I read an online article yesterday (August 22, 2016) that suggested that though Mr. Trump’s supporters have been identified as men who have lost jobs to current free trade arrangements, he is better received in areas where people are still working and have benefited from an improving economy. Those who one might have expected to be among Mr. Trump’s devotees, those whose jobs have gone to places like Mexico or even as far off as India favour Mrs. Clinton and her Democrats.
That article reminds me of a Migration News review of the 2012 election that characterizes voters according to skin tone and racial background. Their analysis indicates that “Obama won the majority of votes from every subgroup of voters except white men and the elderly.” by which we can assume that white men and the elderly voted for Republican Romney. And Mr. Obama won 80% of the non white vote. These results seem to confirm that Mr. Trump’s followers may be those who still have jobs and are pleased with their prospects simply because it’s difficult to imagine that the non white voters 80% of whom voted for Obama, and many of whom are likely immigrants are better employed than their white counterparts. Now of course I am biased, perhaps because for years I’ve been reading that Republicans favour the rich, and because I believe that the elderly are better off than the young of whatever race, gender or colour.
Consequently I’d recommend that more accurate assessments of election results should be based on incomes and not race, skin colour, or even gender. I think Mr. Powel’s Republican affiliation may be illustrative, for in the 2008 election he supported Mr. Obama the Democrat, but seemed to be less supportive of him before the 2012 election when he said that he favoured Obama in 2008 because of the historic aspect of Obama’s candidacy, a motive he suggested that had ceased to be relevant in 2012.