Flex wrote:Just utterly damning:
Obama won only voters with household incomes under $50,000, but he did it overwhelmingly, 60–38, and lost all higher-income groups — a class warrior after all! Clinton won those lower-income voters by only 52–41. So yes, she won, but with an eleven-point decline in the Democrats’ advantage.
For voters with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, the numbers change very little: 46–50 for Obama, 46–52 for Clinton. But go over $100,000, and things get interesting again. Romney won those well-off voters handily, 54–44, as Republicans generally do. Trump barely hung on at about 48–47. That’s a nine-point gain for the Democrats.
Clinton was much weaker than Obama with union-household voters: he won them 58–40, she only 51–43. That’s a sixteen-point loss.
Full article:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/dona ... ing-class/
(The whole article is quite good)
Heh, it quoted the same passage from Rorty that I did this morning.
Anyway, yes, the bulk of this comes down to both parties ignoring and abusing the working class and lower middle class (and creating more of them from the middle class) for the past 35 years (at least). Thru the primaries, the Democrats went status quo and the Republicans had forced on them a critic of the status quo, and so by the election there was only one option for the frustrated. If there's hopeful news, it's that the young mostly resisted Trump, so there's still an opportunity there. Trump won fewer votes than either Romney or McCain, and if his supporters are older, that's necessarily a shrinking demo. The frustrated/populist voter is still going to up for grabs in two and four years because things are not going to turn around in that time. The worst thing the Democrats can do is be Garrison Keillor and smugly cultivate tomatoes or whatever the fuck he said and post pictures of Obama that say, "Miss me yet?" This is about a complete overhaul and repudiation of several decades of liberal convention.