A new analysis of the 2016 presidential election, based on census data, provides a pretty good look at why Donald Trump won and the world turned upside-down.
Sean McElwee writes (here), “… in the 2016 election, 73 percent of whites over 65 voted, compared to 34 percent of Latinos aged 18 to 24. Among those 65 or older with an income of $100,000 or more, 87 percent voted, compared to only 34 percent of those aged 18 to 24 with an income less than $30,000.”
I think we probably all knew that instinctively, but it’s good to see it in black and white. Basically: old white people vote, rich people vote, Latinos don’t vote, young people don’t vote.
McElwee states flatly that “higher class bias in voter turnout leads to higher economic inequality and less spending on benefits for low-income people,” and he’s right. Voter suppression is important in swing states, especially the four upper-Midwest states Trump won (unexpectedly) by a total of 77,000 votes. That was the election in a nutshell. Preventing felons who’ve served their time has made a difference, since they tend to be poor minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats.
And here’s another biggie: “non-voters preferred Clinton 49 percent to 31 percent.” Clinton actually won the popular vote by 3,000 votes and with better turnout, that would likely have been a landslide victory for her.
McElwee concludes: “Higher turnout would help remedy deep disparities in representation.” Indeed. Fact is that the study changes nothing. For now.
(Photo: Huffington Post.)