Do we know how white people poor enough to need welfare voted
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:17:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Do we know how white people poor enough to need welfare voted
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Do we know how white people poor enough to need welfare voted  (Read 1122 times)
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 14, 2016, 09:18:07 AM »

Considering that trumps biggest base seems to be uneducated middle class whites (who aren't rich, but have enough money to vote trump based on racial resentment and/or muh Clinton "corruption").
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2016, 02:29:03 AM »

I'm not aware of the exact income requirements for welfare, but we do have this exit poll data that suggests Trump did a little bit worse among poorer whites than middle class whites.

$<30,000: Trump 58; Clinton 34 (T +24)
30-49,999: Trump 56; Clinton 36 (T+20)
50-99,999: Trump 62; Clinton 34 (T+28)
100-199,999: Trump 56; Clinton 39 (T+17)
200-249,999: Trump 52; Clinton 44 (T+8)
>$250,000: Trump 50; Clinton 42 (T+8)

4 years ago, I think Obama won this demographic, or at least did better considerably on this demographic, than the average white voter, pre 08', this would've been a solid democrat constituency.
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2016, 07:36:29 AM »

Do you have data?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2016, 07:41:10 AM »

I'm not aware of the exact income requirements for welfare, but we do have this exit poll data that suggests Trump did a little bit worse among poorer whites than middle class whites.

$<30,000: Trump 58; Clinton 34 (T +24)
30-49,999: Trump 56; Clinton 36 (T+20)
50-99,999: Trump 62; Clinton 34 (T+28)
100-199,999: Trump 56; Clinton 39 (T+17)
200-249,999: Trump 52; Clinton 44 (T+8)
>$250,000: Trump 50; Clinton 42 (T+8)

But that's overall, what about with whites?
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2016, 11:08:30 PM »

Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.

New party system, and all.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2016, 11:49:49 PM »

Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.

New party system, and all.
Even you can't deny less affluent white voters supported Trump more strongly than the richer ones, though.

I didn't, but 1) Affluent ones STILL supported Trump, and this was the best chance for them to flip Dem since LBJ/Goldwater, and 2) that hardly signifies a new party system, especially when affluent Whites voted reliably Republican downballot.  I think this was a unique election; NSV not only thinks it's the stereotypical matchup going forward, he/she thinks the trends from this one election will continue to grow in a non-Clinton/Trump matchup, and I find that ridiculous.
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2016, 09:29:35 AM »

Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.

New party system, and all.
Even you can't deny less affluent white voters supported Trump more strongly than the richer ones, though.

I didn't, but 1) Affluent ones STILL supported Trump, and this was the best chance for them to flip Dem since LBJ/Goldwater, and 2) that hardly signifies a new party system, especially when affluent Whites voted reliably Republican downballot.  I think this was a unique election; NSV not only thinks it's the stereotypical matchup going forward, he/she thinks the trends from this one election will continue to grow in a non-Clinton/Trump matchup, and I find that ridiculous.

How do you know that they vote "reliably republican" down ballot.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2016, 09:46:37 AM »

A key point to remember is that income correlates only loosely with feelings of poverty in the U.S.: someone making $30,000 in rural Oklahoma is probably doing fine, while someone making $30,000 in Manhattan is barely getting by. Another factor is that lower-earning whites are likely to be younger. If memory serves, whites making $50,000 or less voted narrowly for Obama in 2008, and he lost them narrowly in 2012, though he probably still won them outside the South. Hillary Clinton was a uniquely poor candidate for this demographic, and flaws in her campaign strategy doomed her in light of her other flaws.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2016, 01:50:03 PM »

Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.

New party system, and all.
Even you can't deny less affluent white voters supported Trump more strongly than the richer ones, though.

I didn't, but 1) Affluent ones STILL supported Trump, and this was the best chance for them to flip Dem since LBJ/Goldwater, and 2) that hardly signifies a new party system, especially when affluent Whites voted reliably Republican downballot.  I think this was a unique election; NSV not only thinks it's the stereotypical matchup going forward, he/she thinks the trends from this one election will continue to grow in a non-Clinton/Trump matchup, and I find that ridiculous.

How do you know that they vote "reliably republican" down ballot.

I don't "know," just like you don't REALLY "know" that Whites without a college degree (which, as mentioned before, is a terrible indicator of class, but whatever strokes the egos of our board Democrats!) voted for Trump.  Going off of the exit polls, House Republicans got 57% (to 41%) of the vote from voters earning $250,000 or more.  That was easily their best income bracket, and their performance got worse as you moved down to poorer voters (voters earning $30,000 or less voted the exact mirror image in favor of the Democrats ... there was quite literally an exact income correlation).  How did White voters vote within those strata?  I have no idea.  However, I have seen numerous things over the years saying that Whites tend to have higher incomes, and the "top 10%" is disproportionately White, so if nearly 60% of them voted Republican, it's a safe bet that Trump won a substantial majority of them ... and this was supposed to be the worst matchup ever for Republicans with this group (meaning, if Trump at the top of the ballot couldn't drag these House Republicans down with affluent voters, another Republican certainly wouldn't [in 2014, Republicans won the richest demographic with 57% of the vote, as well, and lost the lowest income bracket to the Democrats 39%-59%]).
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2016, 02:15:09 PM »

Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.

New party system, and all.
Even you can't deny less affluent white voters supported Trump more strongly than the richer ones, though.

I didn't, but 1) Affluent ones STILL supported Trump, and this was the best chance for them to flip Dem since LBJ/Goldwater, and 2) that hardly signifies a new party system, especially when affluent Whites voted reliably Republican downballot.  I think this was a unique election; NSV not only thinks it's the stereotypical matchup going forward, he/she thinks the trends from this one election will continue to grow in a non-Clinton/Trump matchup, and I find that ridiculous.

How do you know that they vote "reliably republican" down ballot.

I don't "know," just like you don't REALLY "know" that Whites without a college degree (which, as mentioned before, is a terrible indicator of class, but whatever strokes the egos of our board Democrats!) voted for Trump.  Going off of the exit polls, House Republicans got 57% (to 41%) of the vote from voters earning $250,000 or more.  That was easily their best income bracket, and their performance got worse as you moved down to poorer voters (voters earning $30,000 or less voted the exact mirror image in favor of the Democrats ... there was quite literally an exact income correlation).  How did White voters vote within those strata?  I have no idea.  However, I have seen numerous things over the years saying that Whites tend to have higher incomes, and the "top 10%" is disproportionately White, so if nearly 60% of them voted Republican, it's a safe bet that Trump won a substantial majority of them ... and this was supposed to be the worst matchup ever for Republicans with this group (meaning, if Trump at the top of the ballot couldn't drag these House Republicans down with affluent voters, another Republican certainly wouldn't [in 2014, Republicans won the richest demographic with 57% of the vote, as well, and lost the lowest income bracket to the Democrats 39%-59%]).

Realignments tend to affect the presidency before other places. House popular vote doesn't take candidate quality, amount of unopposed seats, etc. into account. And the argument is about educated voters in general. uneducated business owners, farmers, etc. would count as $250000+ and would likely trend trump. Are the exit polls even reliable enough to determine this? Plus whether millionaires/billionaires trended may be very obscured.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2016, 08:42:16 PM »

It wasn't a realigning election. It was a continued dealignment as evidenced that House Republicans won the popular vote by 3 points. That said, the Republicans don't look poised to win the Presidency by a landslide anytime soon. The 50-50 nation continues.

Realignment towards the Democrats would entail Congress going Democratic. I do think that's more likely than not to come.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.