I always look at the data. That doesn’t mean I interpret it the same way you might.
You’re moving the goalposts off of race and onto economics. So, I assume you’ve conceded the point that the election was NOT about race, and are now moving the discussion to an area where you think your argument is stronger. That’s fine, just wanted you to know that I noticed. I’ll also point out here that you’re working off of exit polls, which have a notoriously high margin of error.
That all said, let’s move on:
It is not news that Clinton carried the lowest brackets. Dems always do. But the “working class” are defined differently than you think. They are the earners between 35K and 85K who work jobs that do not require a degree. That’s a key variable in defining where the Trump support came from.
According to the CNN exit polling:
UNDER 30K Clinton wins, 53% to Trump’s 41%; 12 point spread.
30K to 50K: Clinton wins, 51% to 42%. 9 point spread.
50–100K: Trump wins, 50% to 46%
100–200: Trump wins, 48%-47%
200-250K: Trump, 49%-48%
250K and up: Trump, 48%-46%.
The think that jumps out at you about those numbers is that outside of the lower brackets, earnings was not a very good predictor of how the voter voted. It was pretty much a 50/50 split between Trump and Clinton from 50K up. So, you certainly can’t say that Trump won because of the “rich vote”; the data doesn’t support that conclusion.
HOWEVER, the Trump “core supporter”was defined by MORE than just their income. It was their income PLUS the nature of their job (no degree needed) PLUS their family history as what is best called a “union family.” That specific group broke for Trump hard, I’ve seen some estimates by as much as 39%. They voted Obama the last two elections, this election broke for Trump, and in the process swung Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio into his column.
If you have any better data, I’d be glad to see it.