It’s time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class.

[JA]

It’s time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

It’s time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure Trump won the votes of the wealthy like any other Republican. However, he bit deeply into lower to middle class white voters - - those commonly referred to as working class - - as evidenced by his winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He sure as heck didn't do so by rolling up massive turnout and unprecedented margins among the upper middle class.

[JA]

Badger,

While it is certainly true Trump made inroads into the lower and working class White populace, they were not his base. That's the point of the article. It wasn't to say he didn't improve among this demographic - because he did. But if you read news articles, watch TV, or even look at half of Atlas posts, it's about Trump's alleged White working class base. That's the myth they were disproving. And it's a very dangerous myth, which has led to articles like the one at National Review the WP highlighted...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Most Trump voters aren't necessarily Trump voters, but are simply Republicans who came out in force to vote for the Republican candidate for President. These results are to be expected for any generic GOP coalition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree with everything that's been said, but I personally find it more significant how much inroads T***p has made among the working-class, that what the profile of his typical voter is. Sure, Republicans are still by and large the party of the rich, but the fact that one of them, who embodies privilege and wealth more than any other, could win so much working-class support, is still utterly disheartening.

[JA]

Does data exist showing Trump had large increase in actual vote totals among low-income Whites? His percentage increase among this demographic may be attributable to a drop off in support for Clinton, rather than a surge in support for Trump. I haven't seen the data to know either way.

[Suburbia]

I agree with everything that's been said, but I personally find it more significant how much inroads T***p has made among the working-class, that what the profile of his typical voter is. Sure, Republicans are still by and large the party of the rich, but the fact that one of them, who embodies privilege and wealth more than any other, could win so much working-class support, is still utterly disheartening.

Democrats and leftists mock them, calling them "white cis privilege". What do you expect? Democrats could appeal to white working class voters like they did before.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Does data exist showing Trump had large increase in actual vote totals among low-income Whites? His percentage increase among this demographic may be attributable to a drop off in support for Clinton, rather than a surge in support for Trump. I haven't seen the data to know either way.

     I certainly believe that that was part of it. Clinton did not do a good job of appealing to low-income whites. She ignored areas where they were concentrated and paid less lipservice to their issues, which was an important factor that led to many moderate white Democrats and independents in the Midwest giving Trump serious consideration. If she ran a campaign that spoke directly to blue-collar voters and emphasized the issues that they were concerned about, Trump would have had a much harder time getting his foot in the door with that demographic.

[Mr. Morden]

It's funny how so many people have forgotten that even during the Republican primaries, Trump's appeal cut across economic and demographic lines among Republican voters.

Any successful candidate is going to have appeal that cuts across demographic lines.  But you've still got some groups that you do better with than others, and it's clear that Trump was putting up his biggest margins against Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio among voters without a college degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that last part is true.  People who actually vote in presidential primary elections tend to have higher education levels than those who don't.  But within that universe of presidential primary voters, Trump was heavily reliant on those without a college degree.  Look at the exit polls in, for example, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Virginia, just to pick three examples:

http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/illinois/exit/
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/massachusetts/exit/
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/virginia/exit/

Trump's support is inversely correlated with education level.  And I could pick any other states with primaries held before all the other candidates dropped out.  It's the same everywhere.  Trump did better in the primaries among voters with lower education levels than those with higher education levels.

Also, in the general election, when you compare Trump voters to Romney voters:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=252308.0

Trump did better than Romney among those making less than $50,000 and among those without a college degree, while he did worse than Romney among those making over $100,000 and those with a college degree.

college graduate
dem +2
gop -6
ind +4

not college graduate
dem -7
gop +4
ind +3

under $50k
dem -7
gop +3
ind +4

$50-100k
dem 0 change
gop -3
ind +3

over $100k
dem +3
gop -7
ind +4

The +/- is for the 2016 numbers minus the 2012 numbers, for the presidential nominee of that party.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's funny how so many people have forgotten that even during the Republican primaries, Trump's appeal cut across economic and demographic lines among Republican voters.

Any successful candidate is going to have appeal that cuts across demographic lines.  But you've still got some groups that you do better with than others, and it's clear that Trump was putting up his biggest margins against Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio among voters without a college degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that last part is true.  People who actually vote in presidential primary elections tend to have higher education levels than those who don't.  But within that universe of presidential primary voters, Trump was heavily reliant on those without a college degree.  Look at the exit polls in, for example, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Virginia, just to pick three examples:

http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/illinois/exit/
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/massachusetts/exit/
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/republican/virginia/exit/

Trump's support is inversely correlated with education level.  And I could pick any other states with primaries held before all the other candidates dropped out.  It's the same everywhere.  Trump did better in the primaries among voters with lower education levels than those with higher education levels.

Also, in the general election, when you compare Trump voters to Romney voters:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=252308.0

Trump did better than Romney among those making less than $50,000 and among those without a college degree, while he did worse than Romney among those making over $100,000 and those with a college degree.

college graduate
dem +2
gop -6
ind +4

not college graduate
dem -7
gop +4
ind +3

under $50k
dem -7
gop +3
ind +4

$50-100k
dem 0 change
gop -3
ind +3

over $100k
dem +3
gop -7
ind +4

The +/- is for the 2016 numbers minus the 2012 numbers, for the presidential nominee of that party.

I think it's possible that "better educated"(gag) voters might be just a bit more reluctant to admit to a pollster their vote for someone like Donald Trump. And just because you voted for Trump in the general election doesn't make you a Republican or even someone who necessarily likes Trump. This can just as easily be framed as being about how Hillary Clinton (and more precisely, the Obama-era Democratic Party - particularly toward the end of his Presidency) is utterly despised by unprecedented numbers of working class Americans (yes, yes, particularly white working class Americans, but note the collapse in turnout within minority communities, the anger of Sanders supporters - who, contrary to some narratives, are indeed disproportionately working class and thus, economically and socially marginalized -, and the defections to third parties across much of the Obama coalition).

It's not a good sign when an ostensibly left-of-center party's demographic trends, political positions, and cultural identity (and perceptions thereof) increasingly favor professionals in the economic, cultural, and political capitals of the country along with the related phenomenon of pressure groups who make having the Correct Stance on "their" issue(s) litmus tests for the party's candidates. This election was in so many ways a consequence of all of these factors.

[Mr. Morden]

I think it's possible that "better educated"(gag) voters might be just a bit more reluctant to admit to a pollster their vote for someone like Donald Trump.

It's possible, sure.  But then, any poll could be wrong, because certain demographics don't want to admit "X", or else there could be problems with sample selection, or anything else.  If we think there's a problem with polling on something, and that there's no easy way to correct for it, then we just shouldn't be relying on the polls to assess said something.  But that's not what's being done in the WaPo story quoted in the OP of this thread.  That story is in fact using polls to support a proposition, and so if we're going to believe the polls referenced there, then I'm not sure why we shouldn't also use the exit polls.

[All Along The Watchtower]

bumped as a friendly reminder.

[Young Conservative]

RINO Tom has been saying this since the election.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom has been saying this since the election.

Meh, I interject when I think someone is purposely misrepresenting either party's voters for their own agenda, but who cares?  If you don't like Trump (or like Trump), does it really matter *what kind* of voter got him in the White House?  Same shltty (or good) outcome.

[darklordoftech]

To determine who supported Trump, we should look at who voted for him in the primaries and compare those voters to other Republican primary voters.