empire are badly oppressed and repressed for long enough, some kind of uprising is inevitable. The longer the repression goes on, the greater the likelihood it will be violent rather than simply a sweeping away of the old systems.

    Today’s plutocrats and oligarchs are now richer than the pre-Great Depression era Robber Barons. America’s middle class has been hollowed out and virtually every penny of GDP growth since 1980 has gone to the top 10%, with most of that going to the top 1%, and most of that to the top 0.01%. We’ve had more than a generation of stagnating wages and declining standard of living for the bottom 90%, with the poorest suffering the most. America itself is increasingly defined by what it can’t do and can’t afford to do, while there’s mysteriously always money available for wars, corporate giveaways, and still more tax cuts for the rich.

    Flint Michigan isn’t the only city in America being served up with toxic water, nor Porter Ranch California the only town being poisoned with leaking methane. And both of these public health catastrophes were caused by greed.

    Contrary to the usual myth, a frog will not stay in the slowly heating pot until it boils. There always comes a point when it will do its best to leap out of the scalding water. We’ve had more than a generation of ‘Reaganomics-on-Steroids’ and the frog is getting restless.

  8. emjayay says:

    Interesting stuff. It was an online poll. Actually, how does that work? On a question about what was a “bigger threat to American’s future”, government or business, government won around 2 for 1. This, and the cost of gifting all these ponies at the same time, plus the very easy in this case shooting of the messenger….well, it is unfortunately pretty easy to see where a Bernie nomination is likely to go.

    Straight into the crapper.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS