Trump voters are fairly well off

Trump voters’ median income exceeded the overall statewide median in all 23 states, sometimes narrowly (as in New Hampshire or Missouri) but sometimes substantially. In Florida, for instance, the median household income for Trump voters was about $70,000, compared with $48,000 for the state as a whole. The differences are usually larger in states with substantial non-white populations, as black and Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly Democratic and tend to have lower incomes. In South Carolina, for example, the median Trump supporter had a household income of $72,000, while the median for Clinton supporters was $39,000.


However, while Republican turnout has considerably increased overall from four years ago, there’s no sign of a particularly heavy turnout among “working-class” or lower-income Republicans. On average in states where exit polls were conducted both this year and in the Republican campaign four years ago, 29 percent of GOP voters have had household incomes below $50,000 this year, compared with 31 percent in 2012.

About 44 percent of Trump supporters have a college degree, compared to 29 percent for the nation as a whole.

That is from Nate Silver, by the way here is my conversation with Nate, transcript, audio, and video at the link.


A lot of closet Trump voters out there....

David Duke took the Republican party in Louisiana by surprise because he polled low before the election -- apparently, voters were ashamed to tell pollsters they were voting for Duke. That effect may be in play here too. Trump will benefit from being underestimated, and if he wins the shock effect will be magnified.

Duke University has a great basketball team and now Lacrosse is nationally ascendant.

What's your point?

He's saying no one wants to admit they're a Duke fan.

LOL, Heorogar belongs to the uneducated anti trump population.

About 44 percent of Trump supporters have a college degree, compared to 29 percent for the nation as a whole.

So we are basically back with the Romney dilemma - the election is about the Makers and the Takers. Only there are a lot of the latter and fewer of the former.

In the meantime, the smartest, hardest working, most successful people vote for Trump.

The most successful (highest income) people vote for Kasick, poor Repubicans don't vote. In primaries.

It's important to note from Silver's table, the primaries are being determined by voters that are above the median income for all parties. Even Sander's voter median income is $61K which is $5k above median for all households in the states shown.

re "It’s important to note from Silver’s table, the primaries are being determined by..."

More important to note that less than 20% of eligible voters are voting in these Republican Primaries.
Pretty sparse data for alleged numbers-guru Nate Silver to draw such broad conclusions.

Also, these sparse numbers come only from entrance/exit polls that are notoriously error prone.

Those polls are error prone when it comes to predicting election outcomes because their purpose is to understand voter demographics.

So it is the smarter, richer, whiter wing of the Republican part who have decided that the Republican party is shit, so might as well vote for a lunatic and hand Clinton the presidency. It's a statement for sure.

Well, the better off plumped for Trump mostly in New York, Massachusettes, and Vermont, whereas Trump did better among poorer Republicans in Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Tennessee.

My take is that rich east coasters are the problem. Figures. Most of the ridiculous bellyaching in this country comes from the coasts.

Maybe that's not it, but if there is an interesting story here, it's probably got a geographical component. But that's probably not what Nate is looking for.

This is indeed the most interesting take away from this.

'Lunatic' a little excessive, don't you think? He has positions you disagree with and that makes him a lunatic? I guess it is better than than racist, maybe you are making progress...

I'm not sure if this is lunatic or just acceptably crazy these days, but

The way I see it, Trump deserves a modicum of respect from most people at this point. Not that he (or Hillary) will get it.

The oft-criticized drawn-out Presidential selection process in the US has the virtue of really kicking the tires on a candidate. An 18-month long slog and grind. Can you imagine repeating the catechism several times a day day in/ day out for 500 days? Almost unlimited opportunity to majorly screw-up in front of a camera and microphone? The word 'insane' may be applicable to anyone willing to undergo this ordeal.

But...WINNING! It says something. about a candidate. Obama's defeat of Hillary in the 2008 Democratic contest was far and away the guy's most impressive achievement to that point. Trump's 10 million votes, in the teeth of united scorn and derision from media, academia, and the majority of the Republican establishment is at least as impressive.

But this is America. Back to the 'insane/crook' volleyball.

I think that's where Mark Cuban is coming from below. Never mind the game, he says, respect the score.

BTW, ask yourselves honestly, those of you who do support Trump: If I had asked you a year ago "will you be supporting an anti-vaxxer?" would you have said yes?

Ah well, perhaps it is my fault for asking, rather than his fault for saying "the doctors lied."

"But…WINNING! It says something. about a candidate. Obama’s defeat of Hillary in the 2008 Democratic contest was far and away the guy’s most impressive achievement to that point. Trump’s 10 million votes, in the teeth of united scorn and derision from media, academia, and the majority of the Republican establishment is at least as impressive."

Of course, but successfully surviving the nomination process and emerging as the victor has to be seen as possibly a necessary condition of being a successful political leader, not a sufficient condition. Trump has political skills in the same way that Bernie Madoff had money-making skills -- without broader context, it tells you very little about how much power and trust either man deserves. Trump's success says more about the quality of the Republican Party and its primary voters than it does about whether Trump has good ideas, the character of a responsible adult, the willingness to listen to policy advisers and basic honesty and decency.

@Ricardo, it's an achievement, it tells you something about the guy and his abilities. Just like Obama in the 2008 primaries.

Brian, if you say "just like" you are saying you see no difference in character revealed in the two wins.

@anon, please do not mistake your unwarranted inference for my implication.

Sorry, just looking for logical consistency in your argument. The Cuban/Donohue line is that "winning" is worthy of respect. Even when it comes as you claim your Primary opponent is connected to the JFK assassination. Am I right?

Politicians tell whoppers all the time. You shouldn't swallow marketing whole, from anyone. Not good for you.

I prefer to imagine what a politician would do in office to what they say to get elected. Experience tells me these are two very different things.

And I suppose if a candidate attacked other candidate's wives, that wouldn't help you "imagine" bad outcomes?

He's obviously also a racist. If you don't agree with that you are clearly not making progress.

What about misogyny? Obviously, right?

10 million Americans have voted for someone who is obviously an insane racist (misogynist?). This is your view.

Please repeat this in every thread in case I forget. Thanks.

Well, I believe I've read that Trump supports affirmative action, which is the explicit application of racial preference in admissions and hiring decisions. So given that, I guess I have to agree that he is obviously a racist.

Brian, yes, that is my view. And if he is just making it up, which I wouldn't put past him, then that is almost as bad.

Turkey, Trump will say literally any goddamn thing. How confident are you that Trump really supports affirmative action? And have you convinced yourself to vote for him yet?

Probably not. As long as Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate I can go that route as a protest vote and hope that with two widely-loathed main party candidiates, he will crack 10%.

But I hope Trump destroys the Republican party, and wish Bernie had it in him to destroy the Democratic party so that we could start fresh. And I don't think a Trump presidency would be so bad, as any over-the-top action on his part could easily lead to impeachment and removal. It would also possibly lead both Democrats and Republicans to believe in limiting Executive power at the same time, and to bipartisan efforts to reestablish Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

A class of aspirational billionaires support Trump?

Reagan Democrats may have existed a generation ago, but today finding Reagan Republicans has become a real challenge of its own.

One does have to wonder how age plays into this - a 24 year old supporter of Sanders is statistically going to have a much lower income than a 57 year old supporter of Trump yearning for the good old days. For example, the ones before the trade deals, where a hat saying 'Make America Great Again' would not be made in China.

'But the classification misses the implications of age for income. Households are by no means locked into the same quintile over time. Young educated households with professional skills and aspirations will typically move into the higher earning brackets during their financial life cycles. Households dependent on income from unskilled labor and service employment will not see the same financial progress over the years.

So let's review the household income data another way, this time focusing on the incomes by the age bracket.' -

Particularly revealing is this chart, with median household income by age -

One does have to wonder how age plays into this – a 24 year old supporter of Sanders is statistically going to have a much lower income than a 57 year old supporter of Trump yearning for the good old days.

Indeed. Weird that Silver does not address this.

>For example, the ones before the trade deals, where a hat saying ‘Make America Great Again’ would not be made in China.

They aren't.

But why would you start being right about something now? A perfect record of being wrong about everything for your entire life is on the line. Why do you keep drooling out your insipid comments here? You just always wind up being BTFO.

I love watching learned pundits twist into contortions to explain the Trump phenomenon, which they've been trying their darnedest to make disappear: Trump supporters are just angry, poor-white-trash yokels, whoops okay actually they're not. Primary voters will be massively turned off by Trump's immigration policy, whoops okay that actually seems to be what's attracting them. Trump's support will now fizzle out once and for all because he just said X, whoops that actually only seems to have made him stronger. And Nate Silver? Isn't he now largely known as the former golden-boy who consistently managed to get everything wrong about Trump? Why is anyone still listening to him?

Ann Coulter or George Will. Choose your party.

It's all tribal politics now. Marc Cuban on Donald Trump Being the Republican Nominee

The people complaining about Trump should have started complaining about the Democrats building identity coalitions 30 years ago. Folks like George Will whined about it, but did nothing to stop it. Now they are being moved aside because while you might have some ideologues running policy behind the scenes, there's no need for an ideological message in politics anymore. It's tribal, it's rhetoric.

Interesting clip. The campaign about nothing.

The Democrats are still running a very conventional candidate though. A symmetrical conventional contest would be Hillary vs Jeb. As opposed to Berie vs Donald in an unconventional but symmetrical contest.

I suppose we could do if-thens on 2020 based on a presumed win. If Trump somehow won with Cuban calls "no substance whatsoever" it would be an interesting question.

No, a conventional candidate would be Martin O'Malley, ticket-puncher from Maryland. The intramural culture of the Democratic Party is absolutely rancid at all levels, but the mass of Democratic pols have yet to descend to the level of criminality, contempt, and pointless ambition that Hellary manifests.

^ tribalism

When you had Hispanic Democrats facing off Asian Democrats in California a few years ago over university quotas, that should have been a wake-up call. When a party bases itself on ethnic identity bloc voting, you will end up with Hutus and Tutsi or Waloons and Flemings at least.

At least or at last? If "at least", I shudder to think about the more dire consequences!!!

"Shudder"? And you call yourself a Viking?

Signed, Thor

Unsurprising. He is the 0.01%.

Shouldn't we at least check if average household size and/or average number of working adults per household varies significantly between each group? Two candidates may have voters with the same median household income, but if one candidate's voters are twice as likely to live in two-earner households (or, alternatively, to be single), then we are dealing with people in very different circumstances. A family of four with two full-time adult workers making $50k each, and a family of four with a sole breadwinner making $100k, have the same household income but probably very different experiences and feelings about trade, immigration, etc.

And these numbers would be useful how?

The myth of the working class Trump voter has to be destroyed so that well-off american liberals can continue to detest everything about these people while minimizing the cognitive dissonance. They know they are supposed to care about the "working class." Making it "white working class" helps, but still, there's "working class" right in front of them. Now, if Silver can expose this myth, his readers can go back to safely dismissing this group as a bunch of racist white people who are actually pretty well off, and can continue to hate everything about their lives, beliefs and culture.

'Now, if Silver can expose this myth, his readers can go back to safely dismissing this group as a bunch of racist white people who are actually pretty well off, and can continue to hate everything about their lives, beliefs and culture.'

Well, this could certainly be a pithy summary of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's worldview, right? Or somebody's, at least, who disloyally questions how Trump will lead America into greatness.

One hour ago: "Palin will work to defeat Ryan in primary for Trump stance"

Dumpster fire.

What's wrong with defeating Ryan? His position in the Republican Party is a consequence of Capitol Hill politics. He does not have any popular base outside his Wisconsin district and he's at odds with the Republican base on a crucial issue (while adhering, quite explicitly, to the notion that policies favored by Republican voters are 'not what the Republican Party stands for). Eric Cantor was unceremoniously dispatched without incident.

Sarah Palin will work to defeat House Speaker Paul Ryan by backing his primary opponent in Wisconsin. She is talking about "primarying" him. I will go out on a limb and say that I expect Palin's pick to be less connected to reality than Ryan. I expect a primaried seat to be less useful for general governance and progress.

Progress, I tell you! !!!!!! Make more laws now!!!!

"The myth of the working class Trump voter..."

It is very well-documented that higher income tends to correlate with economically conservative views and voting Republican. And, indeed, there is no credible evidence that Trump has won the nomination by mobilizing large numbers of low-income primary voters. There is really nothing surprising or controversial about this to anyone who pays attention.

So, it is Silvers' fault it is a myth, right? I guess it can seem so if you profit by spreading it.

Seems like it is Silver who is trying to profit by "debunking" a myth without ever showing that the "working class" of myth lines up with his definition. He could have called it "The Mythology of Trump's Support Among Poor Households," in line with the actual data he used. But that wouldn't get the same clicks or advance his preferred narrative.

Working bring the operative term here.

I mean, Trump and his supporters are doing all the hating these days. But thanks for the misdirection.

I've consumed plenty of media implying or explicitly stating terrible things about anyone who would vote for or otherwise support Trump. There is an unhinged amount of hate for them. The idea that some guy who has never had a candidate express his policy preferences - say curtailing immigration (or just illegal immigration) and protectionism - and who votes for Trump hoping that he actually means what he has said on thesr issues is basically a Nazi who must be bashed at every opportunity for his hateful ways is crazy.

And hatred for rural whites and/or the white working class is not a post-Trump phenomenon among american liberals.

"The idea that some guy who has never had a candidate express his policy preferences – say curtailing immigration..."

And making sure no Muslims come into the U.S. (At least until Congress can figure out what's going on.)

If we look at NAM crime data, all Trump did was state statistical facts.

If we look at welfare rolls or Obamacare, we would certainly find Democrats give lots of state money to blacks.

If we look at the state of Muslim immigration throughout the west, especially Europe tight now, certainly a ban would make sense for all sorts of easily defendable reasons.

Go try to be a citizen or on welfare in Mexico as a gringo. The left is insane

Original D and Mark, Neither point counters what I've said. A voter can believe Trump went overboard on both statements but still support him because Trump is the only one expressing his policy preferences on immigration and trade. It would be pretty irrational to vote for someone who doesn't espouse your policy preferences as a reaction to that.

Also, Original D, I took Trump's point in that remark to be that the kind of people who illegally immigrate will tend to be worse, and more likely to be criminal. Given that legal immigration puts roadblocks in the paths of criminals who want to immigrate, this seems almost certain to be the case. Did referring to rape and drug dealers fear-monger? Sure, just as the common media/Anti-Trump spin that he said all Mexicans are rapists is fear-mongering.

I think religions should be treated like any other ideology. If you oppose resticting immigration on the basis of religion, I think consistency would require opposing restrictions based on political ideology. So, you should oppose any current (or historical) immigration restrictions based on, say, affiliation with the Nazi or Communist Party. I can't really say how I feel about that, but I don't think religion deserves its own special level above what are often essentially secular faiths.

It's interesting. There are those of us who said long ago Trump was a risk because you didn't know what his positions really were. We regarded him as too all over the map to be trusted.

How are you feeling this morning, with higher taxes for the rich? Support for a state-set minimum wage? Those are actually pretty moderate positions, and I might support them if I trusted them, but how do you feel?

I support higher taxes on the rich and believe states and localities should deal with minimum wage issues rather than the federal government. They can experiment as laboratories of democracy and economists can try to determine whether the oft-predicted effects occurred.

Well, if that is now a Republican position, revealed by the primary, it will be interesting. Though perhaps Hillary wins, tries to do the same, and Congress says "Trump was a RINO and loser, forget about it."

It is far from a rare position among Republican voters. They aren't all rich and they don't all like big business.

@Turkey Vulture: "And hatred for rural whites and/or the white working class is not a post-Trump phenomenon among american liberals."

True. But the hatred is mutual and always has been so the moral balance between the two is a wash.

Also, anyone "who votes for Trump hoping that he actually means what he has said on thesr [sic] issues" isn't a Nazi to be feared and loathed, but a sad, desperate fool to be pitied. Trump doesn't give a shit about rural whites or the white working class or the Republican party or anyone else but Trump. He isn't doing this for them or you. He's doing it for himself. He is a narcissist and an opportunist of the first order. As soon as he thinks he doesn't need them anymore, he's going to sell out those fools to secure his power with the D.C. establishment. Within six months of taking office, he'll be spouting the same GOP boilerplate that Cruz, Rubio, Romney, or any of the rest of them would have.

Fubar, I wouldn't say it is a wash, since the liberals base much of their morality on supposed tolerance and a supposed desire to help the lower orders. I don't think there is such a pretense among the rural/working-class whites with regards to the well-off liberals. Also, between the two groups, I think the liberals have more economic, cultural and political power, a situation which that same liberal might find to be intrinsically immoral if the ones lower down on the ladder weren't poorer white people.

On your latter point, I don't think they're any more foolish to trust Trump than pretty much anyone else who runs for the Presidency, and almost certainly anyone else who manages to be nominated by either main Party. All are narcissists who are willing to say and do all sorts of things just to get that sweet taste of power and glory. There are occasional true believers who run (say a Ron Paul, maybe Pat Buchanan but I was young at the time), but their true belief dooms them because they can't bend enough to actually create the broader tent necessary to win.

And even a voter who 100% believes that Trump will turn his back on every promise and become just another globalist corporatist like a Romney 2.0 could still reasonably vote for him as an attempt to show support for Trump's stated preferences. Again, if no one else states your policy preferences, and an opportunist comes through and finally states them as a means to gain power while fully intending to betray you once that power is achieved, it still remains your best option to vote for the guy who is going to betray you, as a signal to a more genuine politician that there is a base of support there to be mined. It does more for you than voting for someone who has already rejected your policy preferences. Even if Trump will govern like a Romney (or, say, a Hillary), a voter that likes what Trump says about trade and immigration now would rationally vote for him rather than vote for a Romney/Hillary, even if the final policy result is the same regardless.

I'll point out that the Nazi party in 1933, says historian Allan Bullock, also got most of their votes from well-to-do middle class votes and across religious lines (not just the poor or Protestants)

Godwin's law in action within 25 comments

Also, the vast majority of Nazi voters were white. The parrallels are getting eerie.

They even had German sounding names, able to trace their roots back to German towns or cities.

I thought Hitler waited until AFTER the election to propose the ID badges. No?

Oh. And you said "Nazi" about a political figure. Please self report to the local mental hospital. Thought shalt not remember history.

I think Iraq and Afghanistan serve rather well for the Munich analogy, but obviously a fair few things are different. Among other things, America seems to prefer a marginalist approach so that no one will really notice. And ... maybe is a lot better in pulling off false flags and/or making it look like someone else always started it.

Personally, I don't fell like it's right to beat a pipsqeak to death if they knock me in the balls. Surely, "do nothing" is not the appropriate reaction. But steamroll the whole family, their friends, whoever does not largely do my bidding, etc.?

Well, there ARE lots of people in the USA who are pretty smart, understand that you need a big stick, but don't want to use it unless strictly necessary, and also have the tact and faux humility to not go bossing the world around. Some people think they threaten American interests, other people see them as the best hope for preventing unnecessarily aggressive actions by the USA.

No. I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-stupid, anti-bullshit wars and couldn't care less about next quarter's dividends for LH Martin et al. Build schools, not bombs.

To compare Trump to Hitler/Nazis requires forgetting a vast amount of history.

There should be a requirement before anyone compares Trump to Hitler that they should first explain why he isn't Berlusconi, who is a more apt comparison and proved not to be Hitler.

I don't believe Trump would ever engage in any kind of ethnic cleansing.

I do believe he would try to silence the media that disagrees with him, as he made clear in his Washington Post interview.

Crocodile tears from the platform-denying, shout-out sjw left.

Even if true, how would a comparison to Hitler be in any way useful, except to fear-monger? There are plenty of other leaders who have tried to muzzle the opposition press, including in U.S. history. Various forms of campaign finance reform and hate speech restrictions that are supported in our own country could be used to muzzle opposition.

No. I do not believe that either. However, it is not clear to me that he is willing to stand up to those who agitate in such directions.

Are you even capable of honesty?

Nevermind that the 4th amendment hardly exists anymore PRIOR to Nazi Socialist End of World Trump going on board. And yet every yokel freaks out about the 2nd...

I can see why the US is so fond of Saudi Arabia as most Republicans would like to form another Theocracy also :)

I hope you don't think this is clever. Ask one of your low-information friends about iq, crime, hours worked by income percentile, etc. You morons are dogmatic to the core.

Alan Bullock's book, "Hilter and Stalin: Parallel Lives": The highest levels of support [for the Nazi party in the 1930 and 1932 elections] came from upper and upper-middle class districts. The more affluent the area, the greater the likelihood of support for the Nazis, especially in some urban areas. In summary terms, the bourgeois’ parties’ share of the vote came close to being halved in 1930 and halved again in July 1932. By contrast, as the table shows, the Catholic Centre Party held its own, and while the SPD’s (Socialist) share of the vote was eroded, the KPD (Communist) was the only other party besides the Nazis to raise its percentage, strongly suggesting that the majority of the SPD’s losses were to the Communists. If the vote for the two working- class parties is combined, it holds remarkably steady during these Depression years when the working class suffered an unprecedented level of unemployment. ¬The denominational division of Germany was more important than its social stratification. The Nazis attracted a large part of the church- going population in the Protestant parts of the country; much less in the Catholic areas (including Bavaria) until after Hitler came to power and signed the Concordat with the Vatican in the summer of 1933. It was also in the Protestant rather than the Catholic parts of Germany that the Nazis — with their emphasis on traditional family life, Kinder, Kircbe, Kiicbe (Children, Church and Kitchen) — in 1930 expanded their vote among women, for the first time. The different regions of Germany showed wide variations in September 1930. The highest percentage of Nazi voters was to be found in the Protestant and agricultural districts of north and east Germany, such as Schleswig—Holstein, Pomerania and East Prussia. They also did very well in districts with a mixed economy of agriculture and small-scale industry, such as Lower Silesia-Breslau and Chemnitz-Zwiclcau. ¬The Nazis did much less well in urban, heavy-industrial or Catholic areas, such as Berlin, North Westphalia and Lower Bavaria. The two regions which proved the most resistant to their appeal were Upper Silesia and Wfirttemberg, both with a predominantly industrial economy and strong religious ties. Within this broad general picture, much research has been done on the electoral sociology of particular districts, producing at least a provisional answer to the question: Who voted for the Nazis?

Hitler was a non-practicing Catholic.

"Subsequently the constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities; and by 1932 the stream of peasant deserters to Hitler's party had become a torrent. Many rural labourers, often influenced by the estate managers, voted for the NSDAP in July 1932. Indeed, the scale of agrarian support for the party in that election suggests the Nazis were able not only to win the support of peasants and rural labourers but also that of some large landowners."

"For many years the Nazi movement was seen as a political response of the German Mittelstand (lower middle class) of small businessmen, independent artisans, small shopkeepers and the self-employed, to the threats coming from big business and large retail stores, from the trade unions, the SPD and the KPD, and from increased government interference and taxes to pay for Weimar's burgeoning welfare state. In many respects it was such a response -- in its combination of anti-socialist and anti-big business rhetoric, and in its social support. The lower middle class of Germany's Protestant towns did constitute the hard-core of Nazi support and were over-represented in the membership of the NSDAP."

"More contentious has been the relationship between workers and the Nazi Party. Recent research has revised the impression of working-class immunity to Nazism: around 55 per cent of SA stormtroopers came from working-class backgrounds and the Nazis made substantial gains from working-class communities in parts of Saxony, especially around Chemnitz. Around 40 per cent of members of the Party seem to have been of working-class origins; similarly 40 per cent of the Nazi vote came from workers and one worker in every four voted for Hitler in July 1932."

There can be no doubt that the NSDAP recruited across a broad social spectrum. However, its support was not random. We have already noted the over-representation of Protestants, rural areas and small provincial towns, as well as of the Mittelstand, in Nazi support and there was a similar structure to the movement's working-class constituency. The working class, however, was under-represented in the Nazi ranks when compared to the German population as a whole."

I think the correct distinction is 'working class' as a _class_ distinction, rather than an income distinction. Education is a strong predictor of support for Trump, rather than income.

Factory workers, tradesmen, etc can make good money, but they are looked down on by the punditocracy as belonging to a different, and somehow lower, class. They're also the main losers wrt to immigration, globalization, etc.

You're correct. The class difference could be described as "blue collar/white collar" but there's a better divide. What has generally been referred to as "white collar" is a class of people that operate in a dimension of literacy. What they do is directly involved with alphabetical characters, though often in a manner that requires minimal thinking, completing government forms, for instance. Their non-literacy counterparts, usually termed "blue collar", instead deal with objects and their manipulation. These people are carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers, butchers, etc. Alphabetical characters have little to do with reducing a steer into cuts of meat. The great misconception, even among members of both classes, is that the literacy workers exhibit a greater intelligence than the manipulators. This is patently untrue, the intellectual difficulty in laying out parallel piping offsets, for instance, is much greater than filling out a sales order for the pipe itself.

The point is that people that deal with alphabetical characters are erroneously assumed to be more intelligent than people that manipulate objects and, in our society, are somehow superior to them. While the ideas that black people are inferior to white people or cripples are inferior to the whole are no longer accepted by general society, the self-appointed elites are still able to socially elevate the supposedly more intelligent over their less literate brethren, without being accused of bigotry.

In pre-literate societies there was no such division, being there was no "white collar" function. People were judged on the content and usefulness of their thinking and achieved their status in society on the basis of their actual intelligence.

Chiming in to agree with this distinction and to suggest that Chuck Martel's point deserves a lot more thought and analysis than it's getting. There's an implicit understanding among many folks of the concept of class as separate from education and income, however little work is being dome to measure it.

A lot of this rings true. A lot of white collar work is monkey work. It takes more intellectual horsepower to figure out what is wrong with my car than to review documents. But the doc reviewer likely feels himself to be in a class above the lowly mechanic, and freely insults him.

'In pre-literate societies there was no such division, being there was no “white collar” function. People were judged on the content and usefulness of their thinking and achieved their status in society on the basis of their actual intelligence.'

The concept of 'shaman' says something to you, right?

"These people are carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers, butchers, etc."

I agree with you that this is what comes to a lot of people's minds when they think of "blue collar" but it is increasingly inaccurate. If "working class" or "blue collar" means anything at all, it has to include janitors, cashiers, fast food employees, baristas, clerical staff, sales people at malls and department stores, call center/telemarketer workers, waitstaff, and other such occupations in the service sector. The important thing to note about these sorts of jobs is that they don't pay much and don't require a college degree -- which means they should qualify as "blue collar" under any reasonable definition -- and they are also increasingly filled by people who are not white and/or not male. When people say Trump appeals to the "working class," what they really mean is that he slightly appeals to a very small segment of the working class made up mostly of white men who earn incomes that are often comparable to what some young college graduates earn.

To be fair to Tyler, he titled his post objectively. It is Nate Silver who makes claims about the "working class" without defining this term or supporting his definition with data.

Trump average voters will always have a higher income group income average because

These statistics did not control for race.

If you controlled for race, Trump's black supporters average income for that group would be over $500,000.

I am sure that's what Dr. Ben makes,

Including book sales

I believe Azealia Banks makes a bit more than that.

The myth is that Trump is the horrible candidate and the voters ignored stronger ones like Cruz, Rubio or Bush that the 'wise' establishment had backed. The fact is that they were all empty suits and Trump simply took a party that has collapsed intellectually and ran with it.

The fact is that they were all empty suits

To anyone remotely familiar with Ted Cruz, the description 'empty suit' sounds unreal. It's peculiar applied to Bush as well, who's a policy wonk who knows just what he thinks and had a long career in real estate and banking in addition to politics.

The real problem here is the utter vacuity of partisan Democrats. You have no ideas any more, just a hat full of cookie-cutter insults.

Oh they have ideas. All of their ideas come from the basic principle that their descretion is superior to that of others. From this flows all of their edicts: that prices should be changed, that wealth needs to be taken and distributed via their whim, that others need to follow their behavioral decrees.

They have ideas, or maybe an idea and it is very powerful.

Paranoia as a key to personal politics.

The current left and right mainstream media definition of "experience" is the proven ability to spend other people's money on projects with questionable ROI, without feeling shame.

As Florida and Texas are fairly well governed states (reluctant to spend low ROI money), that taints the 3 above candidates as empty suits to a certain extent.

Community organizing, on the other hand, probably has negative ROI, so Barry was not an empty suit.

Still, just like Michelle O's position ($300K/year?) that was abandoned after 2008 does not seem that different from Heidi C's position, namely buying a senator.

So sad, the arc of Art's comment would be so much better with Jeb as the nominee. So much would be different with Jeb as a nominee. No one would be complementing the candidate by saying he was running an election about nothing, no substance whatsoever.

But the real problem is the Democrats, as the Republicans run Trump.

Freud called it projection.

Nah just hypocritical partisanship. If Trump were running as the Democrat he basically is at heart, Art would be ripping him apart and have given him some childish nickname too. So would many other posters here.

So how does this square with the credit score data posted before? That had trump voters with lower credit scores than everyone else. So Trump voters are faux rich that leverage everything to drive that corvette? Or is one of the data sets garbage?

Silver's analysis is interpolated from exit polls which offer the following income ranges as options:
- Under $30,000
- $30,000 - $49,999
- $50,000 - $99,999
- $100,000 - $199,999
- Over $200,000

He also makes no attempt to figure out the actual income of the individual voter, just the household income. If a husband and wife both work and make $35,000 each, we might tend to call them working class. But their household income is $70,000, which according to Silver, is not working class.

But my guess would be that both data sets and analyses are garbage.

Well that formatting didn't work out. In case it isn't clear: (under $30,000); ($30,000 - $49,999); ($50,000 - $99,999); ($100,000 - $199,999); (Over $200,000).

$70,000 is above median household income ($53,657 as of 2014, by the way). If you want to define "working class" in such a way that it quite possibly applies to a majority of the American population, you are welcome to do so but you should have some sort of support for your definition.

I am an unpaid internet commenter responding to an opinion leader's piece entitled "The Mythology of Trump's Working Class Support," in which he fails to provide support for his definition.

But basing the classification on household income makes no sense. It doesn't account for either (1) the type of work performed or (2) the actual financial situation of that household. If $50,000 were the cutoff, then you'd say that the couple in my example making a combined $70,000 when married are not working class, but that if they get divorced they both become working class even though they continue to work precisely the same jobs. You would similarly call the combined couple non-working class regardless of whether they had zero, four, or eight children.

A definition based on national median income also captures people who quite literally do not work for their income: retirees, people on SSDI, etc. It would also include the vast majority of people in professional schools and PhD programs.

Along whatever fault lines, the GOP is splitting.

Max Boot, longtime Reagan Republican: The Republican Party is dead

Such a weird trope. Every election cycle, one or the other party is dead.

I think it is usually dead after the election, not after the nomination.

Max Boot, member in good standing of the Podhoretz circle. He was 15 years old during Mr. Reagan's last campaign.

The Podhoretz circle have their good points and bad points. They have a few signatures, one of which is an affection for open borders. Tamar Jacoby, their principal writer on immigration matters, is quite explicit that the source of this affection is Ellis Island schmaltz. They're never going to publish something defending anyone who argues for immigration control.

The GOP establishment is dead! Long live the GOP establishment!

Does he compare Trump voters to Cruz voters to Kasich voters? How does this stack up against the ordinary participant in Republican primaries?

Exactly, comparing to national averages is kind of silly. Should be comparing to other primary voters.

Next up, a statistical analysis of TC posts on Trump vs Hillary! vs the Bern.

Don't you dare take Jeb!'s exclamation point and give it to the vile Hillary.

Trump's support has been quite broad across demographic categories. On the other hand, his unique, pungent personality generates strong pro and con reactions at the individual level within each demographic slot. So he may trouble generating very large returns out of traditional GOP slots like white married men because a lot of guys just don't like him.

I like him fine, as the hero of shows I don't watch.

I like Trump a lot, he's entertaining and a classic American huckster made good. Got no problem with him as that. Got a big problem with him as president, or even as a major party nominee.

Fairly well off? Maybe before taxes and education debt payments.

Comments for this post are closed