I read the whole article. It's annoying on several levels. It's also a very old oversimplification of voter analysis. As such, it's quite misleading, for reasons I note above. I'm not seeing in your reply any new rebuttal to my points, so I'll leave it at that. If you want to understand voter analysis, you'd have to look at a number of different factors, some of which I refer to above (eg. we should see how voters are manipulated, not where they are; and the vast majority of non-rural America makes less than $50k, which is almost poverty by first-world standards).