2016 New England Town Map

[Intell]

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.

Democrats who proudly claim they're a party of the upper-middle class/or should be are idiots and should go into their sheltered holes.

[Lord_Gulgoth]

That massive swing in Eastern CT is most heartwarming. A ton of those towns hadn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the 80's.

[DPKdebator]

That massive swing in Eastern CT is most heartwarming. A ton of those towns hadn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the 80's.

Would you say it is possible for Connecticut to flip Republican in the near future in a presidential election?

[Lord_Gulgoth]

It's incredibly hard, though not impossible like, say, a Vermont would be. To win in CT, a Republican would have to appeal to both the Trumpist types in Eastern CT, plus the rich suburbanites in Western CT who swung hard against Trump; and threading that needle has been the CT Republican Party's bane since the 1980's.

All that said, I really do think that it can happen. To do it, I believe it would have to be Trump-type candidate (on policy) that doesn't have a foot in mouth problem and comes across as a gentleman, rather than an uncouth guy yelling about stuff at the end of a bar. It might also require the candidate to be running for his second term, and his presidency to have been objectively pretty good.

I'm really just happy that the era of Republicans calling their opponents 'Massachusetts liberals' and attacking the Northeast seems to be over, at least for now. It's not good for the political health of the nation for political parties to completely write off huge swaths of the country, like the Republicans were doing in the Northeast.

[Badger]

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).

[Mr. Illini]

White, rural New England - long-time hold out against the Republican-izing of white, rural America - seemed to join the ranks this year.

Will be interesting to see if those areas remain there or return to their rightful place. A thoroughly Democratic New England is a good New England.

[Free Bird]

I can't take my eyes off that one town in Windham County that looks like Minnesota.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Two parents making $100,000 total and $50,000 each?  That's not upper-middle class unless the cost of living is dirt cheap.

Class isn't really about income exactly, but fwiw $100,000 is nearly twice the US average median household income.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Looking at Maine, I see that Clinton lost Auburn though just about hung onto Lewiston. While winning Kennebunkport with a higher vote than Lewiston.

...

And my God look at the electoral carnage in Francophone Northern Maine. That's usually deepest Atlas red...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lewiston: Clinton 49.1, Trump 43.8
Auburn: Clinton 45.8, Trump 46.0

Kennebunkport: Clinton 56.6, Trump 38.0

...

...

...

[Badger]

Two parents making $100,000 total and $50,000 each?  That's not upper-middle class unless the cost of living is dirt cheap.

Class isn't really about income exactly, but fwiw $100,000 is nearly twice the US average median household income.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct answer! 

Always good to see Al cut to the heart of a paragraph of litany with a sentencephalitis of simple statistics.

[nclib]

Best Clinton:

Hartford   CT   90.22%
Cambridge   MA   87.94%
Provincetown   MA   87.44%
New Haven   CT   86.20%
Norwich   VT   85.39%

Worst Trump:

Cambridge   MA   6.28%
Hartford   CT   7.52%
Norwich   VT   8.23%
Amherst   MA   8.36%
Provincetown   MA   8.74%

[Antonio the Sixth]

This map is so soul-crushingly depressing.

[nclib]

Yet the 36 largest cities in New England went Democratic. Bristol #37 is the home of ESPN.

[DPKdebator]

What I love about this map is that it isn't even the roof of what a Republican in New England can get. 2020 will be very interesting to look at.

[miro]

For sure. Of course, you could make the case of homegrown Republicans almost always performing vastly better than our national party counterparts.