I couldn't see the header in your extract, and I see most of the table is missing. Statistician hat on; please could you in future post links rather than selective extracts? Thank you.
Edit - Discours doesn't want me replying to you again so I am extending this message.
First, your extract doesn't include the headings. They are rather important. Am I expected to guess them? In most of the world, red = left and blue = right (and red is left (port) at sea too!) So without the context that they are Trump, Clinton and Other votes, it isn't clear.
Second, there are not enough data to support your conclusion.
Income is not a simple variable; it is affected by social class, occupation, age and location. Your assumption seems to be that it is uniformly distributed by social class. Far from it.
If we take the under-$50000 group that will include a lot of students and graduates looking for professional jobs as well as people from the lower social classes. If we take the $50-100k band that will include a lot of older skilled workers and younger professionals. Then there's the location effect; income distribution in SF or London, UK is very different from that in North Dakota or Lincolnshire, UK (Or, in fact, in Lincolnshire, Ill).
Age distribution is important; in the UK Michael Heseltine has drawn the attention of Conservatives to the fact that their support is mainly among the elderly but successive generations are less Conservative than was expected based on generational shift, pointing to an erosion of their voter base.
It would be all too easy for me to get into a generalised rant/seminar on the use and abuse of statistics, which I guess hardly anyone would want to read, but I will conclude by saying that having seen the actual table from which you extracted I agree with @LearnedCoward; you've tried to cherry pick data. I'm going to assume it's innocent.