You might think you see my confusion but I donât think you see where your own is.
Websterâs, which is the dictionary I believe you prefer over there, defines âeliteâ as follows:
Definition of elite. : the people who have the most wealth and status in a society : the most successful or powerful group of people. : a person who is a member of an elite : a successful and powerful person.
Earning above, say, 250k, which is the highest bracket polled in terms of income, is by any stretch of the imagination a successful and powerful person and Trump won amongst such people.
Given that youâre clearly so obsessed by defining words, I would assume youâre a lexicographer - and even if you were, youâd be wrong. But if you want to define elites on your own terms, fire ahead.
Given that Clinton lost the electoral college, itâs pretty self-evident that people in some of the swing states switched parties.
But that wasnât the argument which was being had, which was who won the small town and rural votes (Trump, obviously), and the votes of the elites, who are the higher earners (again, it was Trump), under any criteria possible.
The evidence shows that it was in the under 50k income bracket that made the difference - in 2012, Obama won 63-35 with those under 30k and 57-42 with those between 30k and 50k. Clinton, while she still won these demographics comfortably, lost vote share here - 53-41 amongst those under 30k and 51-42 amongst those between 30k and 50k income.
In 2012 Romney won those on incomes between 50 and 100k by a 52-46 margin.
Trump only won 50-46 on incomes between 50k and 100k - thatâs a poorer share of the middle class vote than Romney.
Trump won in Florida and North Carolina by increasing turnout rather than eating into the Democratsâ vote share. 29 votes would have swung the national result.
What made the difference in the rust belt was how Trump dominated amongst non-college educated whites - that means mostly those under 50k, rather than the middle class.
