| Sample: 5,109 | Harris | Trump |
|---|---|---|
| Under $30,000 (12.0%) | 50.0% | 46.0% |
| $30,000-$49,999 (16.0%) | 45.0% | 53.0% |
| $50,000-$99,999 (32.0%) | 46.0% | 51.0% |
| $100,000-$199,999 (28.0%) | 51.0% | 47.0% |
| $200,000 or more (13.0%) | 51.0% | 45.0% |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exit-polls-2024-presidential-election/
While the democratic party definitely embodies liberal elitism in some ways, this shows that the commonly claimed “poor people vote Trump” really isn’t true.
Rich and Poor people seem to prefer Harris by a small margin, while middle class seems to support Trump.
An interesting poll, but note that the sample size is only 5k. If you click on the link, other questions had 22k respondents. So these results are more accurately described as a poll based on people who were willing to divulge their income to an exit poll.
Yep definitely. Non-reponse bias is and will always be an issue in the polling industry, though exit polls have tended to be quite accurate historically as they tend to he conducted physically and have far higher response rates than the usual, telephone/online opinion polls.
Petite Bourgeoisie begin to side against the working class when they are being proletarianized. They have been hit hard by increasing monopolization and large businesses that can outcompete and raise the barrier to entry, and are attempting to turn the clock back. Marx’s analysis of class dynamics is extremely useful for understanding the modern world. Speaking of, I can link an intro guide to theory if anyone wants one.
While at it check out the housing question…
Be prepared to be hurt and note the date of the text lol
A little hook:
The period in which an old civilized country makes such a transition from manufacture and small-scale production to large-scale industry, a transition which is, moreover, accelerated by such favorable circumstance, is also predominantly the period of “housing shortage.” On the one hand, masses of rural workers are suddenly drawn into the big towns, which develop into industrial centres; on the other hand, the building plan of these old towns does not any longer conform with the conditions of the new large-scale industry and the corresponding traffic; streets are widened and new ones cut through, and railways run through the centre of the town. At the very time when masses of workers are streaming into the towns, workers’ dwellings are pulled down on a large scale. Hence the sudden housing shortage for the workers and for the small traders and small businesses which depend for their custom on the workers. In the towns which grew up from the very beginning as industrial centres, this housing shortage is as good as unknown – for instance, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Barmen-Elberfeld. On the other hand, in London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, the shortage took on acute forms at the time, for the most part, continued to exist in a chronic form
This makes intuitive sense to me. If you’re rich, the economy getting bad like it did wouldn’t have hurt so much - you do pay more but your existing wealth insulates you from most of the actual pain.
And if you’re making under 30k then life was already really tough before the economy got bad, so you went from a painful situation that sucked to a slightly more painful situation that sucked.
It’s those in the middle who went from comfortable to painful.
Edit: why the downvotes @goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com and @theatomictruth@lemmy.world ?
I think it’s more that a lot of people on < 30k tend to rely on welfare programs, disability benefits, social security etc. which democrats generally want to expand while republicans want to cut. Not that they don’t suffer from inflation, in fact they are the group that suffers the most proportionally.
Since the alligator eats the bigger number, did you mean <30k (less than 30k)?
If so I’m fully in agreement on the assessment.
Yep my bad, edited comment
Agreed - this makes a lot of sense too. As bad as they have it, they do have a cushion due to the programs you said, and they would have seen Harris as a way to ensure that cushion remained.
In a way that reinforces my original argument (that the top and bottom didn’t really feel the change in the economy as much as the middle did) - but you’re right to bring this up as it’s important to understand precisely why this was the case.
