>"As such, the Democratic Party is now anchored in the nation’s booming, but highly unequal, metro areas, while the GOP relies on aging and economically stagnant manufacturing-reliant rural and exurban communities."
The analysis of averages can be misleading. Democratic districts appear to include both some of the poorest urban cores and wealthiest suburbs. I wonder how the GINI coefficient of Republican versus Democratic districts compares?
Also, the makeup of the 111th House was 256 D, 178 R and the makeup of the 116th House was 235 D, 199 R, a swing of about 10 districts to the Republicans. But note that in the 114th House the makeup had been 188 D, 247 R and the map was even redder.
It won't surprise you to reveal that Utah features the greatest amount of economic equality. When you chart Democrats' income it tends to be bimodal--poor people voting for tax money and rich people voting for [insert mystery reasons here--stopping climate change? ethnic interests? to please TV clowns?].
Mostly, the "mystery reason" is that self-interested voting is prevalent only among the needy and the greedy. At one end are those who feel it's necessary for their own survival (even when they're wrong or when the policies they vote for actually harm them). At the other end are the rentiers who never had any guiding principle other than self-interest. In between are the many reasonably-prosperous and mostly-urban folks who can afford to vote their conscience. When the personal effect of a policy ranges from slight benefit to slight harm, in neither case affecting one's basic quality of life or social standing, it becomes a lot easier to vote for policies that one sincerely and logically believes are best in a utilitarian sense.
The people you assume vote their self-interest have essentially zero effect via their individual vote, just like everyone else. I mean, if I said I voted for the Green party in every election ever, you would not be able to tell by the state of the country whether that is true, no matter who I am or what my economic situation is.
So I think you are providing illogical reasons for other people to have a certain pattern of illogical beliefs, which is like doubtful squared for me.
Edit: Maybe I would expect the pattern you describe, but I would describe the reasons differently, at least. It is fundamentally irrational to vote as though your vote affects anything, so perhaps the people who are successful and fulfilled through work would tend to be rational, and regard voting as personal expression - whereas people who are not so rational would be more prone to vote their self-interest. Then, of course, one would ask if the irrational in this sense are the groups you mentioned. I don't know.
Sure, but we're talking about tendencies, the average ability for people in these different groups to vote in this way, not in absolute "everyone votes this way" terms.
9 low GINI states, Utah through Minnesota all have two senators from the same party. There are 6 Ds and 12 Rs.
18 high GINI states, New York down to Arkansas (Alabama excepted) also all have two senators from the same party. There are 16 Ds and 20 Rs.
States with a split Senate delegation tend to be in the middle of the GINI range. States with senators from the same party tend to be at the ends of the GINI range, and at both ends there is only a slight preference for Republicans given that Republicans were in the overall majority.
The average GINI for Democratic Senators is 0.4677, and 0.4619 for Republicans.
The analysis of averages can be misleading. Democratic districts appear to include both some of the poorest urban cores and wealthiest suburbs. I wonder how the GINI coefficient of Republican versus Democratic districts compares?
Also, the makeup of the 111th House was 256 D, 178 R and the makeup of the 116th House was 235 D, 199 R, a swing of about 10 districts to the Republicans. But note that in the 114th House the makeup had been 188 D, 247 R and the map was even redder.