2016 New England Town Map

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

At this point, I'm just trolling NSV, whom I always thought was a lot smarter than he has displayed post-2016 returns.  Any "party of the rich" or "party of the educated" or "white coastal liberals with PhDs plus minorities" or whatever would win a laughably small percent of Americans in any election.  No viable political party is ever "elite," and despite my arguing, I don't think any party ever should be.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

Also like... people in Aroostook County, ME aren't rich. Northern Grafton County, NH isn't rich. Berlin NH, Rumford, Bethel, and Lewiston ME sure as *hell * aren't rich.

Congrats there are some outliers.  But the bottom line is, the majority of the highly concentrated Democratic areas on that map are bastions of wealthy people... Fairfield County, the towns around Boston, Hartford, etc.

The majority in your party are not comfortable with that, so have fun being in the TINY minority for the rest of your life, trying to convince Democratic voters that they should want something they have spent their entire lives voting against.  One election being unique does not a new party system make.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

He's just a troll.  He knows full well that educated voters/higher income voters swung towards Clinton in this election and it bothers him for reason.  So he trolls in every single thread I post on.  Also, I don't think Democrats are the party of the rich.  Party of the upper middle class/college educated is more fitting.

The only college graduate group you won is minorities.  As for the asinine bolded claim, let's take a look:

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

Now, if we want to stick to simplified generalizations like you seem to prefer, let's just summarize, shall we?  The only income brackets that your party won were below $50,000.  You lost the four income brackets above that.  However, if you'd like to get more in-depth:

38.59% of Democratic votes were from folks who made under $50,000 per year.  A full 67.07% of the party's votes came from voters who made less than $100,000 per year.  How can you be the "party of the upper-middle class" if two-thirds of your voters make under $100,000 per year?  Ever wonder why even in this age of "DLCism" there isn't a Democrat in the country who isn't campaigning on taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage?  Congressional Democrats relied even more strongly on voters making less than $100,000 per year, as would a usual Democrat.

Republicans also rely on voters who aren't affluent, though not quite as much (64.67% of the party's voters made under $100k, compared to 67.07% for Dems), and Congressional Republicans relied on significantly more affluent voters than Trump did, too.

At the VERY best, you could make up some conspiracy theory about the exit polls and say that the parties are equally affluent overall, but Democrats rely significantly more on "poor" voters (38.59% making below $50k, compared to only 32.28% for the GOP ... and again the first number was higher and the second number was lower for House races) ... but I would say it is nothing short of undeniable that your average Republican is going to be more affluent than your average Democrat.  Is that a good thing?  Absolutely not.  But watching someone perpetuate a blatantly false narrative, like you're doing, on an otherwise informative and great forum is worth correcting.

[RINO Tom]

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

This is a beautiful chart *sniff*. If only we could tie the $50k-99k in exchange for the $200+

If I didn't feel the need to constantly point out Non-Swing Voter's WILLFUL ignorance of the coalitions and how they vote, though, I would be able to make the point about those percentages at the end of each line ... NO party that has EVER been successful relies on just affluent voters.  The GOP of the '80s that was winning affluent voters by even more than they do now was still the party of rural Northern farmers and moralists.  That's the whole point of a coalition.  If you took JUST "latte liberals" and added them to all minorities who vote, Democrats would get about 30% of the vote.  Similarly, if you took rich Whites and added them to evangelicals, Republicans would get a laughably small slice of the national vote.  There are WAY more groups in both coalitions that never get talked about, and both are broad.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

He's just a troll.  He knows full well that educated voters/higher income voters swung towards Clinton in this election and it bothers him for reason.  So he trolls in every single thread I post on.  Also, I don't think Democrats are the party of the rich.  Party of the upper middle class/college educated is more fitting.

The only college graduate group you won is minorities.  As for the asinine bolded claim, let's take a look:

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

Now, if we want to stick to simplified generalizations like you seem to prefer, let's just summarize, shall we?  The only income brackets that your party won were below $50,000.  You lost the four income brackets above that.  However, if you'd like to get more in-depth:

38.59% of Democratic votes were from folks who made under $50,000 per year.  A full 67.07% of the party's votes came from voters who made less than $100,000 per year.  How can you be the "party of the upper-middle class" if two-thirds of your voters make under $100,000 per year?  Ever wonder why even in this age of "DLCism" there isn't a Democrat in the country who isn't campaigning on taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage?  Congressional Democrats relied even more strongly on voters making less than $100,000 per year, as would a usual Democrat.

Republicans also rely on voters who aren't affluent, though not quite as much (64.67% of the party's voters made under $100k, compared to 67.07% for Dems), and Congressional Republicans relied on significantly more affluent voters than Trump did, too.

At the VERY best, you could make up some conspiracy theory about the exit polls and say that the parties are equally affluent overall, but Democrats rely significantly more on "poor" voters (38.59% making below $50k, compared to only 32.28% for the GOP ... and again the first number was higher and the second number was lower for House races) ... but I would say it is nothing short of undeniable that your average Republican is going to be more affluent than your average Democrat.  Is that a good thing?  Absolutely not.  But watching someone perpetuate a blatantly false narrative, like you're doing, on an otherwise informative and great forum is worth correcting.

Tom, voters earning anywhere near $100k individually are solidly upper middle class. your privilege iss showing (again).

Oh no, my privilege!!  I should have known Badger was near!!

Never mind that I didn't say what you're accusing me of saying, because that would compromise your quest to show everyone what amazing perspective you have and how well-grounded you are.  Two parents making $100,000 each are clearly upper-middle class, as the family income would be $200,000.  Two parents making $100,000 total and $50,000 each?  That's not upper-middle class unless the cost of living is dirt cheap.  I know you think I'm some trust fund, pathetic excuse for a Republican (as if your seemingly only-law-and-order Republicanism is any more admirable, LOL), but I just put forward a few stats to attempt to prove Non Swing Voter wrong.  If you wanted to pick a post of mine to teach me some lesson about how selfish I am for voting in a way that I think most benefits my mom, dad, sister and other relatives, you could have done much better.