Maybe (even if I must refer to 2008 to express a trend that began earlier) we can address poverty itself and ethnicity as they interact in voting.
Of course, in 2008 the correlation between income and voting was practically nil. Regional and ethnic differences mattered more. Poorest communities tended to be in the South, and without surprise those poor communities with largely-black, Hispanic, or Native-American populations voted strongly for Obama -- but very poor white communities in Appalachia voted overwhelmingly for McCain.
According to the New York Times'
(which applies to 2008), counties with median incomes up to $34,128 voted 50-49 for McCain, and those above that cut-off voted 53-46 for Obama. This contradicts the old political wisdom that poor people were more likely to vote for Democrats because they expected to get more goodies from a "nanny state". That device shows trends that have continued from 2000 to now.
Note well, however, that poverty is heavily concentrated in the American South... and that most of the poor, contrary to a common myth, are white people. Poor white people seem to vote very differently from poor black, Hispanic, or Native American people. The county with the lowest median income in the United States is Buffalo County, South Dakota -- and it voted 73-25 for Obama. It is on an Indian reservation. Relatively few counties have populations predominantly of American Indians... but they voted for Obama. The second-poorest county in median income was Owsley County, Kentucky.. and it voted 62-36 for McCain. It is predominately white. Third-poorest by this standard is Starr County, Texas, a county on the Mexican border, and with a heavily-Hispanic population. It voted for Obama 75-24. Obama does not claim Hispanic or Native American origin, so voting for Obama isn't a vote for someone of shared ethnic heritage. Fourth-poorest is McDowell County, West Virginia... probably in coal country. It voted 68-31 for Obama... I'd like to know what the economic activity is. If the people are unionized coal miners who underwent mass layoffs or had a long and ugly strike, then one would have an explanation.
It's not until the seventh-poorest county in median income, Wilcox County, Alabama that one has a county with a large African-American population (72%), and it voted 71-29 for Obama, likely along the ethnic split.
At a median income of $23,415 one finds that counties with populations below that threshold 54-45 for Obama... but one can notice some patterns. First, almost all of the poorest counties in America are in the former Confederacy or in southeastern Kentucky. Those from Arkansas and Louisiana to South Carolina are largely-black, and they voted heavily for Obama even if they were in states that voted heavily against Obama. Those in Texas are heavily Hispanic and are close to the Mexican border, and they voted heavily for Obama. If all poor people in America were to turn white and vote like poor whites in southeastern Kentucky as they did in 2008, then the Republicans could reliably win in landslides. Ethnicity mattered far more than did income.
The drift toward the GOP in the South seems well marked among poor white people who seem no longer to see poverty as a cause for voting Democratic. Maybe the GOP has wisely chosen to avoid imposing the most draconian measures against the poor -- measures that might cause hunger or force people into some modern form of peonage, or shove them into the Democratic Party. Maybe the Democrats have abandoned discussion of poverty
per se as a dangerous third rail of politics.
The Democratic nominees for President in 2000 and 2004 talked little about alleviating the plight of the poor. Their rhetoric effectively abandoned poor whites who used to vote reliably for Democrats -- at least as late as 1996. In 2008, Obama did discuss poverty -- but not so much structural poverty of people who endured Third World conditions in a largely-prosperous society -- but instead the threat of poverty that faced people who saw themselves on the brink of asset devaluation and mass layoffs. White people who feared an economic meltdown ended up voting for Obama -- but those already poor for decades -- voted for McCain.
Poverty is a third rail of American politics. Most contemporary politicians evade the issue of poverty as an ugly topic that reminds people of what they dread personally. During eight years of the most plutocratic Presidency in at least 70 years, poverty intensified as more of the GDP went to fewer people and asset-formation among the middle class being drawn into assets whose values would eventually plummet. But even if it is a third rail, poverty remains an issue that politicians will eventually need to address. The Democrats failed to remind Americans that they are their brothers' keepers and the Republicans kept quiet and did nothing rash to the poor over eight years. Why should the Republicans bring up the "third rail" issue if the other Party doesn't?
Poor white people are in no lesser distress than are poor black or poor Hispanic people.
