"Before the 2016 general election, much of the polling of potential Trump voters focused on low-earning and little-educated, white, working-class men, suggesting they were his core supporters. But that early polling has proved less than accurate based on the information in the general election exit polling.
For example, when the exit poll numbers are further broken down, they show that voters with income over $50,000 (also reported as $50 to $100,000) with Trump winning this bracket 50 percent to Clinton’s 46 percent and he also won the over $100,000 bracket 48 percent to Clinton’s 47 percent.
While only 27 percent of the 2016 voters considered their financial situation worse on Election Day 2016 than 2012, Trump overwhelming carried those voters’ 78 percent to Clinton’s 19 percent.
In short, it does not appear that financial distress, fear of the future, or immigrants taking their jobs is a common factor uniting Trump’s base."
Far from being purely a revolt by poorer whites left behind by globalisation, who did indeed turn out in greater numbers for the Republican candidate than in 2012, Trump’s victory also relied on the support of the middle-class, the better-educated and the well-off.
Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump.
Just find it interesting how focused we get on blue collar support of Trump.
Well, this becomes more meaningful in the context that Romney had 52% of the 50-90k (to Trump’s 50%), and 54% of the 100k+ bracket (to Trump’s 48%).
Right, obviously it still relied on the GOP bread and butter. Just as his win relied heavily on the Evangelical vote despite not being a godly man. But as the GOP candidate, he saw a pretty hefty net loss in the high income / better educated compared to last election. In order to make up that ground, he had to steal Dem market share in the blue collar / low income / less educated space.
If he had not done considerably better than his predecessors AND opponent with blue collar workers, he loses the election in a landslide. Romney pulled 38% of the <50,000 vote, while Trump pulled 41%. Given the <50,000 crowd is like ~45% of the country, that bump allowed him to overcome the losses he saw with well educated / high income.
Also, not really a point of contention, just an aside- you should check out the rates that a lot of the blue collar/unions are paying. Not saying they’re raking it in, but they smoke past the 50k mark pretty easily.
I guess my point is, that despite some increases here and decreases there, the net effect still isn’t the stereotype we always talk about. I mean, Clinton still got 52% of that <50,0000 vote.
Interestingly, Romney edged Trump with the white vote, and Trump edged him with the latino/black vote. We’re talking 1-2% though. Still.
I find it funny that Obama managed a greater percent of the white vote than Clinton managed. And, oh my, Clinton didn’t get nearly the black/latino percentages that Obama did.
And the idea that they’re voting for guns, against gays and abortion, and out of fear of immigrants seems oversimplified. I’m sure it happened to some extent. But isn’t this bump for Trump coming from the democrats’ share? Where the above weren’t big issues? From what I read, it seems that Clinton lost support among blue collar whites that Obama had captured. Seems they could have been comfortable voting for someone with more progressive views on the issues above. Seems to me that Clinton just flat out sucked.
I guess it bothers me that we tend to blame working class whites for Trump. Or, stereotype their views (some came over after having voted for Obama). Had they had someone besides Clinton and/or Sanders, they very well may have voted for a Democrat again.
Depends a lot on overtime. I’ve seen plenty of guys with HS diplomas take home >$125k working a stupid amount of overtime because the company doesn’t want to hire in an up market.
Only by lazy people who don’t want to look deeply at why Clinton loss.
Didn’t Trump carry some head-scratching demographic, (by a large number), like “suburban White Women” or something? (You guys correct me if I’m off here).
Then there were the white Obama supporters that you brought up, and the fact that Clinton did not bring out the African American vote at anywhere close to the numbers Obama did.
Lastly; while many may write it off as being insignificant; Russia’s flooding of all forms of media with negative images and messages didn’t lose the election for Clinton in and of itself…but it sure as hell increased the negatives of an already shitty Candidate. (Which both Clinton and Trump were…)
Bottom line? Clinton and Trump were two shitty candidates, and it boiled down to who people felt smelled the worst.
If the “New Generation” of DEMS are these “Democratic” Socialist…they are Dead in the Water (certainly in the short term, and most likely for a few election cycles to come).
And if the “New Generation” of Republicans are moving further and further to the Right, and sees an America of “us” and “them”; the future of public discourse looks just as grim.
I have no idea what the answer is.
Our best hope is that the Institutions themselves; bolstered by the Constitution and the Law; remain strong and intact.
I’ll keep harping on it. If the Dems put up a name this far from election day, only to make him/her the immediate focus of the twitter shit that is Trump and his alternative facts, I’ll vote for Trump myself purely to spite them.
100% serious. I refuse to believe they’re THAT stupid.
Trump already has put out his “DEM Wish-List” of candidates (namely Warren, Biden and Clinton)…and is already attacking them without let-up and without mercy…
I doubt Biden and Clinton want to even bother; and if Warren runs, she gets crushed.
What’s left; Bernie Sanders and a few young “Democratic” Socialist?
Maybe there is someone out there in the wings; but I have no idea who they are, or if they could withstand the Trump onslaught…