"The middle class still gets its preferred policies enacted 26 percent of the time even when the rich are opposed."

Gee, thanks!

Most of this "debunking" rests on the idea that the tiny minority of rich people should have about the same amount of power as the rest of us, so it isn't so terrible that they actually have a fair amount more. That just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, the fact that a few people have a few quibbles with a few minor details doesn't amount to "that study is false".

It is surprising that the middle class and rich agree so often. But as I'm sure you know, most Americans don't think of politics in economic class warfare terms, so maybe that's why.

So you have someone who makes 50k a year who has 10k of investments, and they would rather compare themselves to the CEO making millions, rather than someone lower in the org chart who makes 30k a year.

They have investments, so they'll approve of tax cuts on dividends, even though the people who profit from these tax cuts are the people who have 100 million invested, not the middle class who might just get a few hundreds in dividends from their investments a year.

So even though they are completely dependent on their salary and the whims of their employer, they like to think of themselves as independent upper middle class people and vote accordingly.

It's amazing how people will tell themselves stories and vote for policies that are bad for themselves just so they can feel superior to someone else.

Quite a lot of people vote for the system they think will bring the best outcomes for all. Some people think it's by levelling outcomes; others by increasing opportunity.

Assuming the increasing opportunity people are doing it to feel superior is likely false, and also likely just a way to feel superior to them.

You are right about that, maybe it's not about feeling superior, I don't know the real motivation. My argument would probably be stronger without this remark.

But I don't know if the differentiation between "outcomes" and "opportunities" really makes a difference. People still vote for "opportunities" that are only meaningful for people richer than themselves.

For example, you could say that lowering taxes on dividends is providing an "opportunity", but it's only an opportunity for those who already have more money than they need, and it rewards people proportionally with how much money they already have.

With many opportunities the outcomes are rather predictable, so I'm not sure what the difference is between focussing on "opportunity" vs. "outcomes".

I don't think this is that simple. Only considering billionaires, when most businesses fail in 3 years and owners can often get paid very little for a long time, is far, far too reductive in my opinion.

This was described by Herman and Chomsky as "manufactured consent". No rational consideration of middle class priorities would wage half a dozen ruinous wars in faraway unimportant places in two decades, but for a time many in the middle class were patriotic for such atrocious policy. That time has passed, yet the wars continue, which is what we're actually talking about: the result of disagreement. That middle class preferences are honored when they agree with the preferences of wealth is a triviality. That they are not honored when in disagreement, is the topic under discussion.