That was my point -- whether SV's elite support the Democrats or the Republicans is kind of irrelevant to the question. Both parties have been captured by economic elites. These elites have some issues they disagree on, but lots of issues they mostly agree on, and the ones they agree on are the ones that impact the highly wealthy. Where there is consensus, it is the consensus of the elite, for the elite.

In other words -- Jamie Dimon is a Democrat. Robert Rubin is a Democrat. Larry Summers is a Democrat. These are the voices that shape Democratic economic policy, and they are not exactly a group of fiery progressives. They are the evidence of how narrow the difference between the parties is on the issues that the 1% care most about. The issues the parties fight over are by definition issues that guys like these just don't care about. If they cared about them, they would drag the parties kicking and screaming to a consensus just like they have on economic policy.

This is no different than how it was in the first Gilded Age; most of the most notorious political figures from that era were Republicans -- James G. Blaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Blaine) and Roscoe Conkling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Conkling) come to mind -- but there were plenty of Democrats too, like Boss Tweed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Tweed). And all leaders in both parties overwhelmingly hewed to an ideology that business interests were more important than any others.

Political affiliation seems like a red herring in a two party system. It wouldn't surprise me if people in SV vote democrat because they don't like certain things associated with the republicans (religion , anti-gay rights, guns , whatever) rather than agreeing wholesale with the democratic party manifesto.

In a straw poll at work some years ago we found that a hypothetic economically liberal, and socially liberal party would handily trounce both Democrats and Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if the same holds fairly broadly among people in IT.

As the old joke goes, "I can't vote Democratic because I want to be able to spend my money, and I can't vote Republican because of what I want to spend my money on!"

By economic liberal do you mean left wing? Economic liberalism usually refers to right wing economic policies.

I meant the usual thing.

Right wing economic policies. Left wing social policies.

So relatively low taxes, less bureaucracy, balance the budget, etc. But also gay marriage, equal rights for a variety of groups, and science based environmental policies.

Totally agree that such a party would be great.

Does left wing social policy include e.g. universal welfare, health care and access to education though? Or are you thinking mainly of "liberal" rather than "left wing"?

Part of the problem is that left wing social policies cost money and have to be administered, conflicting with low taxes and less bureaucracy.... :(

You hit the nail on the head. Reality wouldn't let you do all of that without compromises, and we didn't agree where the compromises should be. But that wouldn't stop a politician from promising all of the above. :-)

That said, we did find broad agreement on many things that are completely off the political map in the USA. For example we could reduce the size of our military, liberalize drugs, get rid of the DEA, and reduce prison populations. All of that saves money. We also agreed that none of us actually expect Social Security to still exist when we need it, and so we'd prefer it replaced in the long run by something out of the hands of the politicians. Something along the lines of Australia's Superannuation would make sense. (But it wouldn't be fair to do it like Bush suggested - where it is privatized but with cutoffs that massively reduce what people can expect to get.)

Absolutely none of that is in the public discourse. But it would have been more popular in that office than anything being offered by the political parties.

In other conversations we also agreed that in general it is better to make rules simple and clear with the right incentives, rather than trying to add rules and counter rules that are guaranteed to give perverse incentives and a field day for lobbyists. For example we have laws mandating fuel efficiency standards, with complex exceptions saying that different types of vehicles get different treatment. I can't say anything about the net result other than that I'm sure that it lets politicians say that they solved the problem, while giving established Detroit companies some benefit. (The most obvious candidate for a benefit is that the regulatory mess is a barrier to entry for competitors.) But if you simply tax carbon fuels steeply enough, then incentives will be right. And then if you redistribute those taxes back to people in direct payments, then people can afford the taxes, and are left pushed to choose efficient vehicles for economic reasons.

I don't think that tbilly said that it would be great, just that it would cruise to an easy victory amongst startup types.

That's what used to be called liberal, before that label got re-used.

You just enumerated a significant portion of the de facto Republican agenda. Also, as 2004 demonstrated, voters normally vote for what they like instead of against what they dislike.

Um. One data point does not a "normal" make.

ok fair enough. Here are a few other data points. The same holds true for 1980, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012.

1984: http://books.google.com/books?id=phQo8JYcjw8C&pg=PA62...

1988: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,147885,00.h...

2000: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/18/flash...

2004: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation...

Not to mention that there's a line of reasoning for 1%ers to support the democratic party's centrist economic policies in the name of self-interest -- richer consumers to buy stuff means more sales for those selling it, better infrastructure is good for business, etc.

Some might disagree with that reasoning but it's really missing the mark to consider rich democrats as some sort of 'self hating rich' or 'culture voters ignoring economic policy'.

Or even that the Democratic party isn't a creature of finance. Since Wall Street has largely captured both parties, a plutocrat can vote on social issues without worrying overmuch about their pocketbook.

The fundamental error of the New Yorker piece would seem to be as described.

The fundamental thing that this piece fails to discuss is that just because you support the Democrats doesn't mean that you're a stereotypical liberal Democrat.