Clinton Won The Economy

Here’s a interesting breakdown of the Trump-Clinton vote from Jim Tankersley at the Washington Post.

According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy.

That’s another way of saying city versus rural, more educated versus less educated and so forth but it’s an interesting way of thinking about cities, geography and the division in US politics.

Comments

I'm from Chicago. Every year, the city harvests another crop of the best and brightest from throughout the American rural midwest.

You don't even have to include "rural". All the smartest people I grew up with in suburban St. Louis have moved to greener pastures (LA, SF, NY, DC, Chicago) save a few who are doctors now. I'm fairly certain that Detroit routes all of their best and brightest to Chicago with a 4 year stop off at U Mich.

Please, Chicago is for State grads. Michigan grads go to Silicon Valley.

Michigan grads go to Silicon Valley....to work for Illinois grads.

Who in turn are working for Stanford grads.

I report to no one.

The Limited Partners in your active investment funds would beg to differ.

All who, in turn, work for a University of Chicago dropout: The Samurai of Woodside

A few stay in the midwest to work for Northwestern grads.

Yes, but she didn't get the 81% of the evangelical vote that Donald Trump got;

She didn't get all of the South (except for Va) that Trump did.

The South and Evangelicals are what will make America Great Again!

Leave you liberties at the door, Libertarians.

Wipe those tears off your face. Save some for the midterms.

Did I forget to include farmers who live off of federal price supports and ethanol mandates.

How foolish, but thank you for reminding me Sam.

Your tears are sweeter than high fructose corn syrup.

Agreed, they are delicious.

A lot of salt from the 'winners' !

High fructose corn syrup prices are higher than competitive prices due to bans on imported sugar, benefiting beet and cane producers, so your comments are apt.

Let's keep prices high for our farmers. They vote Republican for their subsidies.

These are extremely sore winners. They have to keep bashing everyone who didn't vote for Trump, even after he won. They are incapable of happiness. Their most only emotion is anger. They're addicted to their own adrenaline and to the habit of liberal bashing.

The Devil had an orgy with trolls and the id, and thus Donald Trump was born.

People are aggregating in strange dimensions. If you aggregate at the voter level, Clinton easily won lower income bands whilst trump narrowly won high income bands. This cities vs rural thing is deceptive because Clinton's strongest performance was with the lowest income city dwellers.

https://s12.postimg.org/o0xoykrml/Cw1_305_XEAAd_MTZ.jpg

I think that was the point. That those from other parts of the country were being left out of the economy due to US economic, finance, and trade policies. And they want that changed so they can be part of a larger part of the economy.

Yes, and for an even darker perspective, the Economist on Illness as indicator.

"The data suggest that the ill may have been particularly susceptible to Mr Trump’s message. According to our model, if diabetes were just 7% less prevalent in Michigan, Mr Trump would have gained 0.3 fewer percentage points there, enough to swing the state back to the Democrats. Similarly, if an additional 8% of people in Pennsylvania engaged in regular physical activity, and heavy drinking in Wisconsin were 5% lower, Mrs Clinton would be set to enter the White House. But such counter-factual predictions are always impossible to test. There is no way to rerun the election with healthier voters and compare the results."

Yea screw those Trump voters for reacting empathetically to health issues around them.

The left is going to figure out if they really want to play this game because the left completely relies on a black community awash in social pathology and disease.

Isn't it funny how just a few short weeks ago talking about "compassion" was "value signalling" to be opposed.

No compassion is good. What's louche and worthy of contempt is low status people such as your self advertising their supposed compassion in order to bolster their status.

Trump voters looked at those suffering around them and voted for the candidate willing to make the tough decisions necessary to reverse these trends they didn't go around advertising how compassionate they are.

These distinctions are more subtle than you are capable of grasping so I'm not going to accuse you of playing dumb on this one. Thought is clearly pretty difficult for you poor dear.

LOL at Sam thinking he's so devastating, Again, does this ever work for you?

You erupt in rage at about half my posts so yea I'd say it does. Your red face and spittle flecked keyboard are pretty good evidence.

Cheers

Truly, I am enraged beyond description.

That was obviously a crazy response, but what's weird is that milder forms of it are prevalent on the right. Basically it is some kind of Fight Club Rule that no one talks about morality or ethics. The Right is (or was) the side of Personal Responsibility, but no one should talk about what personal responsibility actually is, or how it should extend to our fellow man.

As far as Trump, there is the curiosity that he won with net negative approval. For that and his lack of actual plans to help these people, I buy the idea that this was more a resentment election than a positive vision one.

really, 'the right'?

OK, I'll back that up. Douthat and Dreher regularly combine morality and conservatism. It is a subset that doesn't really want to hear about it, morality as secondary to freedom.

"anon" is "self advertising".

If you think it through you might realize how dumb that sounds.

Anon, don't forget the influence of vote manipulation by electronic voting machines.

Here are the article titles. I can't put in links here or my comment gets swallowed by the filter here.

Here’s how hackers might mess with electronic voting on Election Day from pbs

Some states — including swing states — have flawed voting systems from Vox

Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines? from Democracy Now

Still time for an election audit: Column from USA Today
(Although this still wouldn’t necessarily show fraud if it had been committed.)

Exit Polls Predicted Hillary Clinton to Win Four of Donald Trump’s Key Victories (Opinion) from Inquisitr

SNOWDEN”S ZACHARY QUINTO (He was in the movie Snowden) EXPLAINS VOTING MACHINE HACKING IN 2 MINUTES from Wired magazine

"The Right is (or was) the side of Personal Responsibility, but no one should talk about what personal responsibility actually is, or how it should extend to our fellow man."

Of course they shouldn't talk about it. It's a successful vote getting mechanism for the Right. If it works, don't fix it. Understanding what one is talking about only throws a wrench in the works of the vote getting machine.

“The data suggest that the ill may have been particularly susceptible to Mr Trump’s message".. or rather "those who supported trump--on average less educated--are more likely to be ill"

I doubt they drank any less in Wisconsin four years ago.

Errr no 'rural' is not going to ever win economically over 'city'.

First, rural by definition doesn't have a lot of people, if it did then it would be a city. So rural is never going to generate a lot of GDP relative to the city unless you're talking about extreme inequality which results in a handful of multi-billionaires all moving to thousand acre estates. (Even then it's a stretch. Warren Buffet may make a billion dollars in a year but he isn't making it in his house but buying and selling companies around the world and those companies are located in cities, if he retires to a cave in the woods with just an Internet connection for him to make trades with his smart phone, all that value is being created in the rest of the country, not the cave).

Second, a sudden increase in jobs are simply going to go where the people are. If trade war with China or S. America suddenly causes a lot of factories to open, they are going to open in areas where there's already lots of buildings and people nearby. That's the city rather than the country so even if all that he hopes for comes to pass, a future Trump America will still be 'leaving out' parts of the country from the economic boom.

Who said anything about rural? We're talking about contributing to GDP. Sure rural does less of that then cities, but plenty of cities do less of that then other cities too.

If trading doesn't create value, as you suggest, then GDP is heavily skewed to the areas that produce things, lol.

Actually trading itself doesn't produce much value. Real estate brokers handle the sale and purchase of hundreds of millions of dollars of homes but the 'value' they create is the 5% or less commission they earn. Warren Buffet buying low and selling high also doesn't create value in itself (in order for him to do that someone else must sell low and buy high making it a zero sum game). He does create value by directing investments into companies that then go on to make revenue by selling goods and services. The example of him doing it from a cave in the middle of a vast woods is just a hypothetical to show that the GDP by county argument doesn't work very well for rural areas. The value he creates would still be based in more densely populated areas even if he did his work remotely.

Rural based economies would require very low labor productivity and an economy whose main products are crops and possibly animals (even in the 1800's it was the urban centers that were hubs for farmers to sell crops and livestock that were the real drivers of value). Even that wouldn't do.

This is basic economics. GDP is the sale of goods and services. That is something humans do. Where you have more humans you would generally expect to get more GDP and fewer humans means less GDP.

Maybe, but the problem is, What can a president (or even a President with a pliant Congress) do about this? This is not the USSR and we do not have a command economy (and shouldn't). The forces that have left so much of the country behind are not political forces and are not amenable to political fixes.

No kidding. But the political anger is a real thing. I have a lot of sympathy for the voters that just had to make their voices heard but aren't going to see any improvement in their lives.

Alex, fair enough, but you could also try looking at households or individuals, rather than counties (e.g. how much GDP is produced by Trump voters and how much by Clinton voters). I suspect the results would different.

Exactly. The precincts that delivered the big cities to Hilary aren't characterized by much GDP enhancing activity.

Exactly. "Fair enough" is too nice for this pure piece of propaganda, though.

Why would you think this? I suspect the Clinton voters in Mountain View, Calif., alone have personal GDPs on par with the combined Trump voters of some states. Obviously, poor liberal voters in other areas would bring down the average, but I still believe you're likely underestimating the amount of wealth produced in liberal, urban areas.

On a very loosely related tangent, I do wonder if the din around Silicon Valley diversity will die down again now.

Early in 2016, it was all about the "bros" of tech, and how the dastards were keeping out women and minorities. "And did you read that awful letter by Justin Keller?" Now though, the Liberal Left will have need for heroes who solidly turned out for Clinton (except for that rogue Thiel), and solid examples of the sheer antithesis of the White Working Class of the central states. So some quieting down might be in the works. After all "What gentrification? Where?", when you have bourgeois bohemians to heroize.

Right. You'd also need to correct for government employees and, just as an example, humanities professors down the hall who are pulling in relatively high salaries, voted for HRC overwhelmingly, and whose contribution to the country is by any sane measuure, a net negative value.

Not all of them, Jeff R, not all of them. I know very well some excellent humanity professors, doing their best to teach world history, literature, philosophy, to students, making outstanding research without any jargon, and who are very happy of Trump's victory (secretly, of course, because they fear for their jobs).

I know, I was just being snarky.

How much of the economic activity generated in those Clinton counties are by people who commuted in from another? Where I live a significant number of people vote in a county outside of the city where they work.

It would also be interesting to look at the income of college graduates who voted for Trump vs Clinton.

Is it GDP or GNP? In other words, how are counted suburban or exurban people, commuting everyday to work in the big city (in an other county)? In the county they work in (an urban county who certainly vote Clinton) or in their suburban/exurban county (which possibly votes Trump). I assume changing the way of counting may change a lot the statistics given, which therefore doesn't make much sense without this information.

Agreed. Personal income would be a better metric to use.

So I read the article, apparently it is County GDP. Thus a person who lives and votes in a suburban or exurban county which voted for Trump, but works in the big city which voted for Clinton sees his part of the national GDP counted for Clinton, not for Trump. In other words, your title is nonsense, Clinton did n;t win the economy, at least this is not at all proved by those data.

Encore raté, Tabarrok!

Nice try
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+commute+us&gws_rd=ssl

The average commute to work in the US is about 25 minutes. Yes there are some people who leave rural homes and travel 50 miles plus to 'the big city' to work and then return home at night but most people either work in the county they live or work a county or two away.

Hillary won both the voters and the economy after all....not the election.

Nice try, Boontoon. Do you really believe you save Tabarrok's day by your 25 minutes average commute/one or two counties away argument? Really?

Look at a map of the election result by counties. In most of the country you get a small blue point corresponding to an urban county voting for Clinton, surrounded by many much larger counties, most of them red. It is obvious that many people from these county work in the city, which is "one county away", and contribute to the GDP of that city, but vote in another county of a different color. And moreover, it belongs to those who claims that Clinton won the economy to prove their point by doing the correct computation -- to making a clearly wrong one and then saying, oh yeah, but you know, my result is just 25 minutes away from the truth, you know...

So maybe it's a percent smaller. Which is still about two-thirds.

"In most of the country you get a small blue point corresponding to an urban county voting for Clinton, surrounded by many much larger counties, most of them red."

Empty space is not entitled to a vote, unless it's between you ears.

People in Macon county do not commute to Atlanta. There's probably a small spillover effect, but not material.

If there's an outlier it's in Georgia, which has considerably smaller counties than most states. It has 159 counties. For comparison, Alabama has 67 and Mississippi 82.

Go look at the map on the link, the counties that Clinton won are huge. Los Angeles county is 4,751 mi², for example, and next to a blue county is often another blue county so no this isn't people from red counties commuting to blue counties.

This just in, Clinton won the borgoise!

The bourgeoisie, especially. (That's the college-educated borgoise.)

Pedants be boring

*Pedants is boring. {pushes glasses up nose}

Clinton won the lawyers, the professors, the Broadway actors, CNN anchors, the....aww, what difference – at this point, what difference does it make?

Do you think everyone who lives in urban areas are in jobs like those?

Am a legal analyst for CNN who teaches at Columbia and has a show opening on Broadway next month. He's correct, in my experience.

HE FORGOT THE BANKS!!!

The only thing Clinton didn't win is the electronic voting machine manipulation. See my list of articles about it, further up the page. They are from mainstream sources. This is not a conspiracy theory but a reality.

She got Lucretia Borgoise's vote.

I beg you all - please keep telling me how Clinton REALLY won this election.

(You get big bonus points if your argument requires a Constitutional Amendment!)

I never knew schadenfreude could be this fantastic.

It really is just delicious. The mental anguish Alex is going through is delectable. Something truly heartening about odious people getting their just desserts.

Man, I think there's a lot of overlap in our policy preferences, but you're declaring "mental anguish" "delectable?"

You've gone beyond "sore winner" and straight into "sociopath" territory. Have you ever considered that glee at the (presumed) suffering of others reflects extremely poorly upon you and your clan?

Speaking of your clan, I doubt you care (trolls like you are in it for the fight not for the policy), but you make it just that little bit harder to make a case that some Trump voters AREN'T unhinged and unrepentant assholes.

If you've managed to de-humanize your opponents so far in your mind that you're giddy at their "anguish," I don't think that makes you a smart political operative. It makes you a monster. No good lies at the end of that path.

He's just a troll, and he just got to you.

I think I'll survive. The ANGUISH though! THE ANGUISH!!!!11(one)

Sack up friend. Alex Tabarrok and his cozy clan of ideologues are not suffering in any meaningful definition of the word. They've had their far fetched hopes dashed is all. A little schadenfreude, even glee, is warranted considering the nature of their utopian fever dreams.

Trump voters are addicted to their own adrenaline, incapable of any emotion except anger.

Gets better each time you post it.

Next time, we'll start calling you Thiago II.

"I beg you all – please keep telling me how Clinton REALLY won this election."

There's still a lot of Denial, though most of the Left seems to have moved onto the Anger stage.

Denial is not the same as confusion. I would say we see confusion on all points of the political compass.

On the right we don't have a clear group claiming Trump and his policies as their own, because they too are confused about what Trump and those policies are.

For instance, can you describe and defend Trump's position on China?

Yet another lame rhetorical tactic by you of trying to change the subject.

There are plenty of Liberals either in Denial and/or Anger.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CalExit-NotMyPresident-T-shirt-Trump-not-my-president-2016-protest-tee-/172417252064

And here's the current head of the DNC:

"DNC chair blames ‘voter suppression’ for losses as soul-searching begins"

"More than anything else, however, Ms. Brazile blamed the party’s stumbles Nov. 8 on depressed turnout she said stemmed from “voter suppression” efforts in key states — including Ohio, Wisconsin and North Carolina — that Donald Trump carried."

“In many swing states, voter suppression succeeded in its ultimate, if unstated goal: diluting democracy through disfranchisement,” Ms. Brazile said in a memo posted online."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/donna-brazile-begins-analyzing-why-democrats-lost-/

Hillary'd have won fair and square if each elector was allocated multiple votes in proportion to income tax paid.

Hillary would have won if we let the Mercatus Center pick the president.

Hillary would have won if we let elites pick the president like the Founding Fathers intended.

Your opinion didn't matter in the existing systems and wouldn't have mattered in that system either. Either way just seems like your face covered in tears is the result. Toodles.

I'll wipe away my tears with the dolla bills Trump is gonna save me on my taxes.

I find your Walter Mittyesque online persona truly adorable.

The founding fathers intended for property owners to pick the president. That's a far cry from what you consider "elites." Considering that Trump narrowly won the upper middle class and won rural areas where people are more likely to own property, he'd have won.

Sam, obviously it doesn't matter to me what you think my income is, my point is all those coastal elites that voted for Clinton at least get the consolation prize of saving money on their taxes. Tears of joy from us.

Unless the GOP goes after the state income tax deduction...this would be a good way of limiting any benefit the coastal elites enjoy from cutting taxes.

Unless it benefits Trump personally, the GOP ain't doing that.

There's nothing in the Constitution that limited the franchise to property holders-- the franchise was wholly a state-controlled thing at the time. And in fact Vermont, in 1794, was the first state to declare universal (white, male) suffrage irrespective of property ownership. Thereafter many states changed to an open franchise system, the only hold-outs being in the South.

"Unless the GOP goes after the state income tax deduction…this would be a good way of limiting any benefit the coastal elites enjoy from cutting taxes."

"Unless it benefits Trump personally, the GOP ain’t doing that."

It's front and center in the House tax plan, and it's implicit in the itemized deduction limits in the Trump campaign plan, so I'd say it's definitely at risk.

And it's good that it's a risk. It's one of the worst things about the individual income tax, encouraging the worst sort of behavior at the state and local level.

Clinton REALLY won this election: more people voted for her than for Trump.

We had 50 state elections. She lost most of them.

IE, The US system of electing a President is (roughly) based upon winning the votes in a given state, and then winning a majority of states.

IE Trump won 30 states, Hillary won 20 states.

Trump won.

And California = 65 Wyomings. But cool story bro.

I doubt that more than 1% of people misunderstand the system to that extent, especially considering that the explanation would have already had to have been made.

However, probably quite a few more are observing the number of times that a candidate has won the popular vote but not the electoral college, and wonder if the debate about this (and related issues of representation and geographic balances for power weighting) should be reopened.

Please keep explaining our perception of our political system to us.

It's so......so enlightening.

(Sigh) - the American ability to project ignorance never ceases to amaze.

Suggestion: maps in classrooms should be of something more than the USA.

1.7 million more votes and still counting.

And still losing....

Redistribution is fine as long as it goes to the deserving rather than the undeserving. We just have to figure out who is which, how much to take, and who to take it from. Easy peasy. (Answers: "us", "them", "what's fair for us", "them".)

Deserving and undeserving? I thought the point was to keep the proles from rioting.

The status-quo candidate won those who are doing well; the change candidate won those who are not.

This is my shocked face.

Except it's not actually true. We have exit poll data on how people voted by income:

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

Yes, there was an enormous swing towards Trump for lower income people compared to an ordinary Republican, but he still slightly lost them and did somewhat better among middle and upper middle class, but not that much. Usually income is a very good predictor of the Presidential vote, but this year it was a very poor one.

It's something worth noting, but not overstating.

Trump won typical Republican voters in about the same numbers as Romney did in 2012. There was no great surge of "new" voters moving to him. The bottom line about this election is not that Trump won, but that Hillary lost-- because she failed to turn out all the people (more specifically, all the men) who voted for Obama in 2012.

Why should exit polls be anymore realistic than the pre-election malarkey? And since the voting is over, how will they be authenticated?

There are at least three problems with the concentration of smart, productive people on the east coast and the west coast: (1) the electoral college can dump Trump on them, (2) all those stupid people in the south and the heartland don't know they are stupid because all their neighbors are just like themselves, and (3) global warming and rising sea levels. Observant readers will see the silver lining in (3): smart, productive people will have to disperse to the south and the heartland and thereby rectify (1) and (2). Well, partly rectify (2): the people already there will still be stupid but the difference will be that they will know they are stupid because smart, productive people will be their neighbors.

rayward, this attitude is exactly why Clinton lost. Yes coastal elites aren't as dumb on average as flyover people, but we aren't supposed to rub it in their faces. And it's not elitist to say this, it's just noticing.

But we can't "notice" any other groups of people having below average intelligence. That would be a different kind of "ist."

Actually you are making my point. Why should dumbass rednecks be all mad at others for noticing stuff about them? Disparaging a whole group for their lack of intelligence is just science.

Some redneck jokes a decade or two ago aside, I don't think there's particularly much focus on such things from many quarters. These days, I think this kind of thinking (and many similar such kinds of memes going around) is mostly circulated by people who wish to make use of it to stoke a victim narrative for political mobilization purposes.

I mean, it's obvious that if you spend all your time in a small town in a rural area and basically never went anywhere or met any different people, that you're gonna be pretty ignorant about an awful lot of things except perhaps in some special cases. Is that "dumb"? No. It's ignorant.

And if you cannot recognize that you probably have less knowledge about people and places you've never been to or met than people who have, or are from there, or in a million different ways have direct personal exposure to some specific thing, and thus recognize a situation as a learning opportunity rather than an opportunity to parade one's ignorance, then that's dumb.

But, then, maybe sometimes "dumb" people are not deceived by their intelligence and are thus much more able to learn. Or, at least to not jump to incorrect snap judgments based on the erroneous assumption that they are in a good position to have a strong opinion on something.

"I mean, it’s obvious that if you spend all your time in a small town in a rural area and basically never went anywhere or met any different people, that you’re gonna be pretty ignorant about an awful lot of things except perhaps in some special cases. Is that “dumb”? No. It’s ignorant."

It's 2016, not 1716. Small town and rural people have access to more information than big city newspaper editors did just 50 years ago. Some even have cable TV. A lucky few have taken airplane trips to neighboring states and sometimes foreign countries. The faculties of their schools are no longer the wives of the farmer down the lane and they don't need to split wood for the schoolhouse stove. On the other hand, there are plenty of urban types that have never been to the other side of town and couldn't identify their own city on a map. They may not know or care who the candidates were in the last election, especially for local offices like mayor and city council. Rating urbanites over bumpkins for intelligence and awareness is just more elitism.

I'm always impressed how my friends in my rural hometown who have never lived more than 10 miles from home know exactly how we should handle Iran.

chuck - all true. I generalize, of course.

What do you think, that flyover people are mad at you because you can solve differential equations and they can't? Or that you can discuss the implications of Heideggerian philosophy? That isn't it, genius. It's not the intelligence, or the capabilities of smart people that they despise, it's the arrogance that expertise in one field gives you license to tell people what is right and wrong in general and to tell other people, especially people with less schooling than you, how to live. Believing that the problem is that you do have that license, but that you should be discreet about it, is just another conceit compounded upon the others. The arrogance goes very deep, it's the cause for the exasperation and vitriol against you.

I did point out the that states with the highest per capita income voted for HRC, a while back. I'm still not sure what that means. How about looking into how states that transfer the most funds to the Federal government with the least return fared? I don't know what to make of these facts because I'm still not sure what Trump voters voted for as against what they voted against.

Has anyone heard of a groundswell for the stimulus, term limits, more military spending, draining the swamp, or even building a wall or registering Muslims, etc.among Trump voters? What I'm reading from Trump voters is defending the EC, being pissed at demonstrators, and mocking HRC voters and pundits. The 100 day plan was actually breaking news on one FB post after the election. I'll reserve judgement until I see what Trump actually hands to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and how Trump voters respond. I can't wait.

Probably somewhat weighted by a large number of millionnaires whose income or wealth is based on access to international markets in one way or another. I gather Trump got a lot of votes among those with above average income in the middle class.

Trump voters are just being angry at their opponents. That's their who shtick. They're just angry at liberals or anyone not voting for Trump, and happy to see them sad.

Gosh, I wonder why Hillary called them deplorables?

The bottom like here, to me at least, seems to be "If the world worked the way I want it to work the outcome I waned would have occurred so I'll keep rehashing the past to create a bunch of different takes to make me feel better about myself and my world views."

It is at least plausible to divide the economy by person. Given that Trump won white voters and Clinton won black and Hispanic voters, it is possible that Trump voters contributed more to GDP. One caveat is that Clinton did win Asian voters, who may be as productive as whites or more.

Why must we endure this continuous specious argument from supposed intellectuals.

Any specific geographical area is won by votes. Income and wealth inequality means, by definition, that highly productive people are outnumbered thousands to one. The most highly productive businesses are going to be in cities that have the infrastructure to support them.

Let's assume, arguendo, that a politician gets a vote for every rat in a geographical area rather than a person. We still get a high correlation between overall production and votes despite zero contribution to GDP by the rats.

We could also see the same association between murders and GDP contribution.

Here is an interesting economic question:

1. Who would win the election if each voter had one vote for every dollar of their income/wealth?

2. Who would win the election if each voter had one vote for their ordinal ranking of income/wealth from poorest to richest?

I have no idea what the answer would be. I merely find it more closely related to the GDP to voting preference correlation.

For 2, since Trump won squarely people making more than the median income, and since Trump and Clinton has roughly the same number of votes (to a 2% error), it seems mathematically certain that Trump would have won with this rules.

For 1, it is much less clear. I propose another related question:

3. If only the vote casts by the billionaires counted, who would have won (and with which margin). I know that as far as donations to political campaigns and super pacs are concerned, billionaires supported Clinton by an enormous margin. But most billionaires just gave to neither Clinton nor Trump. What did they think of the campaign? Also, keep in mind that donations are public (or supposed to be so), votes are secret.

Why, the Democrat's are the party of the rich, who knew? I supposed Democrat's won't mind if Republicans' cut off welfare payments and food stamps to the poor throughout the country since the poor are Republicans. The only thing interesting is the break down of Alex's mind as he falls for the Washington Post drivel that the Democrat's are hard working rich fat cats while Republican's are the lazy poor.

I guess they each have their own ways of driving out the competition. Professionals might have occupational licensing barriers, whereas others need to drive out the incoming competition for low-skills jobs.

I wonder how much wages will have to rise to attract the same number of workers with an additional half million deportees over 4 or 8 years, compared to the status quo trend. With lower productivity per unit time compared to (possibly) harder working immigrant alternatives, more total workers may even be needed, but either way it reflects reduced competitiveness and higher prices.

Of course, then there's the theory that it's not bad for the economy if workers have some money to spend ...

Perhaps the rich people should try to work a bit at making sure everyone else isn't so miserable?

Maybe so, but one rich person who has no interest in doing that is Donald Trump.

Its' interesting that miserable people vote Republican. And so it does make sense that the Republican party always works so hard to make people more and more miserable and poor.

After listening to the Dems recount all the ways in which they really won the election (through the popular vote, most economic clout, whatever)
I am reminded me of an anecdote I came across a long time ago and found again thanks to Google.

Colonel Harry Summers meets a veteran NVA colonel in a negotiation a week before the fall of Saigon in April 1975.

Col Summers: "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."
NVA Colonel: "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

So the Democrats won the rich while shrieking that they were fighting for the poor. And doggone if the poor didn't figure it out. Maybe the rich aren't as smart as they think they are

Neither are the poor....do you really think president Trump is going to help them out?

Trump voters don't have a lot going on between their ears, as people have commented on this thread earlier. Easy to con these people.

Clinton won the rich? lol, nope.

Trump won like GWB "won" in 2004. With the abortion and terrorism vote. At some point, people are going to accept that. Clinton lost big segments of the vote that were economic in nature. In otherwards, she lost voters who have had a profound recovery in their economic fortunes since November 2012, which by the data, makes perfect sense. She didn't offer a reason to vote for her other than Trump was a pervert conman. So many had little reason to vote.

She offered plenty of reasons to vote for her. It's just that the media didn't cover them, but only covered her nothingburger email scandal.

What, surrounding DC, are something like 6 out of 10 of the wealthiest counties in the US. And, they produce exactly what?

How many counties are government administration zones? 50-100?

Then counties supported by taxes of the academics?

What would the wealth of say New York finance be without the mass citizens backing up the Fed and the recent bailouts, never mind the S&L Bailout, Lockheed, Continental Illinois, Dot Com...

At one time, GDP and other metrics didn't include government workers or expenditures, as these were felt to be but drags and costs and tax on the private, free peoples labor. Of course that is all barbaric.

Are there ways you could produce an analysis showing that Trump won the economy? Say, if you went by individual economic output? If so, I don't see how this analysis is useful.

So: how long will the Democrats makers accept supporting the Republicans takers?

Forever, because Dems are too naive to figure out that rigged electronic voting machines won the election for Trump. See my list of articles from mainstream sources on that issue, way up further above on this thread.

Rigging machines is only done enough to push the vote enough for the favored candidate to win-- so that the rigging doesn't look too obvious. So other ways of categorizing votes do still apply. E.g. maybe they only took every 50th vote for Clinton and assigned it to Trump.

I'm liberal myself, but most liberals are incredibly naive.

Trump won among each income percentile measured here above $50k.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

"That’s another way of saying city versus rural, more educated versus less educated and so forth but it’s an interesting way of thinking about cities, geography and the division in US politics."

Actually, it is a way of obscuring that Trump seemed to have done relatively better among the well-off than the worse-off. It is a misleading talking point, not a genuine attempt to arrive at a better understanding of electoral dynamics.

I live and pay taxes in a very red part of South Carolina (I'd have voted Trump except I can't vote - not a citizen (it's called taxation without representation, you might have heard of it)) but almost all my clients are in California, Oregon and Washington - so how does this show up in this discussion?

You get to count the value add in SC while they count the value add in their domicile. Which place is generating more value? If you have clients with abundant capital to spend on your services, then probably the Pacific coast peeps

Your services are an export to that other region.

Shhhh.... or the Democrats will bring back poll taxes.

City people are smart?... They live on the democratic plantation.

They're actually not smart enough to get their states to get rid of easily riggable electronic voting machines. Or to protest Russian and Wikileaks interference in an American election, or to protest the one-sided email dumps, or to protest the fake news articles distorting and lying about the contents of the emails.

Actually they're pretty smart in their IQs. City folks are just naive. They are dependent on a system and they don't ever look under the hood to see what's going on.

Article from New York magazine (I can't put links in my comments, or else the filter here swallows them.) Google the title.

Activists Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States

Interesting observations. I would caution the use of the language educated and uneducated. It implies there is some doctrine of what it means to be educated. What does it mean to be educated comes out of a "worldview" of the person communicating this phrase and is simply an assessment. But we speak it as a truth. The trap is, and I argue what many are missing, is that we become addicted to our "worldview," and our patterns of thought and action that permit that view. Out of that paradigm, we are limited and very constrained to have access to another view.

Everyone knows what "educated" means. I think everyone knows it is a rough proxy for other things. Most people know that there is a modest correlation between being educated and being smart.

Somebody go buy Tyler some Edy's Rocky Road.

How does that translate per capita?

It will be interesting to see how things work out ahead and we have to be careful of that. I believe if we are not careful of these things then things could really get ugly and hard to handle. I do it rather nicely and that’s all because of OctaFX broker with their small spreads starting from 0.1 pips for all major pairs while they also have got marvelous deposit bonus which is up to 50% and is use able too, so that really helps us big time.

Generate 64% of the wealth, could mean te big city consumers consuming,
and this generated wealth could be in the hands of a much lower percentage.

Those winning under the status quo voted to continue it.

Those losing under the status quo voted to burn it down in the (probably vain) hope that something better for them would grow up in its place.

Hundreds of comments and no one has pointed out that counties are arbitrary divisions of a state that can't be compared to each other or aggregated in any especially meaningful way.

"Hundreds of comments and no one has pointed out that counties are arbitrary divisions of a state that can’t be compared to each other or aggregated in any especially meaningful way."

Because it's not true.

This blog entry may very well be one of the best examples possible of Simpson's paradox. In attempting to prove that Clinton won a majority of the economy, the article leaves out one important factor that, when included, actually reverses the argument. That factor is the number of voters who cross county lines in order to participate in the economics of an adjacent county. An example: the majority of the people who work in Dallas County in economically productive capacities do not actually live in Dallas County. The majority of the residents of Dallas County voted for Clinton; the majority of the people who commute into Dallas County every day voted for Trump. To say that the Dallas County "economy" voted for Clinton is, in reality, the opposite of what happened. The residents - not the economy - of Dallas County, voted for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

Comments for this post are closed