@1 could be but one thing is certain, you will be here trolling them.

I wonder what the voting rate is for rural Medicaid recipients?

My suspicion is that the very poor do not vote, while those just above the poverty line, just above Medicaid, do vote. Further, they vote their resentments against the very poor, even if they feel no qualms about taking Medicare benefits.

The cross-over between the 2 groups (Medicaid-recipient * voters) are "low-information" voters who made their choice based on fear and misinformation.

@3 Voter turnout by income

For Trump
<30k...41%
30-50k...42%
50-100k...50%
100-200k...48%
200-250k...49%
250k+...48%

For Clinton
<30k...53%
30-50k...51%
The turnout of Clinton voters for the other income groups was not different than for Trump.

@5 an addendum; among all voters, those earning less than 50k made up about 36% of all voters.

Rational people: when they see someone earning more than they do for the same work, think "hey, I should earn what they do". The aggrieved white masses think: "they should earn what I earn". This view was recently articulated by workers at the Boeing plant when they voted to reject unionizatioin. They argued that the union workers made too much.

These people have been so brainwashed they work against their own self-interest.

Forgive, Forget, Move-on.

@8. Reap what you sow. Trump care will pass, millions will lose out on healthcare, Trump will start some wars, the economy will tank, and it will be 2008 all over again. It's the ole pendulum; people have short memories and get bored of leadership easily. It's that simple.

@5: sweet, thanks. did the breakdown go below 30K? 20K, 10K, OK?

@3,5,6,12,

Do you know where retirees are placed? I work in market research and retirees are squirrel-y about income. Lots skip the question or put "choose not to answer." Others put what they currently receive from social security/pensions/401ks/etc. Still others put their final income amount even though they no longer make that.

Normally wouldn't be much of a problem, but old people have enormous voter turnout.

Fortunately, the rugged individualists in Eastern WA will easily handle losing this government benefit. After all, they do things on their own, not with government handouts, like federally subsidized water for irrigation, electricity, phone lines, or roads.

@10: Trump went on a lot about Clinton having "no stamina", which most of us believed was a dog whistle for "no penis". The Muslim ban and the border wall were what said "vote for the white guy".

"Hate, in all its forms, is not cheap." What a great line. I want to make it, "Hate, in all its forms, is not cheap, in all its forms," but that's not quite it. Is there an eloquent way to say that?

Lest we forget, many supported Trump because he wasn't Hillary Clinton, who was a terrible choice for a candidate.

This glosses over the data that many of these white "racist" Trump voters actually voted FOR Obama in previous elections. It doesn't mean that they didn't respond to the message of making white men great again, just that their bias is not completely overt. They think they want racial harmony but probably really just want people who look different than they do, to Be Quiet.

At least this guy spent a lot of time working in his son's memory to make sure a lot of other people's kids die from opioids too.

It is possible that many people voted for Trump not because of his racism but despite of it. Hillary represented status quo, Trump didn't Sanders (who is currently the most popular politician in America according to Fox) would've mopped up.

Maybe we should be talking about how the Clinton Era Democratic Party, ostensibly the party of the working class, utterly failed these people, who then voted for Trump out of desperation. Yes, there are racists who think that Trump is "their guy", but take a close look at what neo-liberal policies of the last 25 years have done to rural and small-town America, and it will be easy to see how some people might have seen Trump as the "lesser evil".

The central delusion of the modern conservative voter is that the urban elites are spending all THEIR hard earned money, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Remember this? Still applies. As it has every single year for decades:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfa…

The opportunity to choose where we live is relatively new and is fundamentally changing the human genome on a scale and pace never before seen. As any small town mayor will tell you, the biggest threat to their communities is that all the smart kids flock to the cities to be around other smart people like themselves, leaving the dregs behind to breed and fester, and getting stupider, angrier and more paranoid with each new generation of morally stunted, mean, bigoted, dimwitted, dead-end little aberrations, who will eventually go the way of the neanderthal. Good riddenace, Blimpy and Lou Anne. You won't be missed.

@17 & @21: STFU already, go back to your mother's basement, and get a clue! Clinton was this country's--and the world's ONLY right choice--for 45th President of the Divided States. Rural voters will soon see and feel the consequences of their hatred from voting for a xenophobic, misogynist, bigoted, narcissist fraud who filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy three times---to be bailed out by its Wall Street banksters each time. How many working poor voters---and not just within Washington State, but throughout the Divided States--will get bailed out upon losing jobs AND what was decent healthcare insuring millions? Not the blue collar voters--they all shot themselves in the foot believing Trumpzilla's repulsive lies.

@24 Believe me, you don't need to convince me that Trump was a poor choice. But Clinton was possibly the only Democrat who could have lost that election. For fuck's sake, she had a 50+% UNfavorability rating before the race even started, and it only got worse as the campaign dragged on. Her flaws were exposed for all to see in 2008 when a junior Senator from Illinois ruined her coronation. Yet, the party establishment chose to ignore that and greased the skids for her from start to finish in 2016. Sanders, Biden, Warren ... each of them would have crushed Trump in the general election.

If anything I think the lesson to be learned from this election is that calling everyone who disagrees with you a Racist is simply ineffective.

Instead of yelling into their echo chamber, why doesnt the Stranger take the time to get to know these people instead of just assuming it was all about sex/race?

@25. I know Bernie bros love tell themselves that he easily would have one but the facts suggest otherwise.

The reason Bernie polled so well is the Republicans never really attacked him. In a general election voters would have gotten to hear all about his criminal record (bad checks, stealing power from neighbors ect.) And had a chance to see videos of him praising the Sandinistas and Castro. That's not even getting into the issues around missing city funds while Mayor of Burlington or his comments about Hispanics while I'm congress....

The results of the election suggests that a candidate can survive a lot of issues, if he looks like he might deliver. People were foolish enough to elect this knucklehead on that basis. But the opportunity was lost with him for a generation or so, as in their disappointment and revulsion they're likely to return to the standard dysfunction of the establishment Republicrats for a few cycles.

The Oregon Territory... http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities…

The Northwest voted for Cruz. rapture-nazis are different. They will use god as an excuse.

Canadian Rifle Association... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK6scDCh…

If you vote for a racist sexist pig you aren't even an enabler?

@27 Bernie had a chance because it was CLEARLY an anti-establishment election. Trump, of all people, won, and look at all of his negatives. But, Bernie aside, other qualified candidates didn't even bother to run because Clinton was anointed early on. The Democratic party could have nominated almost anyone besides Hillary, without her baggage, and the result would have been different. Instead, they nominated the "establishment" poster-child.

The Democrats have SERIOUS issues with credibility, and it all stems from the Clinton Era. Trump aside, they also let GW Bush get elected twice, and that was no picnic either. Obama's electoral success was due solely to HIS extraordinary skills as a politician, and masked all of the reasons why the Dems failed in 2000, 2004, and now 2016.

Will the Dems learn anything from this? It is time for their leadership to retire and get the fuck out of the way, but will they? Will they pull their heads out of their asses and stop blaming Jill Stein, of all people, for their repeated failure?