LogFAQs > #924055432

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic #228 - Orbs you glad I didn't say banana?
xp1337 06/30/19 1:21:02 PM #121:	red sox 777 posted... xp1337 posted... Your periodic PSA that Clinton won voters making under $50k over Trump by 11 points, which is an improvement over Obama's margin against Romney (10 points) with that same group in exit polls. Better than Obama? That's really interesting. Maybe there were fewer people making under 50k in 2016 than in 2012 given 4 years of economic improvement and inflation in the interim? That's all that jumps out to me at a glance as an explanation. Wait, I think the article I dragged up on that misquoted the 2012 numbers (or CNN was an outlier.) Or was making some bizarre point I can't fathom since it actually states the right number right after the graphic. 2012: Obama won under $50k - 60-38 (22 points) (41% of the vote) 2016 Clinton won under $50k - 52-41 (11 points) (36% of the vote) Both Obama and Clinton lost over $50k, though Clinton narrowed the gap significantly. Obama tended to lose more as income levels rose (with the exception of a small snapback [but still lost by 5] at $200k-$250k.) Clinton hovered at losing the various brackets from 1-4 points (overall lost the whole group by 2; her worst bracket was $50k-$100k, lost by 4; Obama lost that bracket by 6) Apologies for that. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:924055432] in Politics C... [t:77826040]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>Your periodic PSA that Clinton won voters making under $50k over Trump by 11 points, which is an improvement over Obama's margin against Romney (10 points) with that same group in exit polls.</quote> Better than Obama? That's really interesting. Maybe there were fewer people making under 50k in 2016 than in 2012 given 4 years of economic improvement and inflation in the interim? That's all that jumps out to me at a glance as an explanation.</quote> Wait, I think the article I dragged up on that misquoted the 2012 numbers (or CNN was an outlier.) Or was making some bizarre point I can't fathom since it actually states the right number right after the graphic. 2012: Obama won under $50k - 60-38 (22 points) (41% of the vote) 2016 Clinton won under $50k - 52-41 (11 points) (36% of the vote) Both Obama and Clinton lost over $50k, though Clinton narrowed the gap significantly. Obama tended to lose more as income levels rose (with the exception of a small snapback [but still lost by 5] at $200k-$250k.) Clinton hovered at losing the various brackets from 1-4 points (overall lost the whole group by 2; her worst bracket was $50k-$100k, lost by 4; Obama lost that bracket by 6) Apologies for that. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1