In Ohio, Bernie Sanders’s Support Increases as Voter Income Rises

[MADem]

Senator Bernie Sanders has made income inequality a cornerstone of his campaign, but in Ohio, he received his highest vote margins among the wealthiest voters.

Among those with family incomes over $100,000 per year, Mr. Sanders outpolled Hillary Clinton by nearly 10 percentage points. Middle-income voters, with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, split evenly between the two candidates.

Voters in families earning less than $50,000 per year sided decisively with Mrs. Clinton.

While Mr. Sanders has beaten Mrs. Clinton among higher-earning voters before, in Vermont and New Hampshire, these have been states in which he dominated across all groups.

In contrast, Ohio is the first state in which Mr. Sanders’s support steadily increases as voter income increases.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/primary-elections-march-15/

[morningfog]

1. That was a surprising result.

[Igel]

6. Not really.

(D) voters are roughly in two classes.

Those with college educations and beyond who are well into the top 50% of income.

Those in the bottom tiers who vote "economic self interest".

I've personally always thought of being poor and "voting economic self interest" as "voting for the person who adds to my net income," but perhaps that's just me and the economic self-interest of the working poor is to decrease entitlements and subsidies to workers.

(And, yes, and "entitlement" is any benefit that the law says you're entitled to. It's legalese in this context, not RW-speak, so sheath any ill will.)

[MADem]

8. I don't knee-jerk over the use of that "entitlement" word. I am older, and

thanks to a respectable education which included plenty of dictionary time, I knew the meaning of the word "entitlement" well BEFORE the GOP tried to change it.

If you are entitled to something, in MY lexicon, you DESERVE it. You have EARNED it.

So you won't see any "ill will" from me.

That said, I still think it's a curious result.

[Human101948]

37. Yes, but then they played on the phrase, "a sense of entitlement..."

which was usually applied to some rich jerk like Donald Trump and turned it around to apply to some poor bastard who was scraping by on food stamps.

[MADem]

43. Good thing I've never listened to those bozos!

Frank Luntz and his "Words That Work" crowd can put those words where the sun don't shine--because they just don't work on me.

"Entitlement" is plainly something an individual MERITS. It's right in the word, as far as I'm concerned!

Now, if we want to talk about grifters, cheats, and the willfully obtuse, those kinds of words "work" just fine in describing our GOP opponents...!

[Hortensis]

38. :) Your posts are always worth reading.

Is it really that curious though? Liberalism always had large well off and downright wealthy factions, and the simple truth is that a very large majority of Bernie voters are liberal -- not far left as in DU -- but liberal, educated and well to do. So this state's went more heavily for him, so what?

[MADem]

42. I thought it was an oddity, myself.

I think it would make a great topic for a thesis--the forensics on it would be fascinating. Was it a regional thing? Was it a MARKETING thing? Was it something else, or a combination?

There are always a cadre of rich people that coalesce around candidates to the left, that, to quote that oft used phrase "vote against their own economic interests." I suspect that has something to do with their wanting to be able to live with themselves, but that's just my POV.

It's especially frustrating to the GOP that there are so many well paid "Hollywood liberals." They think everyone should be like them, hate-filled and wanting to hold on to every penny. They can't understand an altruistic nature.

But this looks, at a quick glance, like an oddity--a bit of one, anyway. I'd be interested in learning what the dynamic is. We might learn something that could be useful in future races.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Not to me. Not in the least, actually.

Education...

[Codeine]

16. Us Hillary folk are dummmmmb. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Far be it from me to question your astute assessment.

[Hortensis]

39. (I dont think theirs a B in dummmmm, Codeine.)

[Codeine]

41. Damb. Dummer than I recollected. nt

[agracie]

26. ...and information, and the ability to see the big picture.

[Recursion]

13. Not really; it's been consistent throughout the campaign

Sanders has always done better with the rich demographics than the poor ones.

[JonLeibowitz]

27. Exit polls say you are wrong.

[Recursion]

32. I'm just talking about standard daily polls

If exit polls disagree that's interesting, but the Gallup and Pew stuff is very consistent on this.

[Hortensis]

40. She's right.

[grasswire]

2. that's a bad omen for her. nt

Ohio was lost for Bernie because of the Kasich factor. But from this news, we know that Hillary lost one of her demographics to Bernie.

[MADem]

5. I don't think so. His support increases as one climbs closer to the ONE %.

I was shocked at this article because I thought his support came primarily from the lower to middle end of the 99 %.

This is the kind of anomaly that is the meat of what potentially could be a really good academic thesis--so much to unpack in this statistical observation. It's not just "Kasich" that accounts for this.

[snowy owl]

14. Less educated - wealthy people aren't necessarily the elite. They know they can lose theirs.

The really, really rich in this country aren't living in small pockets in Ohio or Missouri or Michigan. These people know that the direction of wealth in this country is going to eventually touch them. They are smart. You're lower middle class and poor voter - where do you think they get their information. Sitting in front of Rachel or Chris or the nightly local non-news. Hardly a mystery to me.

[Kalidurga]

3. You might think we don't know who are friends are...

[MADem]

4. The article surprised me--the richer people are, the more they support BS.

I really thought his target audience was working class people.

[Kalidurga]

15. His target is everyone with a heart

[MADem]

20. Surely the lower income people in OH have hearts? nt

[Kalidurga]

21. Some vote strategically up to you to figure that out

[MADem]

22. I think the statistics don't lie--the 99 percenters broke strong for Hillary. nt

[Kalidurga]

23. I don't see you as someone that really understand the 99%

But, keep trying it's fun to watch.

[MADem]

24. Now, now--no need to get churlish.

Sorry to disabuse you, but I am a proud member of that club. I think I understand the issues quite well, thanks anyway.

[Kalidurga]

25. If I wasn't churlish I would lose half my charm.

[ericson00]

7. Bernie is the candidate of rich-kid college kids

and pseudo-intellectuals, its obvious, ever moreso

[SusanCalvin]

10. Odd and interesting.

I'm still for Bernie in any case

[reformist2]

11. That's because all the independents voted for Kasich. They would have voted for Bernie.

[MADem]

12. No--this has to do with wealth and degree of support.

Why would a Bernie-supporting independent vote for Kasich? Makes no sense.

Ostensibly, the "sane" Kasich is a tougher candidate to beat, assuming he got through the vetting process and survived a contested convention, than the crazy, off-the-wall, loose cannon Trump.

Who would vote Kasich and make it harder for the candidate they ostensibly preferred? Anyone who voted for Kasich liked him best. That's the home field advantage. Those votes were never available to Sanders.

[grossproffit]

17. Yep.

[OhioBlue]

28. no, no and no

"Anyone who voted for Kasich like him best" this is not true at all.

There were lots of cross-over votes in Ohio to stop Trump. It was made clear that Kasich was close in the polls and a win for him could stop Trump from getting all the Ohio delegates and a clear path to the nomination.

Social media was rampant with dem's talking about voting for Kasich to stop Trump. Lots of indys that didn't like any of the candidates but hate Trump also pulled the R ballot to vote for Kasich.

[MADem]

30. I've seen nothing to indicate that these voters would have otherwise

voted for Sanders. OR Clinton, for that matter.

These were right leaning Republicans, who might have voted for Rubio, or even a few Cruz-ers.

[OhioBlue]

33. You're wrong. The cross overs that voted for Kasich

would have voted for Hillary or Bernie by a very large percentage. I don't know which way they would have gone, but they were Dem voters that voted to stop Trump. Ohio Dems don't like Kasich. We had a horrible Dem candidate to oppose him 2 years ago. Kasich's support in Ohio is not what it seems.

[MADem]

36. Well, I've seen no evidence of that, and if he "took" from both candidates, who's to

say they were terribly committed to one or the other.

Hillary won Ohio pretty decisively. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio

Democratic Primary
Clinton has won Ohio, according to A.P.
CANDIDATES/VOTE PCT./DELEGATES
Hillary Clinton 676,432 / 56.5%/75
Bernie Sanders 511,835/ 42.7/54

[Codeine]

18. Really?

Why would a Berner vote for a Republican?

[OhioBlue]

29. to stop Trump. n/t

[MADem]

31. Why stop Trump? Why stop the candidate who is EASIER to beat?

Makes no sense.

[OhioBlue]

34. his snow ball of support doesn't indicate that he would be easier to beat. n/t

[MADem]

35. Your team repeatedly insisted that Sanders beats Trump easier than Clinton beats Trump!

I've seen dozens of posts that insist this is the case--that Sanders would crush Trump.

They don't take into account any oppo vetting, though.