Lion of the Blogosphere

Who did rich people really vote for?

A new data source became available in April, at the U.C. Berkeley SDA archive, and that’s the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2016. This provides a cornucopia of information not available in the exit polls.

I ran this report selecting only non-Hispanic white voters.

In this dataset, among this demographic, Trump beat Clinton by 52.5% to 40.2%

However, the breakdown by income clearly shows that those with the top incomes swung decisively for Clinton. Trump’s support came from whites with income below than $110,000/year. Note that study asks for “family income.”

Income below $110,000: Trump beats Clinton 55.7% to 36.7%
Income $110,000 and above: Clinton beats Trump 50.3% to 43.3%

I have a screenshot below of the entire output.

* * *

When you remove the race and ethnicity constraints from the data, Clinton beat Trump by 53.7% to 39.6% among respondents with income of $110,000 and higher.

Note that the ANES, like most polls, has a pro-Clinton and anti-Trump bias. The full weighted data set shows that 48.8% voted for Clinton, while the actual popular vote is 48.2%. And the dataset has 44.0% voting for Trump when the actual popular vote was 46.1%. I attribute this to the shy Trump voter effect

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 8, 2017 at 8:53 am

Posted in Uncategorized

40 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Research regarding occupation and voting association is much more important. Individuals with prolier occupations voted for the grump.


    July 8, 2017 at 9:31 am

  2. We are DINK/HENRY and secretly voted Trump. All of our well off colleagues voted Clinton. Some literally shed tears when she lost. The data you’re presenting corresponds with my experience.

    R P

    July 8, 2017 at 10:10 am

  3. Some of these results look really sloppy. Why are the income categories so tightly spaced in the low range? Also, they oversampled Trump voters. Then, Gary Johnson got 21% among households that earn upper $20s but 4% among households in lower $30s?

    Jill Stein got 0% from $80K households and 5.7% from $90K households?


    July 8, 2017 at 10:34 am

    • It’s a small sample size problem.

    • Jill Stein probably got votes from those who didn’t like Clinton, but wanted to remain “liberal” and worked in liberal oriented occupations like publishing and academia.


      July 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm

  4. Of course, none of that really answers your question.

    Do rich people vote Democrat because they don’t care about paying higher taxes…or do they vote Democrat because they are not affected by the tax code themselves?

    Remember, the higher the income being paid, the greater the likelihood that that income is being earned by a trustfunder or a TOOS. Now, the Tf-T may not be earning that money from a trust fund. he may be earning that money in a real job. But, the trust fund determines the floor at which he settles. So a trustfunder making $150,000 a year in Manhattan at a real job with a $10 million trust fund is far more likely to be voting democrat than someone simply making $150,000 a year.

    Furthermore, what would be the point of even raising taxes on this cohort? Is the goal to lose the 43.3% of high income earners who do vote Republican?

    This is why you do not go after income taxes. You have to after the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits should be taxed. That is how you go after the rich.

    Remember the fundamental problem: according to the SCOTUS, the federal government cannot tax municipal bonds. Any increases in the federal tax rate results in more money flowing into municipal bonds, which, in turn, fuels the profligate spending of cities, which fuels their social policies, which fuels the potential for bankruptcy, which requires federal bailouts. The tax exempt status of munis has fueled the growth of nonprofits and other organizations that allow the rich to avoid taxes.


    July 8, 2017 at 10:56 am

    • “Furthermore, what would be the point of even raising taxes on this cohort? Is the goal to lose the 43.3% of high income earners who do vote Republican?”

      I’ve repeatedly made a similar point about billionaire donors who support the GOP. So far Leon has refused to address it. Just like he refused to address your point.


      July 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    • no!

      bait and switch.

      the reality is…

      1. charity is generally LESS efficient than govt.

      2. generally charity is a scam.

      3. HYPS are basically hedge funds. but without taxes.

      4. Etc.

      you’ve gotta move on.

      you’ve gotta give up your jive.

      you’ve gotta embrace absolute negativity.

      you’ve gotta grok hegel!

      the ultimate bogeyman of all political discourse.

      Beverly Hills

      July 8, 2017 at 10:52 pm

      • I suspected you were him😆


        July 9, 2017 at 9:46 am

      • “1. charity is generally LESS efficient than govt.”

        People would be better off with a lot less of both.

        “2. generally charity is a scam.”

        So is gov’t.


        July 9, 2017 at 11:30 am

  5. If you are over-socialized, you are more likely to do what your bettors expect, vote Clinton.

    Trump is performing very well to date IMO, from speeches to poise under pressure, to caution on war to economy and controlling spending. If Clinton were performing this well, she would no doubt be acclaimed from coast to coast.


    July 8, 2017 at 11:18 am

    • Yes, that is what the Unabomber said. The people who are college educated and among the upper tier of society have been over-socialized into the leftism.

      Here is what the Unabomber said:

      The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.


      July 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      • ” Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual.”

        Yeah, good point. Imagine how awesome a society would be founded on the exact opposite of the principals, where people who didn’t buy pet animals to torture them, for example, were ostracized.


        July 8, 2017 at 7:53 pm

      • Yes, that is what the Unabomber said.

        and therefore it’s false?

        ted k is the world’s most well known Cynic.

        and a terrorist.

        how can a mosquito fly in the rain?

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 9, 2017 at 3:23 am

      • Weak minded, Ted Kaczynski was a prole who ended up in Harvard and then stumbled. Perhaps the Ivies aren’t always greener for those of a lesser breed.

        I knew of a White Hispanic who grew in the inner city of NYC, and ended up in Harvard. He couldn’t mix with most of the upper class, privileged brats. His upbringing and experiences were vastly different from theirs.

        America is the most unequal place in the industrialized world and rightly so. People fail to understand its corporate-bottom line culture, and now it’s more severe than anything witnessed by TeddyK during his lifetime.

        Kaczynski’s manifesto is what French Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan said about Americans decades ago. Americans are obedient, strivers and slaves to the capitalists. Except now, it seems like Americans are all these things to technology, instead of actual humans.


        July 9, 2017 at 11:22 am

      • “Imagine how awesome a society would be founded on the exact opposite of the principals,”

        You implied a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Whether a society founded on the opposite of those principles is “bad” doesn’t mean a society founded on those principles is “good”. In fact, a society funded on those principles would be unsustainable. You don’t like that because it hurts your feelings. F* your feelings.


        July 9, 2017 at 12:04 pm

      • And Meriprolestan is basically an insane asylum full of happy proles hanging out in the psychiatric ward.

        Are the reasons genetic or cultural?

        HBD elites need to look into this.


        July 9, 2017 at 1:26 pm

      • “Yes, that is what the Unabomber said.

        and therefore it’s false?

        ted k is the world’s most well known Cynic.

        and a terrorist.

        how can a mosquito fly in the rain?

        I didn’t say it was false because the Unabomber said it. I just said he said it.


        July 9, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      • And Meriprolestan is basically an insane asylum full of happy proles hanging out in the psychiatric ward.

        We’ve had this discussion before, The highest rates of mental illness are mixed race people such as yourself. The brain is very complex. It takes a lot of genes working together to make things come out right, And the brain has undergone a tremendous amount of evolution since the races diverged 100K years ago. In fact, brain evolution has actually accelerated over the last 10K years. So it’s not surprising that mixing genes that didn’t evolve to work together would result in some problems.

        Regardless, mental illness rates are greatly exaggerated, This leftist site has a great article explaining why the quoted rates are baloney. One paragraph tries to slip a little politics into it. Otherwise, it’s a very good article. And Leon will be happy to know it even mentions “self-actualizing work”.

        Feeling sad, stressed or anxious occasionally isn’t mental illness. Grieving over a friend’s death or worrying about how to pay for a new transmission is normal. Real mental illness affects one’s ability to function. Those people usually end up BOOS ie chronically unemployed, homeless, in prison, institutionalized or living in their parents basement. That can be genetic as in the case of schizophrenia or environmental as in the case of severe PTSD or addiction. I’d say the true rate of mental illness is closer to 1 in 25 than 1 in 4.


        July 9, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      • That’s right, mixed racial backgrounds are prone to mental illness?

        From the map, the Northeast is high on the rate of mental illness if you compare it to Hispanola of Florida and Texaco. New England is the wealthiest region of America, and very White.

        It must be the wealth and value transference guilt!

        Prole areas in Middle America, the South and Alaska, all have higher rates than Florida and Texas, 2 states with a very large Hispanic population. And the Pacific Northwest is very up there, where there are virtually no Hispanics.

        Alt-Right, spokesman, Richard Spencer’s home state of Montana is very White and not pretty when it comes to mental illness.

        I’m willing to bet less evolved Northern Europeans are prone to mental illness more than Southern Europeans, and most White Americans are of Northern European ancestry.


        July 10, 2017 at 11:32 am

  6. Rich voters broke for Hillary because she was the establishment candidate and was the most unlikely to rock the boat when it came to their stock portfolios and retirement funds. Trump was a disrupter with a radical message which always spooks the bourgeoise. This will soon change. As Trump’s economic policies take hold, the left becomes increasingly radicalized and white identity politics becomes more acceptable rich whites will move solidly back into the Republican camp. This is the emergence of a new cavalier class.


    July 8, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    • This seems right. I’m surprised I haven’t seen it put as succinctly as this before.

      Andrew E.

      July 8, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    • @ BTDT

      I think you underestimate the passion with which SWPL types and high class coastal whites despise Trump. Being “racist” is the worst possible thing in their ideological framework. That’s more important to them than the performance of their stock portfolios (as long as the portfolios aren’t tanking, anyway).

      What you’re saying might apply to older, more moderate liberals, but mostly those who’re on the borderline of being wealthy, but not truly wealthy. Noncommittal liberals who stand to lose something financially. That’s enough of a demographic that it could ensure Trump another electoral win… if he runs. But it’s not the emergence of a new class.


      July 8, 2017 at 3:44 pm

      • Coastal SWPLs are dedicated to their ideology, but they are not committed to their own survival. Most of them are either gay, childless or have one (maybe two) kids. They will die out. When you look at the broad swath of America, most whites who are entrepreneurial and childbearing are either conservative or libertarian minded. As the non-white population continues to encroach on their school districts and neighborhoods, SJW anti racism will have diminishing returns. There will be no where left to move to. Nowhere to run. They will have nowhere to go but the alt right.


        July 8, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      • I absolutely concur with B.T.D.T. Here. There are severa mainstream books on how the religious own the future, and these types, being anti-humanist, will not show up for it.

        But what is vitally needed is to cut off the carcinogenic influence of academia as central to the civic institutions, they are batshit crazy and keep distorting the uncritical to believe in their delusions.
        That is the only reason leftism keeps returning, like a dormant virus.

        A Dilettante

        July 8, 2017 at 6:49 pm

  7. OT- Is Ed West reading Lion. Lots of Lion themes; positional goods, sex ratios, competitive virtue signaling, unmarried female driven movements, men playing video games.


    July 8, 2017 at 1:21 pm

  8. I think you need to look at this vs education. Those making $110k+ a year are more likely to be college educated.


    July 8, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    • College educated is not a good predictor for voting patterns.

      Occupation is more important. Someone who works in the business world is more likely to support Trump than someone who is a tenured professor.


      July 8, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    • I think people need to look at it from the circumstances under which one grew up. People who make a lot of money are more likely to come from families who make a lot of money. So the college aspect is correlation not causation. Though smug twats would like to think they hold their views because they’re smarter, more educated, etc. But most people’s views aren’t based on logic and reason. And that’s just as true or people who are smart and educated.


      July 8, 2017 at 9:03 pm

  9. How the rich vote probably breaks down largely by how they got their money. Hedge fund managers, entertainers, big law, etc. etc. all undoubtedly cast their votes for Clinton. But if your money comes from natural resource extraction, construction, transportation, agriculture, or related businesses then you’re likely a Trump voter. Yes, even the agriculture people, who presumably insist that they “must” have illegal immigrant stoop labor would vote for Trump because in their minds he’s the lesser of two evils. Trump might or might not be successful at cutting off their source of labor, but Clinton would legalize all of them, raise the minimum wage, make farm worker union membership compulsory, and force the farmers to give benefits like retirement plans, health insurance and so on*.

    Bakersfield, CA would be an example. Its economy depends on energy and agriculture, and it’s the most politically conservative big city in California.

    *This would probably speed way up the adoption of automation by agribusiness.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    July 8, 2017 at 2:17 pm

  10. Very good analysis! I find it surprising I have not come across something like this before now.

    Mike Street Station

    July 8, 2017 at 2:28 pm

  11. I’d rather have lower taxes on the higher incomes if we can stop immigration, which is closer to what Trump wants to do. Trump isn’t going far enough on immigration though.

    Dems will give higher taxes on the rich but a diverse society, which means a disaster for whites.

    Ideally, we would like both higher taxes on the rich and no immigration and free association, well other than no govt, but that won’t happen.


    July 8, 2017 at 3:21 pm

  12. Voting is one thing but donating is another. I have a feeling that rich voters donate more to political parties than the other side. This leads to pandering by both sides of Congress, they know where their bread is buttered.


    July 8, 2017 at 4:45 pm

  13. Did you correct for location in the country or do we have to wait for Sailer to do that.

    Its not very interesting to hear that people in Manhattan or San Francisco who make more than 150K prefer Hillary.

    Lion of the Turambar

    July 8, 2017 at 6:46 pm

  14. chomsky, jimmy dore, and assange have observed as much.

    the dems are controlled opposition.

    and even worse…

    not only are the dems anti worker…

    they’re specifically anti white worker.

    at this point both parties are even more absurd than insane clown president.

    and yes. i changed my registration from I to D so i could vote for bernie in my “closed primary” state, then voted for trump in the general.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    July 8, 2017 at 8:30 pm

  15. and of course it should’ve been “whom”.

    let your prole flag fly…just only once a year on a prole pride march.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    July 8, 2017 at 8:36 pm

  16. lion,

    you’re in the top 0.1% of IQ. i guess. look into ryazan. see what you think.

    and there’s more than ryazan.

    lots more.

    who is putin?

    a KGB colonel and stone cold killer.

    Beverly Hills

    July 8, 2017 at 9:22 pm

  17. there were russian journalists.

    they’re dead.


    Beverly Hills

    July 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm

  18. In the USSR we were taught that it should be whom not who.


    July 9, 2017 at 2:21 am

  19. ‘Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”’ or “’she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.’

    I mean, for a regular chap it’s OK, but for you mates and for Lion, who have this pretense of being an elite, this is a very poor use of the language. I don’t think elites say ‘who’, watch stupid movies, play stupid video games, or are obsessed with an idee fixe of the ‘rich’ (who aren’t even rich) paying more taxes in order to punish the majority of them for not voting Trump. Weird and weirder!

    Some things they taught us good back in the USSR.


    July 10, 2017 at 7:22 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: