So: we won the poor, and lost the affluent

[Recursion]

Clinton won those making less than $50K by about 8 points. She lost every income group above that.

What can the Democratic party do to make ourselves more attractive to affluent voters?

[Elad]

1. Link?

Not doubting you just interested in seeing where this data came from.

[herding cats]

2. I read this in the Guardian the day after the election.

It may not be the source the OP was referring to, but the info is there in the last paragraph.

Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump.

But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

[aikoaiko]

7. Also, why did 11% of 50K or less voters vote 3rd party and only 4% of 50K voters went 3rd party

The poor and working poor had the most to gain from choosing Hillary over Trump, but 11% went elsewhere.

That is, if I understand these numbers correctly.

[Recursion]

6. That was just from the exit polls:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Income < $30K: Clinton 53 / Trump 41
$30K < Income < $50K: Clinton 51 / Trump 42

I'm sure there will be some finer-grained stuff coming out in the next few weeks.

Thanks for all your work this past week!

[herding cats]

3. That's an excellent question.

I don't have an answer, but I'm willing to listen to others thoughts.

[BainsBane]

4. She won those making under 30k by an even wider margin

according to exit polls.

[geek tragedy]

5. Her margin amongst lower income voters was sharply lower than Obama's

It's not enough to just win certain demographics, Democrats really need to run up the score in those demographics, while keeping the Republicans margins down in other demographics.

[haele]

8. Well, it'll be difficult to appeal to the I got mine, don't think I'll share types.

Without throwing those making less than $50K under the bus. There's the problem with trying to be attractive to affluent voters who aren't already voting Democratic.

The underlying issue is voter suppression in the poorer urban and minority-specific areas, an active dis-information effort, and a fear of "those others" that permeates the more affluent monetized classes where a lot of "new money" is made either off other wealthy people's money or from other people's work - the underlying issue was not any particular socio-economic policy point.

Race and class is the reason the Democrats lose.

So long as monetized class club members who make up about 15% of the electorate ensure that people who live paycheck to paycheck working for them have to go over significant hurdles to vote so they can keep their small community leadership status, their tax cuts and their businesses and business practices won't be regulated - so long as they don't have to share and be part of a greater overall national community, they'll win.

So I don't know, what can we as Democrats do to make ourselves more attractive to those affluent voters, and still remain different from the current batch of Republicans?
We won't be more attractive to them by becoming Republican Lite.
And my fear is that if we focus on those who aren't going to vote for us anyway instead of those who will vote for us when they are able to, eventually any Democrat with a "safe seat" due to minority or less affluent worker constituency will find their voters aren't going to be able to vote, and those districts will be picked off by the local Republican political machine.

Haele

[Retrograde]

9. She did really well in highly-paid Silicon Valley

My county went for her 73%/21%; next-door San Mateo went 76/20, and that hub of overpaid hipsters, san Francisco, went 85/10 (and CA is still counting ballots). In this state it seems the poorer areas - the rural ones - leaned to Trump.

It seems to me more of an urban - rural/suburban split.