gtn130 wrote:dckingsfan wrote:gtn130 wrote:Dems lose seats because their voting base doesn't consist of old, white, retired, politically-engaged people with literally nothing to do with their lives but show up and vote.
Having a low-flexibility job and a family makes it harder for folks to show up on a Tuesday.
meh - not buying it. I think it is more messaging and turnout for specific issues.
There are ~ 231M eligible voters. Trump: 62,979,879 and Clinton: 65,844,954.
Basically there were more non-voters than either Trump or Clinton received ~ 92M (Obama received 69,456,897 votes in 2008). So, neither resonated that well (using both of their low approval ratings).
Trump supporters are the ones with low-flexibility (life).
I just think the messages of both parties are underwhelming.
I haven't looked it up, but being in urban areas might be easier to get to a polling place?
I was talking about midterms, and your take on Trump supporters being "the ones with low-flexibility" is completely wrong, and this has been established for quite a while.
Trump supporters have an above average median household income. Clinton lost the election because she didn't get enough votes from college-educated whites - not because she failed to capture the spirit of Real Working Class Americans or whatever the narrative is.
The average Trump supporter isn't struggling.
I'd like to see the same graph using individual income rather than household income. Republican supporters tend to be married.
