Why are “the rich” more able to identify the party which represent their interests than “the poor”?


Question

Consider the following premises, for which I think there is fair degree of consensus (at least according to my knowledge of political history of Latin America, but perhaps more broadly):

the majority of rich individuals vote for right wing parties
there is no clear voting pattern among the poor regarding left and right wing parties
right wing parties favour policies that, even if they might benefit the poor, they certainly benefit the rich (e.g. low taxation, privatisation of companies, free trade, etc)
left wing parties favour policies that, even if they might benefit the rich, they certainly benefit the poor (e.g. higher taxation, more subsidies, more public services at lower costs, protectionist policies, etc)
Then, a natural question arises. Why are the rich more able to identify the party which represents their (class) interests (i.e. right-wing) than the poor?

Possible hypothesis that I have think of are:

higher education allow for better understanding of policies
media mainly in control of right-wing parties, obscuring/altering information to the poor
politicians are normally upper class, so the poor cannot identify easily with them
demagogic politicians from the right can lure poor voters to them, whereas demagogic politicians from the left cannot lure rich voters to them (but why?)
left-wing policies are much more evident to be at expenses of the rich than right-wing policies are to be at expenses of the poor. E.g. higher taxes clearly mean taxing the rich more, whereas lower taxes does not directly affect taxation of the poor.
How do different political theory explain this? An answer with references would be greatly appreciated.

Edit (more to come...): as it is natural to expect that a lot of the focus is in the US (as the question was originally phrased in such a way), the evidence in terms of voting patters by income level in the US is not entirely evident in supporting the premises. In general, the likelihood of voting Republican increases with income (see page 50 here) and it is still high for the lowest income. It could be that the proportion voting Democrat among the high income individuals might be higher than its respective proportion for the poor (see here). In the UK the story is slightly more supportive, especially because the rich tend mainly to vote conservative. The poor give a lot of votes to Labour and a less proportion to conservative.

Answer

Mostly, because your assumption is just that, an assumption, and is incorrect one at that.

I won't go down the rabbit hole of disputing your Marx-influenced class based assumption that somehow, left wing parties[1] represent interests of "the poor" and the right wing parties of "the rich", even though that assumption is also largely wrong[2].

(as food for thought: would you rather be "the poor" in Venezuela or USSR, or in USA or UK? As a basic fact, you may want to look at a number of people trying to - legally and illegally - immigrate to USA vs. # of poor people from USA trying to emigrate to more left wing countries. Cuba is, after all, just a boar ride away from Florida)

I will only look at the other side of your assumption that "the rich" somehow solidly identify with right/conservative side.

At least in the USA, the number of the "rich" who identify with the party which you claim "doesn't represent their interests" is staggeringly high (40% by now) and keeps rising.

First, general research (I tried to pick left of center media, since they don't have incentive to make stuff up if it sounds worse for Democrats):

From staunchly Trump-hating Washington Post's "Tech billionaires like Democrats more than Republicans. Here’s why":

As much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires.
(their source is research by Adam Bonica, )

The same research is covered by Forbes, giving exact #s:
The next time you hear Senator Bernie Sanders rail against the nefarious influence of “millionaires and billionaires,” it might be important to know that 39% of the nation’s wealthiest donors are backing Democrats more than Republicans this election. Even more interesting, the number of card carrying liberal titans is likely to increase dramatically, as billionaires from new industries, especially Silicon Valley, are unambiguously Democratic cheerleaders*.
From New York Times' "How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?"

Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters. Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter.
...
In 2014, the median income of households in Democratic districts was higher than in Republican districts, $53,358 to $51,834. Democrats represent seven of the 10 most affluent districts, measured by household income (four in California, two in Virginia and one in New York). Democrats also represent a majority of the 100 most affluent districts, 54-46.
Second, let's look at actual "very rich" - top billionaires.

Here's Fortune's list of billionaires who supported Clinton

Looking down Forbes richest list:

Bill Gates

Exact political views aren't widely known overall (but is definitely socially liberal, with most of his extremely huge philanthropy set to benefit 3rd world and alleviate poverty). The most factual approach is to go off his political donations which go more to Democrats than Republicans.

Evidence points to him being a Democrat supporter (Hinting at supporting Clinton; attending Obama fundraiser and expressing support for Obama)
Warren Buffet

Registered Democrat, supported and endorsed both Obama and Clinton, donates more to DNC. Including close to $1Billion to Obama PAC.
Jeff Bezos

Democrat supporter
Amancio Ortega

He's from Spain, no idea of his politics. Casual googling didn't help
Mark Zuckerberg


I admit this surprised me. I expected him to be an outspoken Democrat, but he's registered as neither, was publicly quoted explicitly stating he's neither, and donated to both parties.
Why are “the rich” more able to identify the party which represent their interests than “the poor”? Why are “the rich” more able to identify the party which represent their interests than “the poor”? Reviewed by Hamza Bashir Ahmad on 06:48:00 Rating: 5