Primary states in which Clinton voters are richer than Trump voters

[Mr. Morden]

While Clinton tends to get support from somewhat more upscale Dems than Sanders does (at least among whites) and Trump voters are a bit more downscale than the supporters of his Republican rivals, the fact of the matter is that in most states at least, the Republican primary electorate skews rich enough compared to the Dems that the median Trump voter is wealthier than the median Clinton voter.

Are there any exceptions to this though?  States in which the median income of Clinton primary voters exceeds the median income of Trump primary voters?

I think New Hampshire is one case in which this is true.  By my rough math on the exit poll numbers, Clinton voters are something like:

income <$50k: 26%
income $50k-$100k: 32%
income >$100k: 42%

That is, the percentage is not the fraction of that income group that she’s winning.  But rather, the fraction of all of her supporters who are members of that income group.  So New Hampshire is a case in which Clinton has more supporters making more than $100k than making less than $50k.  Contrast this with, say, Florida or Illinois, where the <$50k number is much bigger.

In contrast, here’s what I get for Trump primary voters in New Hampshire:

income <$50k: 29%
income $50k-$100k: 34%
income >$100k: 37%

So Trump voters in New Hampshire skew a bit lower income that Clinton voters (a bit fewer at the high end and a bit more at the bottom end).

But New Hampshire is a case in which Clinton did poorly overall, and the voters that she did get are skewed to the top end of the Dem. primary income distribution to an unusual degree.  (Of course, this is not unrelated to the fact that New Hampshire is overwhelmingly white.)  Are there any other states you think are worth checking, where Clinton voters might have been wealthier than Trump voters, that actually did exit polls?  Unfortunately, some of the other likely candidates are caucus states that didn’t have exit polls.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Massachusetts or Michigan possibly

[Boston Bread]

Although there's no exit polls, Hawaii.

[Ebsy]

Massachusetts definitely. Iowa and Nebraska as well.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I checked I believe Virginia falls under that category.

[Crumpets]

I would say Washington is probably a good contender. I have yet to meet a Trump supporter here who does not match exactly the "Trump supporter" stereotype. At the same time, while Clinton probably drew most of her support from working class minorities, a good chunk are probably East-Siders in King County who would usually be establishment Republican types but have temporarily switched over because they think Trump has pretty much sealed up the nomination for the Republicans and they don't want a socialist vs. Trump general.

[Mr. Morden]

I just checked MA, MI, and VA.  (The other states mentioned here either haven’t voted yet, didn’t have exit polls, or weirdly, in the case of Iowa, they didn’t ask the income question on the GOP side.)

In both MA and MI, it’s close, but my algebra on the exit poll still has Trump supporters as coming out slightly higher income than Clinton supporters.  There just isn’t that great an income divide among the GOP candidates in those states, and the Republican primary voters are wealthier than the Democratic primary voters overall, so any gains on the margins that Clinton gets from appealing to upper income Dem. primary voters is offset from the fact that Dem. primary voters just aren’t as rich as GOP primary voters in the first place.

In Virginia though, as in New Hampshire, I do actually have Clinton primary voters coming out as a bit richer than Trump primary voters.  There are two things going on in Virginia that allow this to happen: 1) Even though the Dem. primary electorate is 37% non-white, the Dem. primary electorate here is still wealthier than it is in most other states, so there isn’t a huge income gap between the two parties, and 2) Huge income gap between Trump supporters and Rubio supporters.  Rubio sucks up an awful lot of support from the upper end of the income distribution, while Trump does better at the lower end.

Here are the exact numbers I got for the three states:

Massachusetts:
Clinton
under $50k: 26%
$50k-100k: 30%
over $100k: 44%

Trump
under $50k: 20%
$50k-100k: 34%
over $100k: 46%

Michigan:
Clinton
under $50k: 44%
$50k-100k: 31%
over $100k: 25%

Trump
under $50k: 42%
$50k-100k: 29%
over $100k: 29%

Virginia:
Clinton
under $50k: 27%
$50k-100k: 29%
over $100k: 44%

Trump
under $50k: 30%
$50k-100k: 30%
over $100k: 39%

[White Trash]

I checked I believe Virginia falls under that category.

Yeah, seemed like the richer counties in VA went for Rubio rather than Trump. Same with SC.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Nate Silver does the math on every single primary state that has had an exit poll so far (though he did this before Indiana):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

States in which Clinton voters are richer than Trump voters:

New Hampshire
Connecticut
Virginia
Vermont

Overall, he finds that while Trump voters have household incomes below the average for Republican primary voters, they’re still above average for the US as a whole:

(averaged over all states that’ve voted so far and had exit polls):

Kasich voters: $91k
Rubio voters: $88k
Cruz voters: $73k
Trump voters: $72k
Clinton voters: $61k
Sanders voters: $61k

Of course, this is all based on self-reporting in exit polls, so it’s possible that some people are inflating their salaries for the exit pollster.  The average US income is $56k, so voters for all candidates are above average, if we believe what they’re telling the exit pollsters.