Yes, although you need to factor in the 40% who didn't vote, most of whom will be below average income.
going back to this table....i find it amazing that 35% of US voters earn $100,000+++ a year...and 66% earn $50k++++...and 85% earn $30k++++
Am i reading that right? If so Americans are a lot wealthier on average than I imagined...
Isn't that voters not Americans?
going back to this table....i find it amazing that 35% of US voters earn $100,000+++ a year...and 66% earn $50k++++...and 85% earn $30k++++
Am i reading that right? If so Americans are a lot wealthier on average than I imagined...
Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?
That article is referring to political elites of the type mentioned in the first paragraph, not social elites. Trump may be considered the latter but in no way the former.
True, but I'm coming at this from a base-superstructure position. Political elites merely represent aspects of capital, and it strikes me that those who no longer want to offer any sugar around the pill have certainly given the sticking plaster brigade a kicking.
Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.
For much the same reasons that's almost certainly why May did not want any on-going inquiry into politically directed, militarised policing of direct action.
It will be very different from here, though. He won't be blaming miners or any other workers. He'll continue with the rhetoric that he is on their side, no doubt. Thatcher was the polar opposite to Trump in some ways - remember Keith Joseph telling workers that they'd priced themselves out of their jobs, and so it was their own fault and just tough shit? Trump's been using fascist-style rhetoric that appeals to the working class with rash promises of protectionism. When none of those promises is fulfilled, he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away.
Yet the consequences of realisation on the part of the electorate could well look the same, and draw similar responses from the deep state.
Yes, that's true. I wonder how Trump will respond to his first riot. (Although another difference is that a riot will be first a state matter rather than a federal one.)
Live fire, I'd imagine.
If you read the thread you'd see this has already been discussed, and Trump increased his vote in the lowest income bracket by 16% compared to Romney. That's significant, and if that swing was localised in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania then it probably won him the election.
It'd be interesting to see the change in turnout broken-down by income.
Well given how many decades the "left of Labour" have been doing it while making zero electoral impact one can assume the message will not get through.
Will be the political elites* who get blamed again for blocking him.
And if you read the thread you'll see I was made aware of that and it was discussed again
Where are you getting that turnout figure from sihhi, I've been looking for one and had trouble finding it.
It was the swing amongst the lower income to Trump that made the difference
