What? It's absolutely true in the US
> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
All the political terms - left, right, conservative, progressive, liberal, etc have definitions which vary greatly from country-to-country, over time, and by which group is using them. Clinton and Biden are representatives from American's dominant liberal party and represent views which are left-of-center when you do the sane thing and define center as "median voter in the country being discussed" and not "my group of friends" or whatever time or place you're imagining.
You might as well say 'Bill Gates is very poor, by any reasonable standard' (because unlike the rich people of 2,000 years ago, he can't raise an army that rivals that of his home nation-state or the rich of the future who take vacations on the moon).
Liberal & Conservative in the US usually have to do with what changes a person wants to make but Clinton, Romney, Obama, Biden, hell Bush are all literally conservative in the scope and amount.
Yes, they wouldn't be conservative for Saudi Arabia, but they would both continue to closely ally us with the Saudis and aid them in murdering Yemenis.
> center as "median voter in the country being discussed
Both Biden and Clinton, issue by issue, are well to the right of the median US citizen. It's pretty dishonest to restrict the people allowed to have their opinions considered to the people who thought that the distinction between Republican and Democratic administrations was important, when the argument being made is about whether both candidates are conservative. The median eligible voter is barely more likely to vote than not.
I know typing this is a waste of time.
Additionally, everything you listed is just exposition on your initial claim. Saying that you will "End Welfare As We Know It" sounds like a potentially wildly liberal plan - perhaps UBI, government-guaranteed employment, housing and healthcare or some other fundamental shift. The victims of crime are disproportionately the poor, people of color and people who are structurally disadvantaged so removing the threat of violent crime from their lives falls well within the standard goals of liberals (even if the actual implementation of the bill you're referencing had more mixed results).
Look at this polling of support of Bush vs Kerry by income level[1], as income rises support for Bush almost always rises, and support for Kerry almost always decreases.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/...
(On a side note, there's some smaller skew between voting Republican and having conservative political leanings. I'm conservative in fiscal policy, foreign policy, and favoring action at a local and state level, but liberal regarding most social policies, criminal justice reform, and environmental regulation. I think government enforced price transparency plus a German-style universal healthcare system via private insurance decoupled from employment is preferable to either a US model or a Canadian/UK-style single payer system. I've always registered as a Democrat.)