tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post7136214923736035643..comments2024-03-27T03:49:12.592-07:00Comments on Ed Dolan's Econ Blog: Just About Managing: How the "Jams" Elected Donald TrumpEd Dolanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757995049056872214noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-25977684560465904082016-12-14T13:22:42.998-08:002016-12-14T13:22:42.998-08:00Hey Ed I'm a big fan of the blog. Continuing t...Hey Ed I'm a big fan of the blog. Continuing the conversation we started on Twitter. A few points here:<br />1. In the top of your piece you primarily describe JAMS as an economic class. It’s an interesting frame. And in the UK it may explain voting behavior. Not in the US presidential election. When you look at voting behavior by income group, the parties are virtually split in every category, except the poorest group which leaned Democratic. (Remember, Clinton won the popular vote) https://twitter.com/DavidBrownDC/status/809102878161956864<br />2. You argue Democrats are a coalition of have-nots and coastal elites. That seems to be exaggerated. At the presidential level, Democratic coalition is 2.6 million larger than the Republican one. Democrats won women by 13 points, 18-44 year-olds by 14 points, blacks by 81 points, Latinos by 38 points, Asians by 38 points, college grads by 10 points, union households by 9 points, immigrants by 33 points, and first-time voters by 19 points. They won virtually every large- and mid-sized city, north, south, east and west. And they won rural areas from South Texas to the Mississippi Delta to New England. Yes, they lost badly in white, rural areas—worse than they have before. But the point is, the defining features of these groups are not their income but their whiteness, their oldness, and their rural-ness. Middle-income people also exist in cities (some booming, some struggling) and in less-white rural areas. And in those places, Clinton won.<br />3. You also linked to a Times story that argues that whites have been losing jobs. That data is pretty badly misleading. It doesn’t reflect the relative decline of whites as a share of the working-age population. When you look at these groups’ employment-to-population ratios—a more sensible approach than net jobs added—you see a much more static picture. https://twitter.com/DavidBrownDC/status/809129512504070144. All race/gender groups, except black women, have seen a small drop in employment-to-population.<br />The point is there’s a temptation, in the wake of a really surprising election, to see really sweeping economic trends that fit the political narrative. But sometimes the numbers just don’t support the narrative.<br />-DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com