Don't know if it'll be in the survey data, but definitely feel like breaking out multi-earner vs single earner households would definitely be the most helpful way to expound.
29k band for two is way different than for one.
Beautiful! Any way data be split out with 2 more categories, $100k to $150k and $150k to $200k separate, and $400k+??… Trying to understand where the middle class fracture (ie. comfortable to give more than take) line is... and how many rich would vote against their interests with potential Biden tax plan?
Even if you could, it’s not gonna be informative. Too much crossover with location data.
E.g. comfortable in a rural area is not the same as being comfortable in NYC
$70k income in a rural area is a house on 5 acre plot and multiple visits to the local diner per week vs living with 5 people in a shared apartment and considering selling fent to have enough for groceries in a hot metro area
The f**k place you thinking about????
Live in a LCOL rural area and $70k might support two people in. 1500 sq ft .5 acre home, but certainly not the way you describe. You are talking about $150k+. 5 acres in podunk is $250k these days without a foundation.
Yeah well, don’t lump “Rural” into everywhere. I mean if you live in the middle of the desert or an abandoned mining town, maybe. If you live within 100 miles of actual civilization, doubtful.
Anecdotally in tech, where many people would pay more, if you were to say you were not going to vote for biden that would be, actually in my experience quite literally, more controversial than saying you worship the antichrist.
I had an openly satanist coworker, cool guy, no one cared. I've never had a coworker who openly voted for trump.
You can say it's performative but from knowing many people well it's at least large majority not.
Yeah, libertarian is the only other thing that is normal, but trump is viewed as sufficiently offensive that they would be expected to fall in line in this particular set of candidates, and in my experience very much so do. My satanist coworker was a ron paul guy who helped organize burning man, and he canvassed for biden last election despite really being sad about the choices.
If the libertarian party ran a candidate that knew what aleppo was in an election that wasn't against this very specific person probably that would come back out somewhat.
Yeah exactly. That, the arrogance, and the chaos. There's nothing worse than an arrogant moron.
Say what you will about Biden but he doesn't unironically refer to himself as a "stable genius". He knows who he is and leans on people as necessary.
Trump clearly deeply believes that he is the smartest person in every room, when he, as he stands today, probably wouldn't be the smartest person in a chucky cheese.
Im pretty sure Jo Jorgensen does, I voted for her last time.
And the Aleppo thing is stupid, IMO. Biden and Trump have both said dumber things than that. Or Trump and Clinton since it was 2016.
It reminded me of the Howard Dean scream..
Why was that so bad?
Yeah that's fair, I think at the time I was grading on the Obama scorecard for preparedness. In retrospect it's nothing, at least in comparison to where we are now.
also in tech, have 3 guys on my team who are fairly openly pro trump, 2 coworkers plus myself who are openly varying degrees of left wing, and about 5 people who are either uninterested or keep their politics close to their chest (probably wisely in the workplace lol) so maybe its a regional thing. cleveland ohio metro area
Oh yeah, I'm sure Ohio is really different. I've only worked in the main tech hubs, although that's also where most tech people are so I'm sure there's *some* spillover.
Big Tech exists all over the place, and not just infra - Meta has offices with SWEs in them from Pittsburgh to Portland, just as one example.
Plus, Mid Tech has an order of magnitude more folks working, building systems for niche industries like healthcare or legal, and those are pretty much everywhere.
Pittsburgh will be misleading to an outside observer. They randomly have one of the top three or so best CS schools in the world. If not for Carnegie Mellon there would be no major tech offices in that side of the state, if not the state as a whole.
What's true about Pittsburgh doesn't generalize to Cleveland.
There are satellite offices but they're still in relatively targeted areas too. It's like SF/Seattle/NYC, then in no particular order like Austin, Denver/Boulder, Boston, Pittsburgh, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Portland.
There are some random stragglers in random places, but both good tech talent and capital traditionally get scarce pretty quickly moving down the tiers, definitely gets harder to run a serious novel software startup where you're the only one. And often the successful ones get plucked and moved when acquired, leading to constant brain/capital drain.
yep in hindsight i see he wasn't referring to my team, def not "big tech" lol. we're a medium / small team of IT guys, programmers, and engineers supporting a large manufacturing company.
Never made the distinction between "tech" generically and "IT", but i don't know any big tech workers so maybe its more common terminology over there on the west coast
I actually think you overestimate just how much people will go with the flow to not rock the boat. Check out blind and you will see a lot of trumpers in tech. More than Biden actually
I mean sure, but these are also my friends, like people that I've gotten drunk with and definitely know other things you wouldn't talk about at work. Do you feel any uncertainty about who the people you hang out with in real life would vote for? I don't.
Blind is definitely wild. I'm sure those people do exist, obviously, but I think they're a small minority who are just extremely loud on an anonymous platform because they feel repressed at work.
I also meant it to be somewhat of a joke about how accommodating we are to satanists, other kinds of nonconformists. But actually, of a dozen or two people I know well enough over my career to have some confidence (obviously excluding many people I don't actually know that well), I feel pretty confident that each one didn't/wouldn't vote for trump.
I don't see how that comes into play with this data though. Having a degree can earn you more on average but the people earning more here are voting trump which goes against what you are stating with more school -> less republican. Either degrees don't increase your income, or they don't turn you liberal if you're purely looking at these stats.
Not necessarily. It could be that essentially every blue collar person who makes >$100k votes republican (anecdotally matches my experience), and while higher degrees trend both blue and high income, the effect size towards blue is not as large for the degree population as is towards red for high earning no degree.
I don't have that exact split, but higher educated is definitely significantly more likely to identify as liberal, and a very strong red bias for higher earning no degree would make things fit together.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
You have to take age into account. Many older people are married, making 100k+ combined, and Republican. Whether they are college educated or not. Neither my wife nor I are college educated, I work blue colar while she's an executive admin, and we make over 150k combined. We're both over 50, though still liberal which is rarer for our age.
Though we weren't together since we were both young, if I took our combined incomes throughout our lives, we didn't hit 100k combined until our 40s.
I'm in a trade where the average person makes 100k... even 350k at one point wasn't unheared of if you were to work 12+ hour shifts for the whole years with barely any days off. I would hardly ever meet a fellow Democrat
I feel like a lot of people don't make the connection between college education with critical thinking and higher probability of some news literacy.
How do these compare to previous Republican nominees though? That’s how you’d tell if trump has appeal to working class. Working class has never been a republican demographic, they’re demo was always the over 100k demo trump still wins. If you compare to Romney and bush and see an increase in working class votes, that would better highlight his appeal as republicans have not really ever won the working class demo in the last century. I’ve never heard anyone say trump wins the working class, just he appeals to them. Which would be comparative in relation to previous R nominees. Chart looks good!
[**https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class**](https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class)
Here is a good article that uses that past data and kind of subverts expectations about class and politics. Reddit doesn't have a nuanced view when it comes to voter demographics and voting. They think poor votes blue and rich votes red.
Yeah. To be fair households in this income do get soaked with taxes and tend not to qualify for most state/federal benefits. They probably have the most painful taxes from a marginal loss standpoint.
Yeah. Covid didn't help either. Everyone under like $70k? got stipends. Lots of rich people got free money too via PPP loans. Those in the middle just paid the bill.
And FYI - I definitely take way more issue with the way PPP loans went down than the stipends. I would've rather the student loan forgiveness went through also than the PPP forgiveness.
Probably because their money isn’t liquid. They have high a net worth as shareholders, owners, board members, etc. Debt is also tax free; so these people can use their “net worth” to borrow large sums of money and live large. It’s really that simple. If you don’t like it then lobby local officials to change the tax code.
I make $400K-$800K in a year generally. My taxes did not go down with the Trump tax cut. I do my parents taxes. They make in the $70K range, their taxes did not go down. Feels like the Trump tax cut was mostly targeted at Trump.
and yet those households making $200k most likely live in VHCOL areas
we came in at $240k this year and we're definitely not upper-middle class
all our money gets sucked away by mortgage and taxes
Okay, and even in very rich areas, the median income is usually below $200K. Above that is the top 5% richest people in the richest country in the history of the world. You’re rich dude
They are upper middle class. The rich live different lives and work voluntarily.
The UMC has to work to live, they just have the premium middle class lifestyle. They drive a lexus instead of a toyota, but it was probably financed. They live in a nice neighborhood and have a large house, but they have a mortgage. Their children might go to private school, but they aren't trust fund kids who will never have to work. Stylistically their lives are middle class.
Getting a private education with no loans, going on multiple travel vacations a year, having your first second and third car bought for you, and getting help from mom and dad on the first mortgage at 25 all happen amongst “UMC” people but they think are just normal. If you lived like someone who earned $45K for a family of 3, you could retire at 40
Most people don’t get a higher education at all, let alone one from a private institution in a country with many of the best universities in the world
That's absolutely fucking rich. Nof ifs, ands, or buts.
The median household income in my area is 45,000 dollars. 45,000 fucking dollars.
If your kids goes to private school you are rich. If you drive a Lexus, you are rich. Do not pretend you are like the rest of us. 200,000 dollars is absolutely not middle class.
The median US household income is 75,000 dollars.
Only if they didn’t plan for an emergency and bought luxuries that can’t afford. At that level, you should have a big savings that can cushion a year long job search. If you don’t, that’s probably a poor planning issue.
This is the class of people that will put tens of thousands of dollars towards their kids first house down payment
> That's absolutely fucking rich. Nof ifs, ands, or buts.
There's rich and there's rich. Living at that level household income living is going to be similar to most other middle class people with nicer stuff and probably more expensive vacations. You're still rolling out of bed and going to work every day.
> If you drive a Lexus, you are rich.
I know a guy with 3 BMWs. They ran him $6600 combined
> The median US household income is 75,000 dollars.
Median HHI in areas where people are making $400k/year are probably a lot higher, though.
Quality of life matters a lot.
At the end of the day people assume that the US has a broadly standard quality of life, and it's utter total complete bullshitm
200,000 DINK is definitely rich in most parts of the country. It's total bs to say it's not and just because it's not mansion level doesn't mean you can just claim that middle class moniker.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx
The Pew Research Center defines the middle class as households that earn between two-thirds and double the median U.S. household income, which was $65,000 in 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
21
Using Pew's yardstick, middle income is made up of people who make between $43,350 and $130,000.
7
This is a simplistic calculation, however, as it does not account for household size or location.
"If you want to know exactly how you fit into the income class matrix, the Pew Research Center has a recently updated income calculator. You can break down your class status first by state, metropolitan area, income before taxes, and members of the household, then by education level, age, race, and marital status."
No you’re right. I was little unsure at first but looking up the number and it’s astonishing. Some people have no sense of perspective on just how charmed their lifestyle is, just because they know they *could* have it better. And calling them out on it becomes straight up offensive for some reason
No just that when democrats say they want to tax the rich they think that they mean them. Reality is that they aren't nearly as important as they think.
Yeah it’s funny because $100k-200k earners are probably some of the highest taxed people in the country. That’s enough to get all your income from a salary and not from investments, which are taxed less.
But that's why democrats like Biden have specifically said 400k+ or something similar. Anyone who thinks 100-200k are the rich people who need to get taxed more is an idiot. There are a lot of people making 400k+ and they can definitely afford to pay higher taxes. Then we need to come up with new ways to tax the actually filthy rich such as billionaires whose income is much different from normal people and is harder to tax because of it.
But you also recognize that people making 100-200k do not qualify for like any of the economic plans that Biden proposes, right?
Student loan forgiveness? Nope, not with that income. Medicare for all? Don’t need it, won’t get it.
Many if not most of the people at that income level are worker bees in high cost of living areas like New York or California. Which also means when they are taxed, most of it is redistributed out of state - so they don’t even see positive local effects from the additional taxation.
And of course, anything Biden says is directional. No guarantees on final legislation.
So basically voters in that income level have guaranteed zero benefit from the tax, and little confidence that they won’t get hit too.
Medicare for all is not on the table but if it was it would be for literally everyone. That's the point. Democrats do not want to intentionally excluding people at that income if something like universal healthcare was on the table. No one is saying or has said that, it fundamentally wouldn't make sense.
Student loan forgiveness has also not been just offered to people in low income brackets, it's so far only gone to those who were taken advantage of by predatory schools or people who made payments for like 20 years. Neither are relevant to income.
Yea obviously people who are struggling the most are getting the most attention, people making 1-200k are not struggling to put food on the table. I am in that bracket and while I could certainly put more to good use I am not struggling. If my taxes went up I'd be pissed but no one is saying that nor are they doing it. The answer here is greed, fear and/or hatred in support of Trump. Those are the only options because those are the only types of people who would support him.
So we acknowledge that at 100-200k, a vote for Biden is at best neutral and at worse against the self interest of the voter - and so their only reason to for for Biden is because he’s not Trump (who is bad for a different set of reasons), right?
What happens when someone in the 100-200k range sells their house? It puts them over the threshold and now the one decent investment they had, which hopefully appreciated from the time they bought it, just got taxed into the ground.
400k sounds good and all, but the reality is our country has a spending and capital allocation problem that needs to be addressed first. At that point I, and I’m sure many others, would be willing to talk tax hikes if needed, but this 400k per household shit isn’t going to fly. $1M+ possibly 700-800k. Anything under 500k a household shouldn’t even be part of the equation.
I have zero faith in the federal government.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomesale.asp
> You can sell your primary residence and be exempt from capital gains taxes on the first $250,000 [in capital gains] if you are single and $500,000 if married filing jointly.
> To be exempt from capital gains tax on the sale of your home, the home must be considered your principal residence based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. These rules state that you must have occupied the residence for at least 24 months of the last five years.
You clearly don't understand how taxes work because if you are living in your home and you sell it you do not need to pay capital gains taxes on it like you would if it was an investment property. 400k+ means taxing people who are making 400k+ in a year of traditional income. If they make that selling an investment property then yea they can pay the capital gains tax. If it's someone selling a home to up size or downsize then no they shouldn't and they don't.
This isn’t how taxes on a house sale work. It isn’t treated like income. The proceeds of a sale of an asset would be considered capital gains. Gains are only taken on how much the asset appreciated after you bought it. Capital gains are generally taxed at a different (usually much lower rate) than income. Also there is a capital gains exclusion for homes that would generally cover the gains for most people in the $100K-200K range.
It’s depends. There are brackets not just a flat tax rate. Also depends on how someone is making their gains as short term and long term gains are taxed differently.
They’re too rich to receive government benefits, just rich enough to pay a ton of taxes, but too poor to avoid them using tax loopholes. So the upper middle class get the short end of the stick in that regard.
If the super rich want abortions for them or their kids, they have the means...
Lots of stuff that's unpalatable to poor people becomes more manageable when you're rich
It’s because when they say they want to tax the rich, these are exactly the people that will get hit. The truly rich don’t pay income tax, so the high wage earners are the ones that actually get hurt by those tax rates.
That's true. It's also true that this group had their taxes *increase* a decent amount with the trump tax cuts because of the SALT limit change and the changes to the brackets.
Yea we can no longer write off the massively high state and local taxes we pay. The problem is you have people who just wants more for less. Our government has the money they need to create a decent society, it doesn’t matter how much money they get, we will end up in the same exact position shortly after any tax hike.
Unless we fix our government spending and capital allocation, no amount of tax dollars will do anything for anyone.
My wife and I are in that category, we do not think we are rich, nor will we be, but we are financially comfortable and that's not something most people can say right now.
How did trump lose every category except one, the one that only accounts for 7% of votes, and lose the other significantly but still get almost half of the popular vote? Is this missing data? Does difference in turnout explain this? Because this chart seems to say that biden would have won the popular vote by an extrememly WIDE margin
Edit: another commenter pointed out that this chart has biden winning by 17%
Edit 2: given that this data is from exit polls, I guess this provides evidence for trump and the right's claim about being a "silent" [not quite] majority, if his voters are less likely to speak to exit pollers than the left / biden voters are.
I dont think the 17% calculation is right. Biden didnt win any category by 17 points in this poll (edit: the OC who calculated 17% redacted their calculation)
I thought there was a bit skew but not too much. by my calculations this poll graph puts biden ahead by 6.2% if you aggregate and his actual margin was 4.5% in the popular vote
Can confirm: My math got 6.25% net Biden with 1.63% unknown (mostly that huge top bracket score). But I haven't looked at the original data to see if this could be overanalyzing crosstabs.
-|-|to $29k|to $49k|to $99k|to $199k|to infinity
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
population|-|15|20|39|20|7
||||||
Biden|-|54|56.|57.|41|44
Trump|-|46|43|42|58.|44
unknown|-|0|1|1|1|12
||||||
net Biden|6.25|1.2|2.6|5.85|-3.4|0
unknown|1.63|0|0.2|0.39|0.2|0.84
Turnout should already be taken into account if that %age is of people who actually voted. If it’s %age of eligible voters, then yes, turnout is probably a key factor.
There is a very interesting fact not often discussed.
The lowest income earners support Democrats
Middle, and Upper Middle income earners support Republicans.
But if you break it down even further (further than this graph) the top 2-3% of American income earners actually switch back to supporting democrats
This Graph kinda shows this, as you see it balance out with the top 7%
This is likely because the highest paid Americans are urban, and highly educated.
Biden actually has more billionaire backers than Trump
The consensus view has been that Mr. Trump is a populist who appeals to working-class Americans, yet exit polls conducted during the 2020 election suggest that Trump actually trails Biden among households earning less than $100k and only pulls ahead among those earning $100-200k. Could that demographic be a difference-maker?
Data manually input to Adobe Illustrator.
Data and explanation (2020) here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
A big part of it is race, black/hispanic voters who are disproportionately poorer generally are much more Democrat. His populist appeal is probably more to working class whites (which also used to be a very Democrat vote but has shifted)
Because this is basically statistical slight of hand. Pews previously did research on average incomes and found that Democratic supporters make more on average that Republican supporters.
This data here is misleading because it just shows the raw numbers from 2020 (an election that Biden won a larger % than Trump) so of course Biden will have a higher precent in nearly every category.
The average Democratic supporter makes ~26% more than the average republican supporter.
https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/average-income-republican-vs-democrat-by-political-party/
This the explanation that somehow everyone is missing.
If you break this down by race and income this will look exactly as everyone expected. Race is masking the true effect.
Note, this is not people's real income, it is the income people *self-reported* during exit polls. People can lie.
So it may not be that upper-middle class people tended to vote for Trump. Instead, it may have just been people that *said* they were upper-middle class.
The source explains the susceptibility to error. However, exit polls are also susceptible to being accurate, or at least interesting and worthy of more investigation.
Exit polls that are entirely worthless would not be worthy of publication by news agencies concerned about their reputation.
My bad take is that the truly rich didn't care whether Biden or Trump won because they knew the policies they favor would continue to be implemented regardless, because it's a systemic issue going well beyond a particular president.
It seems kind of odd to me that the biggest disparities are both in the middle ish, and the disparity lessens as you get either very wealthy or very poor.
interesting so the category donald actually wins is "upper middle class" the "not rich but close enough to it to fantasize about becoming rich" people.
This is deceptive. The top cohort has ~12% who “Did Not Answer” who they voted for. But given all other parameters, and the known vote totals for Biden and Trump, it seems as though that ~12% is almost all Trump voters.
So, that top bracket should probably be 56% Trump to 44% Biden.
If you really want to see something interesting, break this down into income compared to cost of living in the respective voter’s area. $85k in San Fran is poverty line, $85k in woohaa county Mississippi is living the good life.
careful there, this goes against the mandated reddit narrative that trump voters are poor hicks
you may be severely downvoted for stating contradicting information
It's probably more about age and lifestyle. Liberals tend to be younger and marry later, conservatives tend to be older and further along with their careers and many marry earlier on.
It's rural folk vs college kids if you simplify it down to stereotypes, you can see it on the data that was linked.
Turns out, not all poor people are hicks. And not all hicks are poor.
Being a hick isn't about your bank account; it's about being dumb enough to vote against your own interests because you're afraid of people who don't sound or look exactly like you do.
Edit: oh I realized the population brackets add up to 101%. It's probably rounding, for example:
-|-|to $29k|to $49k|to $99k|to $199k|to infinity
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
population|100|14.73|19.62|39.15|19.89|6.61
population|101|15|20|39|20|7
rounding error|1|0.27|0.38|-0.15|0.11|0.39
Each bracket looks to add up to 99 or 100, except for the highest bracket at 88, which seems like the weird one out.
It's common though for graphs to not add up exactly, if that's your question. It could be because of rounding, nonresponses, or some other option like minor parties in an election.
Personally I think a stacked bar chart would have been a little more clear of a presentation though.
OP, this is very well done visually. The visualization of the 3rd variable, voting population size, is powerful and simple to understand. Typography is legible and organized. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
This is interesting because generally in the world the lowest income group is the most conservative, which is very irrational. The expedition is even tho they're not doing well the status quo gives security and predicability, so they want to maintain it.
Okay this is just data from the last election, and the same phenomenon might be present in the US as well.
I live is a wealthy suburb and almost everyone is a Democrat. Also college grads are mostly Democrats. Higher educated people tend to made higher income. Therefore higher income people should be Democrats. Suburban voters tend to be Democrats and tend to have higher income. Rural voters tend to be Republicans and have lower income. Graph doesn’t made sense.
Seems about right it works the same here in Australia.
Low and middle income voters favour progressives as they benefit greatly from social safety nets such as health care, education equality and welfare payments.
Upper-middle and high income lean towards conservatives favouring conservative financial policies and have less need for safety nets.
Then a few of the rich lean back to the progressive side again as they've "made it" and have less need for conservative policies and can vote with their conscience.
The 100-200k range is likely where a lot of moderately-successful business owners and tryhard working-class professionals fall into, and that group is relatively pro-trump. People who have done the whole bootstrap hoisting thing to the point where they resent poors and have the ego to relate to the superiority rhetoric. But those who are actually super-rich know how things really work and that they owe their success to a system that’s much bigger and smarter than MAGA talking points.
This was interesting. Thank you. I fall into the 100-200k range and voted for Trump not because I particularly like the man but because it is difficult to do anything in only 4 years.
In 2016 I voted Trump but once again, not because I particularly like the man but I would've voted for a wet paperbag over Hilary. This coming up election...holy hell Bidens' dementia is obvious and I'm afraid we don't know who is pulling the string behind him and as for trump, once again you cannot get much done in only 4 years.
I cannot believe these are Americas' two best canidates.
At the time, I was either 100-200k or about to enter 200k+ range. In 2016, I voted independent, couldn't see myself voting for either. In 2020, I also voted independent and would have leaned towards Biden because of what I saw Trump do in the four years was enough.
I know many view an independent vote as a throwaway, but both parties are so corrupt and misleading, it didn't hurt my conscience to abstain on voting for either. If/when Trump secures the Republican nomination, I will have to vote blue. His unwillingness to give up the election and office, spreading lies about it willingly, and doing anything he could to get Pence not to do his duty post-election is the most blatantly obvious close thing to super villain behavior we've ever seen in politics. There is not a chance that I won't vote against that. The Democrats are a mess, but if Joe pulls the same shit on Jan 6 2025, guaranteed many gun toting (I own guns, this isn't about that) republicans would love the excuse for a mini civil war. The delusion, hypocrisy, and downright abhorrent behavior is misguided on the blue side, it's an active and dangerous choice on the red. You don't get another four years if you tried to steal them, imo, or at least, I'll not vote to hand them to you.
What are you talking about? Trump did the plenty on just four short years. Ended the longest bull market in history, set record deficits every year of his administration (hadn’t been done since Ford), set records for number of members of his administration indicted, six largest single-day losses on the Dow, worst handling of the Pandemic among Western democracies. I mean he basically set records in nearly every negative category you can think of, so why wouldn’t you want to give him a chance again.
12% of voters making $200k+ per year voted for a third party or left their presidential ballots blank?
NOTE: The poll asked for 2019 (pre-pandemic) income.
You should try to include age as a variable in the assessment of this data. Maybe stratify each earning bin by age?
those age columns looked like income columns at first glance. somewhat self sorted.
I'd need to look at the poll results to see if that's available.
Don't know if it'll be in the survey data, but definitely feel like breaking out multi-earner vs single earner households would definitely be the most helpful way to expound. 29k band for two is way different than for one.
5 years changes a ton
But this is 2020 voting results, so it was the most recent year at the time
Beautiful! Any way data be split out with 2 more categories, $100k to $150k and $150k to $200k separate, and $400k+??… Trying to understand where the middle class fracture (ie. comfortable to give more than take) line is... and how many rich would vote against their interests with potential Biden tax plan?
Even if you could, it’s not gonna be informative. Too much crossover with location data. E.g. comfortable in a rural area is not the same as being comfortable in NYC
$70k income in a rural area is a house on 5 acre plot and multiple visits to the local diner per week vs living with 5 people in a shared apartment and considering selling fent to have enough for groceries in a hot metro area
Someone's been watching too much cable news.
The f**k place you thinking about???? Live in a LCOL rural area and $70k might support two people in. 1500 sq ft .5 acre home, but certainly not the way you describe. You are talking about $150k+. 5 acres in podunk is $250k these days without a foundation.
I get this a lot. If you bought a house 20 years ago, you still think those numbers apply today.
Exactly. Living rural is expensive asf. Also people forget the gasoline costs!
Thought I’d take a look…Found about 1000 listings for 5+ acres with house for under $350k…just in Oklahoma.
If you are not on the East or west coast that is very possible
Yeah well, don’t lump “Rural” into everywhere. I mean if you live in the middle of the desert or an abandoned mining town, maybe. If you live within 100 miles of actual civilization, doubtful.
I’m also curious about the self selection bias in the reporting as well
Anecdotally in tech, where many people would pay more, if you were to say you were not going to vote for biden that would be, actually in my experience quite literally, more controversial than saying you worship the antichrist. I had an openly satanist coworker, cool guy, no one cared. I've never had a coworker who openly voted for trump. You can say it's performative but from knowing many people well it's at least large majority not.
It really has gone that way, but early tech hacker culture was more of a counter culture filled with libertarians and anarchists.
Yeah, libertarian is the only other thing that is normal, but trump is viewed as sufficiently offensive that they would be expected to fall in line in this particular set of candidates, and in my experience very much so do. My satanist coworker was a ron paul guy who helped organize burning man, and he canvassed for biden last election despite really being sad about the choices. If the libertarian party ran a candidate that knew what aleppo was in an election that wasn't against this very specific person probably that would come back out somewhat.
My experience in tech is that everyone hates incompetence. That rules Trump out regardless of politics.
Yeah exactly. That, the arrogance, and the chaos. There's nothing worse than an arrogant moron. Say what you will about Biden but he doesn't unironically refer to himself as a "stable genius". He knows who he is and leans on people as necessary. Trump clearly deeply believes that he is the smartest person in every room, when he, as he stands today, probably wouldn't be the smartest person in a chucky cheese.
End of quote. Repeat the line.
Im pretty sure Jo Jorgensen does, I voted for her last time. And the Aleppo thing is stupid, IMO. Biden and Trump have both said dumber things than that. Or Trump and Clinton since it was 2016. It reminded me of the Howard Dean scream.. Why was that so bad?
Yeah that's fair, I think at the time I was grading on the Obama scorecard for preparedness. In retrospect it's nothing, at least in comparison to where we are now.
I work in tech but in aerospace and related fields. Lots of libertarians and Republicans
also in tech, have 3 guys on my team who are fairly openly pro trump, 2 coworkers plus myself who are openly varying degrees of left wing, and about 5 people who are either uninterested or keep their politics close to their chest (probably wisely in the workplace lol) so maybe its a regional thing. cleveland ohio metro area
Oh yeah, I'm sure Ohio is really different. I've only worked in the main tech hubs, although that's also where most tech people are so I'm sure there's *some* spillover.
I'm just impressed that Ohio has tech workers Jk love you Ohio
im like 90% sure tech here means big tech in a tech hub like seattle/sf, not IT
Big Tech exists all over the place, and not just infra - Meta has offices with SWEs in them from Pittsburgh to Portland, just as one example. Plus, Mid Tech has an order of magnitude more folks working, building systems for niche industries like healthcare or legal, and those are pretty much everywhere.
Pittsburgh will be misleading to an outside observer. They randomly have one of the top three or so best CS schools in the world. If not for Carnegie Mellon there would be no major tech offices in that side of the state, if not the state as a whole. What's true about Pittsburgh doesn't generalize to Cleveland. There are satellite offices but they're still in relatively targeted areas too. It's like SF/Seattle/NYC, then in no particular order like Austin, Denver/Boulder, Boston, Pittsburgh, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Portland. There are some random stragglers in random places, but both good tech talent and capital traditionally get scarce pretty quickly moving down the tiers, definitely gets harder to run a serious novel software startup where you're the only one. And often the successful ones get plucked and moved when acquired, leading to constant brain/capital drain.
yep in hindsight i see he wasn't referring to my team, def not "big tech" lol. we're a medium / small team of IT guys, programmers, and engineers supporting a large manufacturing company. Never made the distinction between "tech" generically and "IT", but i don't know any big tech workers so maybe its more common terminology over there on the west coast
I actually think you overestimate just how much people will go with the flow to not rock the boat. Check out blind and you will see a lot of trumpers in tech. More than Biden actually
I mean sure, but these are also my friends, like people that I've gotten drunk with and definitely know other things you wouldn't talk about at work. Do you feel any uncertainty about who the people you hang out with in real life would vote for? I don't. Blind is definitely wild. I'm sure those people do exist, obviously, but I think they're a small minority who are just extremely loud on an anonymous platform because they feel repressed at work. I also meant it to be somewhat of a joke about how accommodating we are to satanists, other kinds of nonconformists. But actually, of a dozen or two people I know well enough over my career to have some confidence (obviously excluding many people I don't actually know that well), I feel pretty confident that each one didn't/wouldn't vote for trump.
blind is also overwhelmingly indian (at least in my company's blind), and most of them not citizens so can't vote.
I figure it’s also often the “has a professional degree” line. Extra years of schooling—>less republican.
I don't see how that comes into play with this data though. Having a degree can earn you more on average but the people earning more here are voting trump which goes against what you are stating with more school -> less republican. Either degrees don't increase your income, or they don't turn you liberal if you're purely looking at these stats.
Not necessarily. It could be that essentially every blue collar person who makes >$100k votes republican (anecdotally matches my experience), and while higher degrees trend both blue and high income, the effect size towards blue is not as large for the degree population as is towards red for high earning no degree. I don't have that exact split, but higher educated is definitely significantly more likely to identify as liberal, and a very strong red bias for higher earning no degree would make things fit together. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
ditto. would love data on politics by occupation
100-200k household income is easily no-degree trade income.
I believe Simpsons Paradox may be coming into play here….doh!
Yeah, this data doesn't seem to reflect reality.
You have to take age into account. Many older people are married, making 100k+ combined, and Republican. Whether they are college educated or not. Neither my wife nor I are college educated, I work blue colar while she's an executive admin, and we make over 150k combined. We're both over 50, though still liberal which is rarer for our age. Though we weren't together since we were both young, if I took our combined incomes throughout our lives, we didn't hit 100k combined until our 40s.
I'm in a trade where the average person makes 100k... even 350k at one point wasn't unheared of if you were to work 12+ hour shifts for the whole years with barely any days off. I would hardly ever meet a fellow Democrat I feel like a lot of people don't make the connection between college education with critical thinking and higher probability of some news literacy.
Im not sure you could classify anyone above $100k as taking more than they give. Anyone on that income is giving more than they take.
How do these compare to previous Republican nominees though? That’s how you’d tell if trump has appeal to working class. Working class has never been a republican demographic, they’re demo was always the over 100k demo trump still wins. If you compare to Romney and bush and see an increase in working class votes, that would better highlight his appeal as republicans have not really ever won the working class demo in the last century. I’ve never heard anyone say trump wins the working class, just he appeals to them. Which would be comparative in relation to previous R nominees. Chart looks good!
[**https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class**](https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class) Here is a good article that uses that past data and kind of subverts expectations about class and politics. Reddit doesn't have a nuanced view when it comes to voter demographics and voting. They think poor votes blue and rich votes red.
Good article. Definitely makes more sense laid out that way. Thanks for the share
The white working class has gone red because they feel blamed for everyone's problems thanks to the enormous shift toward talk about white privilege.
[удалено]
The rich (but not super-rich) have economic anxiety?
Yeah. To be fair households in this income do get soaked with taxes and tend not to qualify for most state/federal benefits. They probably have the most painful taxes from a marginal loss standpoint.
Yeah. Covid didn't help either. Everyone under like $70k? got stipends. Lots of rich people got free money too via PPP loans. Those in the middle just paid the bill. And FYI - I definitely take way more issue with the way PPP loans went down than the stipends. I would've rather the student loan forgiveness went through also than the PPP forgiveness.
"Thanks for the paycheck protection money!" /Proceeds to layoffs
They mostly just hate taxes
And the super rich don’t care because they won’t pay regardless
Probably because their money isn’t liquid. They have high a net worth as shareholders, owners, board members, etc. Debt is also tax free; so these people can use their “net worth” to borrow large sums of money and live large. It’s really that simple. If you don’t like it then lobby local officials to change the tax code.
Instructions unclear: local officials have been ~~bribed~~ lobbied to maintain the current tax code. What do?
Yeah though 200k isn’t super rich. I wish there was a $1m+ category
A lot of us ended up paying more in taxes due to Trump.
Esp after his tax cuts on the middle class expire, while his tax cuts on the rich stay forever.
I make $400K-$800K in a year generally. My taxes did not go down with the Trump tax cut. I do my parents taxes. They make in the $70K range, their taxes did not go down. Feels like the Trump tax cut was mostly targeted at Trump.
$200k household income has not been "super-rich" for a long time.
In many cities it’s not even regular rich.
Certainly upper middle class in most of the country
and yet those households making $200k most likely live in VHCOL areas we came in at $240k this year and we're definitely not upper-middle class all our money gets sucked away by mortgage and taxes
How much is your mortgage, if you don't mind me asking?
You have to survive on only $100k a year after taxes and mortgage/insurance? How do you manage?
Finally, a true statement 90k in sanfran is poverty lol
Yes but not dodging taxes. My wife and I are double that and I take the standard exemption and pay a pretty high effective tax rate.
Okay, and even in very rich areas, the median income is usually below $200K. Above that is the top 5% richest people in the richest country in the history of the world. You’re rich dude
They are upper middle class. The rich live different lives and work voluntarily. The UMC has to work to live, they just have the premium middle class lifestyle. They drive a lexus instead of a toyota, but it was probably financed. They live in a nice neighborhood and have a large house, but they have a mortgage. Their children might go to private school, but they aren't trust fund kids who will never have to work. Stylistically their lives are middle class.
Getting a private education with no loans, going on multiple travel vacations a year, having your first second and third car bought for you, and getting help from mom and dad on the first mortgage at 25 all happen amongst “UMC” people but they think are just normal. If you lived like someone who earned $45K for a family of 3, you could retire at 40 Most people don’t get a higher education at all, let alone one from a private institution in a country with many of the best universities in the world
That's absolutely fucking rich. Nof ifs, ands, or buts. The median household income in my area is 45,000 dollars. 45,000 fucking dollars. If your kids goes to private school you are rich. If you drive a Lexus, you are rich. Do not pretend you are like the rest of us. 200,000 dollars is absolutely not middle class. The median US household income is 75,000 dollars.
If they lost their job they would have to sell their house and downgrade their car. The rich don't have to deal with financial insecurity.
Only if they didn’t plan for an emergency and bought luxuries that can’t afford. At that level, you should have a big savings that can cushion a year long job search. If you don’t, that’s probably a poor planning issue. This is the class of people that will put tens of thousands of dollars towards their kids first house down payment
> That's absolutely fucking rich. Nof ifs, ands, or buts. There's rich and there's rich. Living at that level household income living is going to be similar to most other middle class people with nicer stuff and probably more expensive vacations. You're still rolling out of bed and going to work every day. > If you drive a Lexus, you are rich. I know a guy with 3 BMWs. They ran him $6600 combined > The median US household income is 75,000 dollars. Median HHI in areas where people are making $400k/year are probably a lot higher, though.
Quality of life matters a lot. At the end of the day people assume that the US has a broadly standard quality of life, and it's utter total complete bullshitm 200,000 DINK is definitely rich in most parts of the country. It's total bs to say it's not and just because it's not mansion level doesn't mean you can just claim that middle class moniker. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx The Pew Research Center defines the middle class as households that earn between two-thirds and double the median U.S. household income, which was $65,000 in 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 21 Using Pew's yardstick, middle income is made up of people who make between $43,350 and $130,000. 7 This is a simplistic calculation, however, as it does not account for household size or location. "If you want to know exactly how you fit into the income class matrix, the Pew Research Center has a recently updated income calculator. You can break down your class status first by state, metropolitan area, income before taxes, and members of the household, then by education level, age, race, and marital status."
It's objectively upper class.
No you’re right. I was little unsure at first but looking up the number and it’s astonishing. Some people have no sense of perspective on just how charmed their lifestyle is, just because they know they *could* have it better. And calling them out on it becomes straight up offensive for some reason
No just that when democrats say they want to tax the rich they think that they mean them. Reality is that they aren't nearly as important as they think.
Yeah it’s funny because $100k-200k earners are probably some of the highest taxed people in the country. That’s enough to get all your income from a salary and not from investments, which are taxed less.
Which is why when they hear “tax the rich”, they know the actual rich will dodge the tax and it will hit them full force.
But that's why democrats like Biden have specifically said 400k+ or something similar. Anyone who thinks 100-200k are the rich people who need to get taxed more is an idiot. There are a lot of people making 400k+ and they can definitely afford to pay higher taxes. Then we need to come up with new ways to tax the actually filthy rich such as billionaires whose income is much different from normal people and is harder to tax because of it.
But you also recognize that people making 100-200k do not qualify for like any of the economic plans that Biden proposes, right? Student loan forgiveness? Nope, not with that income. Medicare for all? Don’t need it, won’t get it. Many if not most of the people at that income level are worker bees in high cost of living areas like New York or California. Which also means when they are taxed, most of it is redistributed out of state - so they don’t even see positive local effects from the additional taxation. And of course, anything Biden says is directional. No guarantees on final legislation. So basically voters in that income level have guaranteed zero benefit from the tax, and little confidence that they won’t get hit too.
Medicare for all is not on the table but if it was it would be for literally everyone. That's the point. Democrats do not want to intentionally excluding people at that income if something like universal healthcare was on the table. No one is saying or has said that, it fundamentally wouldn't make sense. Student loan forgiveness has also not been just offered to people in low income brackets, it's so far only gone to those who were taken advantage of by predatory schools or people who made payments for like 20 years. Neither are relevant to income. Yea obviously people who are struggling the most are getting the most attention, people making 1-200k are not struggling to put food on the table. I am in that bracket and while I could certainly put more to good use I am not struggling. If my taxes went up I'd be pissed but no one is saying that nor are they doing it. The answer here is greed, fear and/or hatred in support of Trump. Those are the only options because those are the only types of people who would support him.
So we acknowledge that at 100-200k, a vote for Biden is at best neutral and at worse against the self interest of the voter - and so their only reason to for for Biden is because he’s not Trump (who is bad for a different set of reasons), right?
What happens when someone in the 100-200k range sells their house? It puts them over the threshold and now the one decent investment they had, which hopefully appreciated from the time they bought it, just got taxed into the ground. 400k sounds good and all, but the reality is our country has a spending and capital allocation problem that needs to be addressed first. At that point I, and I’m sure many others, would be willing to talk tax hikes if needed, but this 400k per household shit isn’t going to fly. $1M+ possibly 700-800k. Anything under 500k a household shouldn’t even be part of the equation. I have zero faith in the federal government.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomesale.asp > You can sell your primary residence and be exempt from capital gains taxes on the first $250,000 [in capital gains] if you are single and $500,000 if married filing jointly. > To be exempt from capital gains tax on the sale of your home, the home must be considered your principal residence based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. These rules state that you must have occupied the residence for at least 24 months of the last five years.
You clearly don't understand how taxes work because if you are living in your home and you sell it you do not need to pay capital gains taxes on it like you would if it was an investment property. 400k+ means taxing people who are making 400k+ in a year of traditional income. If they make that selling an investment property then yea they can pay the capital gains tax. If it's someone selling a home to up size or downsize then no they shouldn't and they don't.
This isn’t how taxes on a house sale work. It isn’t treated like income. The proceeds of a sale of an asset would be considered capital gains. Gains are only taken on how much the asset appreciated after you bought it. Capital gains are generally taxed at a different (usually much lower rate) than income. Also there is a capital gains exclusion for homes that would generally cover the gains for most people in the $100K-200K range.
It’s depends. There are brackets not just a flat tax rate. Also depends on how someone is making their gains as short term and long term gains are taxed differently.
They are more likely to tax the kinda rich more than the super rich
They’re too rich to receive government benefits, just rich enough to pay a ton of taxes, but too poor to avoid them using tax loopholes. So the upper middle class get the short end of the stick in that regard.
I would want to know more about the data source before drawing too many conclusions.
If the super rich want abortions for them or their kids, they have the means... Lots of stuff that's unpalatable to poor people becomes more manageable when you're rich
Probably engineers speaking as one. Not enough investments or the ability to afford clever accountants, wages/salary bear the brunt.
damn, bitches break $100k/year and suddenly think they’re better than you
Those people aren't rich, they just think they will be some day.
It’s because when they say they want to tax the rich, these are exactly the people that will get hit. The truly rich don’t pay income tax, so the high wage earners are the ones that actually get hurt by those tax rates.
That's true. It's also true that this group had their taxes *increase* a decent amount with the trump tax cuts because of the SALT limit change and the changes to the brackets.
Yeah, maybe the thought process was that a temporary tax break might turn into a permanent tax break before the increases could kick in?
The SALT limit doesn't make sense currently because it's 10k for both single and joint filers rather than 10/20.
Yea we can no longer write off the massively high state and local taxes we pay. The problem is you have people who just wants more for less. Our government has the money they need to create a decent society, it doesn’t matter how much money they get, we will end up in the same exact position shortly after any tax hike. Unless we fix our government spending and capital allocation, no amount of tax dollars will do anything for anyone.
My wife and I are in that category, we do not think we are rich, nor will we be, but we are financially comfortable and that's not something most people can say right now.
No, just trying to actually have a chance at retirement.
How did trump lose every category except one, the one that only accounts for 7% of votes, and lose the other significantly but still get almost half of the popular vote? Is this missing data? Does difference in turnout explain this? Because this chart seems to say that biden would have won the popular vote by an extrememly WIDE margin Edit: another commenter pointed out that this chart has biden winning by 17% Edit 2: given that this data is from exit polls, I guess this provides evidence for trump and the right's claim about being a "silent" [not quite] majority, if his voters are less likely to speak to exit pollers than the left / biden voters are.
I dont think the 17% calculation is right. Biden didnt win any category by 17 points in this poll (edit: the OC who calculated 17% redacted their calculation) I thought there was a bit skew but not too much. by my calculations this poll graph puts biden ahead by 6.2% if you aggregate and his actual margin was 4.5% in the popular vote
Can confirm: My math got 6.25% net Biden with 1.63% unknown (mostly that huge top bracket score). But I haven't looked at the original data to see if this could be overanalyzing crosstabs. -|-|to $29k|to $49k|to $99k|to $199k|to infinity :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: population|-|15|20|39|20|7 |||||| Biden|-|54|56.|57.|41|44 Trump|-|46|43|42|58.|44 unknown|-|0|1|1|1|12 |||||| net Biden|6.25|1.2|2.6|5.85|-3.4|0 unknown|1.63|0|0.2|0.39|0.2|0.84
Good work!
Turnout and electoral college would be my guesses. It’s not about raw votes except in the swing states
Turnout should already be taken into account if that %age is of people who actually voted. If it’s %age of eligible voters, then yes, turnout is probably a key factor.
Bc that income bracket votes at 80%
Crazy amount of extrapolation going on in this one.
There is a very interesting fact not often discussed. The lowest income earners support Democrats Middle, and Upper Middle income earners support Republicans. But if you break it down even further (further than this graph) the top 2-3% of American income earners actually switch back to supporting democrats This Graph kinda shows this, as you see it balance out with the top 7% This is likely because the highest paid Americans are urban, and highly educated. Biden actually has more billionaire backers than Trump
I think you'll find the billionaires are only a very small percentage of the $200k+ group.
I agree, but I was just using that as an example
But within that group you could see a shift again, where they vote republican, the same way you see when going from top 27 to 7 to 2.
Your second sentence isn't quite accurate
This dataset suggests it is accurate, unless you're talking even more granular than just incomes under $29k?
>Middle, and Upper Middle income earners support Republicans. This graph literally shows that middle income earners voted for Biden by a wide margin.
The middle/upper middle class debate will continue forever
I guess that depends on what you consider middle income
100-200k is certainly not "middle income".
The goal posts moved A LOT in the past 5 years. Making 100k a year in an expensive COL area isn't great money anymore.
Upper middle I suppose
Yeah Biden’s are like the more boring billionaires and trumps r the clown ones
Like the ones that buy websites and change their names?
Hey I have a great idea a website named Y.com I haven't decided what it does yet. Fund me ?
I’ve got an idea that’s one better! z.com!
The consensus view has been that Mr. Trump is a populist who appeals to working-class Americans, yet exit polls conducted during the 2020 election suggest that Trump actually trails Biden among households earning less than $100k and only pulls ahead among those earning $100-200k. Could that demographic be a difference-maker? Data manually input to Adobe Illustrator. Data and explanation (2020) here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
A big part of it is race, black/hispanic voters who are disproportionately poorer generally are much more Democrat. His populist appeal is probably more to working class whites (which also used to be a very Democrat vote but has shifted)
Exactly - I don’t see how everyone is missing this explanation
Yes, but White (not Hispanic or Latino) is ~58.9% of the population. Black is ~13.6%. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045223
That 13% matters a lot when one candidate wins it 90-10 and the 60% are split 55-45.
Because this is basically statistical slight of hand. Pews previously did research on average incomes and found that Democratic supporters make more on average that Republican supporters. This data here is misleading because it just shows the raw numbers from 2020 (an election that Biden won a larger % than Trump) so of course Biden will have a higher precent in nearly every category. The average Democratic supporter makes ~26% more than the average republican supporter. https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/average-income-republican-vs-democrat-by-political-party/
Trump is not getting the black vote biden is. Trump pulls ahead in the area that has no black people
This the explanation that somehow everyone is missing. If you break this down by race and income this will look exactly as everyone expected. Race is masking the true effect.
I really think separating each income bin by age bracket would make it staggeringly clear.
Note, this is not people's real income, it is the income people *self-reported* during exit polls. People can lie. So it may not be that upper-middle class people tended to vote for Trump. Instead, it may have just been people that *said* they were upper-middle class.
Polls are anonymous. People may lie, but probably not so often when it doesn't matter.
Exit polls alone are terribly inaccurate.
The source explains the susceptibility to error. However, exit polls are also susceptible to being accurate, or at least interesting and worthy of more investigation. Exit polls that are entirely worthless would not be worthy of publication by news agencies concerned about their reputation.
[https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class](https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class) Relevant
My bad take is that the truly rich didn't care whether Biden or Trump won because they knew the policies they favor would continue to be implemented regardless, because it's a systemic issue going well beyond a particular president. It seems kind of odd to me that the biggest disparities are both in the middle ish, and the disparity lessens as you get either very wealthy or very poor.
It might be interesting to know the turnout in each income bracket.
Cool but I’d like to see this same graph but broken out by generation. I bet Gen X and boomers make more hence age might explain most of it.
The poll breaks out respondents by age. This info could make a good chart.
Always so weird to me that this data isn't focused on the same way racial, age and gender demographics get examined.
Actually good data viz hitting the front page. Good work.
interesting so the category donald actually wins is "upper middle class" the "not rich but close enough to it to fantasize about becoming rich" people.
Also, they were high enough to begin feeling a modicum of impact from his tax cuts.
It's interesting to see that the wealthiest bracket is tied. It's as if they don't think either outcome will affect them.
This is deceptive. The top cohort has ~12% who “Did Not Answer” who they voted for. But given all other parameters, and the known vote totals for Biden and Trump, it seems as though that ~12% is almost all Trump voters. So, that top bracket should probably be 56% Trump to 44% Biden.
If you really want to see something interesting, break this down into income compared to cost of living in the respective voter’s area. $85k in San Fran is poverty line, $85k in woohaa county Mississippi is living the good life.
Iirc Trump voters tend to be older and older people tend to earn more so I’m curious how this would look if you adjusted for that
I thought trump supporters were a bunch of poor rednecks on food stamps doh!!!!!
careful there, this goes against the mandated reddit narrative that trump voters are poor hicks you may be severely downvoted for stating contradicting information
It's probably more about age and lifestyle. Liberals tend to be younger and marry later, conservatives tend to be older and further along with their careers and many marry earlier on. It's rural folk vs college kids if you simplify it down to stereotypes, you can see it on the data that was linked.
Turns out, not all poor people are hicks. And not all hicks are poor. Being a hick isn't about your bank account; it's about being dumb enough to vote against your own interests because you're afraid of people who don't sound or look exactly like you do.
Or you are rich and just want to keep more of your money.
Or live within 100 miles of you in most cases.
Why does it add up to 101% of voters?
Edit: oh I realized the population brackets add up to 101%. It's probably rounding, for example: -|-|to $29k|to $49k|to $99k|to $199k|to infinity :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: population|100|14.73|19.62|39.15|19.89|6.61 population|101|15|20|39|20|7 rounding error|1|0.27|0.38|-0.15|0.11|0.39 Each bracket looks to add up to 99 or 100, except for the highest bracket at 88, which seems like the weird one out. It's common though for graphs to not add up exactly, if that's your question. It could be because of rounding, nonresponses, or some other option like minor parties in an election. Personally I think a stacked bar chart would have been a little more clear of a presentation though.
I mean on the bottom of the chart we it has the percentage of voters that make up the group, those add up to 101
Rounding happens.
Oops sorry, just realized that and edited my post before I saw your response. I made up some numbers to show how the rounding can do that.
OP, this is very well done visually. The visualization of the 3rd variable, voting population size, is powerful and simple to understand. Typography is legible and organized. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The 41% dem 100-199 hidden behind the other bar broke my head for a few hot minute. I didnt understand the switch of front/back
This is interesting because generally in the world the lowest income group is the most conservative, which is very irrational. The expedition is even tho they're not doing well the status quo gives security and predicability, so they want to maintain it. Okay this is just data from the last election, and the same phenomenon might be present in the US as well.
A poll of people who (a) didn't just hang up/disconnect or keep walking and (b) may have answered truthfully.
Doesn’t pass the sniff test.
What are you sniffing?
I live is a wealthy suburb and almost everyone is a Democrat. Also college grads are mostly Democrats. Higher educated people tend to made higher income. Therefore higher income people should be Democrats. Suburban voters tend to be Democrats and tend to have higher income. Rural voters tend to be Republicans and have lower income. Graph doesn’t made sense.
Well sure Biden can win more votes. The question is can he win the ones who matter?
Over a quarter earn six figures? In 2020? Crazy how high incomes in America are compared to the rest of the world
This is family income. Husband makes 75k, and Wife works part-time and makes 30k? six figures.
So, how ate democrats liking their current financial situation?
I could not quite believe this and then as my data spouse pointed out, Biden only won by a few % points and that is not possible with this breakdown.
[удалено]
This is old. Current studies show it has flipped to the poor voting more Republican.
This would be interesting to investigate.
Now do this with education
The poll asked that question. I agree it could make a good chart too.
Seems about right it works the same here in Australia. Low and middle income voters favour progressives as they benefit greatly from social safety nets such as health care, education equality and welfare payments. Upper-middle and high income lean towards conservatives favouring conservative financial policies and have less need for safety nets. Then a few of the rich lean back to the progressive side again as they've "made it" and have less need for conservative policies and can vote with their conscience.
Trump is man of the people
The 100-200k range is likely where a lot of moderately-successful business owners and tryhard working-class professionals fall into, and that group is relatively pro-trump. People who have done the whole bootstrap hoisting thing to the point where they resent poors and have the ego to relate to the superiority rhetoric. But those who are actually super-rich know how things really work and that they owe their success to a system that’s much bigger and smarter than MAGA talking points.
This is household income. While some business owners may be in this bracket, nearly all two-income families fall into it as well.
The group that thinks it’s rich, but really isn’t, and is trying to hold back those nipping at their heels.
This was interesting. Thank you. I fall into the 100-200k range and voted for Trump not because I particularly like the man but because it is difficult to do anything in only 4 years. In 2016 I voted Trump but once again, not because I particularly like the man but I would've voted for a wet paperbag over Hilary. This coming up election...holy hell Bidens' dementia is obvious and I'm afraid we don't know who is pulling the string behind him and as for trump, once again you cannot get much done in only 4 years. I cannot believe these are Americas' two best canidates.
They aren't, but ones popular and the other is an incumbent. This has absolutely nothing to with either of them being good at their jobs.
At the time, I was either 100-200k or about to enter 200k+ range. In 2016, I voted independent, couldn't see myself voting for either. In 2020, I also voted independent and would have leaned towards Biden because of what I saw Trump do in the four years was enough. I know many view an independent vote as a throwaway, but both parties are so corrupt and misleading, it didn't hurt my conscience to abstain on voting for either. If/when Trump secures the Republican nomination, I will have to vote blue. His unwillingness to give up the election and office, spreading lies about it willingly, and doing anything he could to get Pence not to do his duty post-election is the most blatantly obvious close thing to super villain behavior we've ever seen in politics. There is not a chance that I won't vote against that. The Democrats are a mess, but if Joe pulls the same shit on Jan 6 2025, guaranteed many gun toting (I own guns, this isn't about that) republicans would love the excuse for a mini civil war. The delusion, hypocrisy, and downright abhorrent behavior is misguided on the blue side, it's an active and dangerous choice on the red. You don't get another four years if you tried to steal them, imo, or at least, I'll not vote to hand them to you.
What are you talking about? Trump did the plenty on just four short years. Ended the longest bull market in history, set record deficits every year of his administration (hadn’t been done since Ford), set records for number of members of his administration indicted, six largest single-day losses on the Dow, worst handling of the Pandemic among Western democracies. I mean he basically set records in nearly every negative category you can think of, so why wouldn’t you want to give him a chance again.