Could the economic recovery explain Obama-Trump and Romney-Clinton voters?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Obama presided over an economic recovery, however the benefits of that recovery went primarily to the top 10% of the income distribution.

Could this explain why a segment of wealthier Romney voters opted for Clinton while an even larger segment of Obama voters opted for Trump? Those subset of Romney voters felt like their economic needs were being addressed during the recovery and wanted to continue on with the status quo. Meanwhile, the opposite was the case with working class Obama voters opting for a wildcard candidate like Trump.

There does seem to be evidence for this given that:
1. Obama-Trump voters saw the Democrats as being the Party of the wealthy (Source).
2. Romney-Clinton counties were especially affluent when it came to median home prices (Source).

[Virginiá]

1. Obama-Trump voters saw the Democrats as being the Party of the wealthy

That would truly be ironic for those voters to vote Republican because they think that the Republican Party is the party of the people. Say what you will about the Democratic Party, but the GOP is all-in for the wealthy and other moneyed interests.

[Technocracy Timmy]

1. Obama-Trump voters saw the Democrats as being the Party of the wealthy

That would truly be ironic for those voters to vote Republican because they think that the Republican Party is the party of the people. Say what you will about the Democratic Party, but the GOP is all-in for the wealthy and other moneyed interests.

Perhaps they were willing to roll the dice with Trump's populist rhetoric?

This 2 minute clip (it's time stamped) does seem to explain Trump's economic narrative very well and how it was able to play strongly with Obama-Trump voters.

[Virginiá]

Perhaps they were willing to roll the dice with Trump's populist rhetoric?

I suppose. I've always found it perplexing how so many grown adults could think a billionaire (?) whose home is literally gilded, perched atop his own tower in Manhattan and has a history of conning small businesses and other folks out of money could possibly be on their side.

I guess the answer is pretty simple, as usual - people put little thought into their decision and based most of it on emotion. Of the people who voted for him, the portion that actually switched or came out to vote just for him is small in comparison to the legions of Republicans who were always going to vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of who it was.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I agree that for many of these voters, they didn't look strongly in Trumps business record. But I think his economic narrative in the clip I linked probably best explains how he pulled in so many Obama voters particularly in the Midwest.

[Indy Texas]

I think the median voter likely didn't have a very good understanding of just what kind of a "businessman" Trump was.

They didn't understand, for example, that a lot of his money comes from licensing his name to other real estate developers to use on their own buildings, or from licensing it to companies who make things like Trump bottled water and Trump steaks.

He has been far more successful at playing a successful businessman on TV than actually being one in real life. But most people just saw the tall buildings and the private jets and figured, "Well, if he has all that, he must be doing something right!"

[Mr. Morden]

This reminds me of the question I posed in this thread from years ago:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=183672.0

Layered on top of the normal income divide between Dems and Republicans, is there also an incumbency effect, such that the wealthy favor stability, and so are more inclined towards the incumbent party, whereas poorer voters are more likely to embrace change, because they're not doing well under the current regime?

[SingingAnalyst]

To an extent, yes (though I question how "recovered" the economy is, and I'm glad you pointed out that the benefits of the recovery went primarily to the upper 10%).

It is easy to pigeonhole people based on social issues, but there is something to these issues. After all, a baker or florist who refused to cater to same-sex couples would have had no problem prior to 2015. Suddenly, it's an issue. However, the economy has a lot to do with it too. Former coal miners, now on welfare, who voted Trump were in fact voting their economic interests-- at least to the extent that they saw Obama-Clinton as taking their livelihood and giving it to rich Hollywood liberals (hyperbole, but I am talking about perception), and to the extent that Trump did, in fact, run to the left of Clinton on some economic issues. (The fact that the Trump administration has, like its precedessors, looked out primarily for the rich, is irrelevant in this context).

These are strange times indeed, when the richest Americans see voting Democrat as being in their best economic interests, and many of the rural poor feel the same about the GOP.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, the swing maybe ... but the top 10% were Trump's best group.

[SingingAnalyst]

I mean, the swing maybe ... but the top 10% were Trump's best group.

1. Are you sure about this? 2. Was the difference statistically significant? 3. Given that the state-by-state correlation between Trump's percentage and the percentage of adults 25+ with a bachelor's degree was -0.85, should we conclude that the correlation between education and income isn't (nearly) as strong as one might think? 4. So Appalachia, Hollywood, NYC, and northern VA were exceptions to the rule?

[Technocracy Timmy]

I mean, the swing maybe ... but the top 10% were Trump's best group.

I'm talking about the swing from wealthier Romney voters-Clinton and vice versa with working class Obama voters-Trump.

[Tekken_Guy]

Obama-Trump voters for sure.

Romney-Clinton voters didn't vote Hillary because of their economic status. It had more to do with the fears that Trump would be a fascist.