How can the party connect with somewhat-richer-than-average voters? This is our big problem.

[Recursion]

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2019, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

For reasons that are beyond my comprehension, activists and pundits have spent two and a half years studiously avoiding looking at this 2016 exit poll result:



All the talk about "Democrats need a new economic message" gets heard exactly the wrong way: the economic cohort we lost was the upper middle class; people making $75K a year and that neighborhood. We absolutely trashed the GOP among the poorer half of the country.

I know "what can Democrats do to appeal more to somewhat-richer-than-average voters?" doesn't sound like a very sexy question, but it's pretty clear it's a question we need to at least think about.

(I think all the talk about "the working class" has obscured this: white couples with two earners with high school degrees will make on average about $72K. Their problems aren't about lack of money.)

Before you say "Turnout", here's the 2008 exit polls: in 2008, just like in 2016, voters from households making less than $50K made up 36% of the electorate (despite being roughly half the population). The difference is Obama carried voters making $75K-$100K and Clinton didn't. What do we need to do to appeal to them again?

[beachbum bob]

1. people who hear about making this free and that free that are out working and

doing their part get a bit put off as they know money does not magically appear and many of these people come from these income levels. For godsakes we as a party project a message that success is bad, that rich are bad and businesses are bad. For some reason, we have a tendency not wanting to hold people at the lower end of the spectrum responsible with anything....just saying this is the impression I get when I talk with people.

We know we do not have a level playing field for Americans, but trying to skew it creates other issues and resentment too. Rightwing has built their power harvesting the resentment and we democrats continue to play into that

[Recursion]

2. The worst part being, money does actually magically appear

That's how bank loans work. I agree they feel that way, but they are mistaken.

[ck4829]

5. I'm out there working hard and don't get things for free

I'm also a leftwing Democrat who while a straight white male; supports affirmative action, a robust safety net for poor and people who could potentially become poor, rights for GLBTQ people, radical inclusion, universal healthcare, bringing refugees in, etc.

I legitimately wonder what the difference between me and all these people you mention is.

I don't mean to sound messiah complex-ish, but it could be the key in getting a large mass of new Democratic voters.

---

1 thing: I am a social constructionist, I believe many things are just that, social constructs. Money and class (Like being rich or poor) aren't 'real' objects, but things that only exist because we collectively agree on them. This also applies to the terms of 'success'.

[Turin_C3PO]

10. There's got to be one party sticking up for the little guy.

Why should we pander to rich people when the lower classes need our help more? If people who are well off or own businesses are threatened by social justice programs and higher taxes, then too bad. A lot of what you posted are common right wing talking points, by the way.

[Recursion]

15. Because we need to win elections

Like I said, the $75K-$100K vote is the difference between Obama's and Clinton's electoral performances.

[Turin_C3PO]

17. I'm not saying we should work against them or anything.

I just don’t buy the narrative that democratic policies in any way hurt the more well off. We can’t compromise key values to attract voters. And, I hate to say it, but they may just be attracted to Trump’s demagoguery.

Also, you can point to a lot of stats on why Trump won. Instead of the 75k people making the difference, you can also say that lower than average African American turnout cost us the election. That’s just as valid. Jill Stein, Republican voter suppression, and Russian interference are also huge reasons we lost. And STILL Clinton got three million more votes.

[ck4829]

20. You're creating a dichotomy where there doesn't need to be one

[ck4829]

19. +1

[Joe941]

3. Don't need to connect... just tax them!

Seriously they are a small minority and need to pay higher taxes to pay for schools and health care and social security.

[Recursion]

4. They're about half the people who vote

Look at the percentages. Half the people who showed up to vote made between $50K and $100K.

[Joe941]

6. I'd say those who make 100k and up need to be taxed more - not at 50k.

[Ace Rothstein]

7. I think getting more people to vote who are making $50k and less is more feasible.

[Recursion]

11. Even Obama couldn't do that

Even with his level of turnout they were still 36% of the electorate, just like 2016.

[DFW]

8. A two-earner $72K gross income isn't comfortable everywhere

It's certainly OK in most of Texas and much of the Midwest, but in the coastal northeast or most of coastal California, especially if you have dependents of school age, what is left after taxes could leave you struggling to make all payment obligations. The part I find scary is the slight edge Trump appeared to have in the $50K-$200K group. This is exactly the group that should have seen a Clinton win as a win for them, big time. It speaks volumes that Trump was able to connect with these people. It also speaks for the power of Fox "News" that so many voters were willing to believe their TV instead of their calculators and their own realities.

[Recursion]

12. It's definitely comfortable in Trump country

Trump wasn't exactly racking up $75K households in San Francisco or New York. He was winning them in places where that's decent money.

[DFW]

18. Agreed. $75K won't buy you a mansion in WV, but it won't make you eat cat food, either.

And the people who do make $75K in Trump country were helped exactly zero, but Fox Noise has them convinced that life has somehow taken a huge turn for the better because of him.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. I don't know

but we certainly shouldn’t adjust our economic message. We’re already too moderate on that end, IMO. I guess we could promise not to raise their taxes, unless they make over $250,000, but I’m definitely not for tax cuts or anything like that.

On edit: 75-100k isn’t a hell of a lot in many places in this country. True, you’re not poor or working class, but still, the money doesn’t stretch as far as it used to.

[Recursion]

13. We do better with the people we want to tax, oddly

Democrats do pretty well among voters making $250K or more.

75-100k isn’t a hell of a lot in many places in this country

There's almost nowhere that that isn't in the upper third of the income distribution. And Trump isn't exactly winning in areas where $75K is poor.

[Turin_C3PO]

14. I just don't have any ideas

how we attract that group other than hoping they’ve had enough of Trump. I’m willing to listen to ideas on how to win this demographic but not if it means compromising core liberal values.

On edit: Maybe addressing student loan debt and ways to reduce the burden would appeal to this group. I imagine there’s a lot of people in that demographic who have significant student loan debt. Also free community college may appeal to them if they have kids.

[mathematic]

16. My guess is that these numbers are due to racist whites

I'm saying that there's nothing about being "somewhat-richer-than-average" that makes a person a republican. There IS something about being white that makes somebody both "somewhat-richer-than-average" and a republican. (It's racism).

Now I don't know that this is true but the difference you show is small enough that I'd have to see an analysis that shows that this edge persists after adjusting for race before I'd believe it's anything other than the racial makeup of the people in these buckets.