Can Democrats keep Hillary margins with wealthy/college educated whites while...

[Tekken_Guy]

Much of the swing to Hillary had to do with a rejection of the GOP's embrace of nationalistic positions on cultural issues and Trump's own personal problems.  The anti-GOP/anti-Trump sentiment is more related to those things than economics.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

No. The swing against Trump with college educated whites, especially women, was primarily due to his personal flaws (temperament, Access Hollywood, etc) as opposed to a fundamental rejection of his policy proposals or the GOP at large. That's part of why so few republican incumbents lost their House seats in normally lean R districts where Trump narrowly lost or ran even.

What about what happened in Virgina? Incumbency didn't save most of the Clinton college educated suburban districts.

2016 was supposed to be a Republican leaning year but Donald Trump nearly screwed it up. 2018 and 2020 won't be so favorable towards these republican incumbents.


Also reminder that a socialist unseated a republican in a wealthy educated district.

I'm talking about Congress, not local elections. Republicans in VA gerrymandered the districts to have huge numbers slightly leaning R. They failed to account for how quickly immigration was turning NOVA blue and relied on the assumption that they'd keep getting Obama era results with him gone. They shot themselves in the foot there.

It's also expected that the party in the White House lose seats at lower levels. After the unprecedented gains they made under Obama, the GOP was inevitably going to slide back to equilibrium. That would be just as true if we had president Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Bush (assuming they could have even won). I fully expect modest democrat gains in the House come 2018, but they're unlikely to get a majority. Could their anger at Trump cause a reverse 2010? Yes, but we don't know just yet and its certainly at odds with history to say fairly elastic suburban voters will never swing back to the right.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I think its more about what type of progressive you run.  If a person runs left but is charming(unlike Ossof or Warren) and speaks intelligently and calmly(unlike Trump or Alan Grayson) they are electable.  I think if we run someone who has a personality similar to Bush, for instance, we could still win suburbs even if we trend left.

[Globalist Cosmopolitan]

^Not necessarily true. Data analysis by CES (?) or someone said Crooked H was the first Democrat to win college-educated whites, and by a decent 2-point margin.

Interesting and not totally unbelievable.  Either way, I am guessing that was within the MOE and the exit polls said otherwise (people use the exit polls for all kinds of things until they say something they have a hard time believing, it seems ... not saying you), so I think it might be fair to say it was a tie?  I also would wager that "wealthy college-educated Whites" voted decidedly Republican if it was tied, as I'm guessing most lower-middle-class Whites with a degree leaned left.  It will be interesting to see how they vote in the 2018 exit polls for sure.

You are wrong. Trump lost wealthy college-educated white voters:

https://ibb.co/gB1E06

Also, wealthy college educated whites were more Democratic than non-wealthy college educated whites.

[All Along The Watchtower]

^Not necessarily true. Data analysis by CES (?) or someone said Crooked H was the first Democrat to win college-educated whites, and by a decent 2-point margin.

Interesting and not totally unbelievable.  Either way, I am guessing that was within the MOE and the exit polls said otherwise (people use the exit polls for all kinds of things until they say something they have a hard time believing, it seems ... not saying you), so I think it might be fair to say it was a tie?  I also would wager that "wealthy college-educated Whites" voted decidedly Republican if it was tied, as I'm guessing most lower-middle-class Whites with a degree leaned left.  It will be interesting to see how they vote in the 2018 exit polls for sure.

You are wrong. Trump lost wealthy college-educated white voters:

https://ibb.co/gB1E06

Also, wealthy college educated whites were more Democratic than non-wealthy college educated whites.

A lot of this is regionalism IMO, along with the educational divide (among whites, at least) between the parties being replicated in a sense within the college-educated white population in terms of "elitist" vs. "populist" (to put it crudely) universities and colleges.

People with degrees from the Ivies, Stanford, Georgetown,  etc. - including many of the Republicans among them - would be a lot less inclined to vote for Trump than would people with degrees from your average state university or (especially) private Christian college - particularly in erm, Flyover America (They'd also tend to have lower incomes). I think the reasons for this should be obvious.

Though this doesn't - and didn't - extend downballot. Those Clinton Republicans voted for Clinton (or rather, against Trump), not for the Democrats as a whole, as we are all well aware now (I hope?).