Non Swing Voter has assured me they voted 80% Trump and that affluent Whites backed Clinton.
New party system, and all.
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%]).
