Note: the following projected margin of victory came from fivethirtyeight.com on 11-8-16. The following vote totals were collected on 11-27-16 and come courtesy the National Popular vote tracker on cookpolitical.com. I updated California and Pennsylvania on 12-7-16. The population totals come from 2010 census. The 2015 GSP totals in millions comes from wikipedia page citing the U.S Dept. of Commerce. The invented term AGSP=GSP (Gross State Product--presented at right below the population) multiplied by the margin of popular vote victory (at left beside the name of the state). This is presented to reflect the relative economic statement made with the margin of victory in each state.
Further Analysis:
1. The election reflected a perfect storm in that Clinton was either extremely unlucky, or Trump was extremely lucky. (Or perhaps even something more sinister...)
(Note: the numbers in parentheses in the following list reflect the ranking of the state or district by population in the 2010 census, followed by the number of electoral votes received for winning in that state. Subsequent numbers reflect the numerical margin of victory divided by the number of electoral votes awarded for that victory.)
DC (49,3) 90,036, MA (14,11) 80,433, CA (1,55) 77,636, OK (28,7) 75,537, KY (26,8) 71,765, MD (19,10) 71,154, AL (23) 65,361, WV (38) 60,115, TN (17) 59,270, ID (39) 54,823,
MO (18) 53,086, NY (3) 52,129, AR (32) 50,730, LA (25) 49,311, IL (5) 47,206, IN (16) 47,106, WA (13) 43,404, NE (37) 42,312, ND (48) 41,012, KS (34) 40,204,
WY (51) 39,842, NJ (11) 38,828, SD (46) 36,886, MS (31) 36.033, HI (40) 34,511,
UT (33) 34,093, MT (44) 33,844, SC (24) 33,335, CT (29) 32,051, OR (27) 31,773,
VT (50) 27,735, IA (30) 24,552, OH (7) 24,003, TX (2) 21,448, RI (43) 17,992, DE (45) 16,825, VA (12) 16,310, AK (47) 15,648, CO (22) 15,154, GA (8) 13,196,
NM (36) 13,114, NC (10) 11,709, ME (41) 9,998, AZ (15) 8,294, NV (35) 4,532, MN (21,10) 4,476, FL (4,29) 3,893, WI (20,10) 2,218, PA (6,20) 2.215, NH (42,4) 684, MI (9,16) 669
Hmmm... Six of the top fifteen states by population (these fifteen representing roughly 2/3 of the over-all population) were under-represented in the Electoral College when compared to their margin of victory. ALL six voted for Clinton! (While 16 of the 25 most under-represented states voted for Trump, moreover, they were conveniently ALL among the least-populated 36 states and districts representing the other third of the over-all population!)
Now, look at the flip side. Nine of the top fifteen states by population were over-represented in the Electoral College when compared to their margin of victory. To be clear, these states represented narrow victories with big rewards. Well, eight of these nine went to Trump, including the six best "deals". The only exception was Virginia.
If one were to classify the vote results for the fifteen most populous states as deals, based on the reward received divided by margin of victory, then, it would look like this...
Bad deals in order of badness, worst to not quite so bad: Clinton in Massachusetts, California, New York, Illinois, Washington, and New Jersey. No bad deals for Trump.
Good deals in order of goodness, best to not quite as good: Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, Clinton in Virginia, and Trump in Ohio and Texas.
Now, one might be tempted to credit Trump with using his ground game to eek out victories in every close big state but one. But there's a problem with this: he was often frugal in his advertising and there's no evidence his campaigning in these states led to undecided voters suddenly changing their minds about him. So, it remains a statistical anomaly of epic proportions that, of the top fifteen states, Clinton won the six biggest landslides and Trump won the six closest races. If one assumes there is no built-in bias as to whether Clinton or Trump would get the best (or worst) deal, then, it reads like this. There's a one-in-sixty-four chance Clinton would have six-in-a-row bad deals, and a one-in-sixty-four chance Trump would win six-in-a-row good deals. And a one in four thousand and ninety four chance both would occur. An election this close, where one side gets all the landslides in the biggest states, and one side gets eight of the nine squeakers in the biggest states, may never be seen again.
And it's not just when looking at the top fifteen states that it becomes clear Clinton got a raw deal, or had bad luck etc. When one adds up the electoral totals for the worst six deals of all states, one finds that Clinton won by a margin of 79-15. She received 34% of her electoral vote total from the six states with lowest reward per vote, while Trump received but 5% of his electoral vote total from these six states. And it's even worse for Clinton when one looks at the five states with the highest reward per popular vote. There, Trump won by a margin of 75-4. Trump received almost 25% of his vote total by winning the most closely contested races, while Clinton received but 2% of her total from the most closely contested races.
2. Trump's victory was an historical outlier.
This was unprecedented. When one looks back at earlier elections they just don't play out like this--with one side winning four out of the five closest races (which we will define as 1.5% or less), with the four states won being massive states in comparison to the one state lost. The 2012 election had but one close race, won by Obama. He won Florida for 29 electoral votes. The 2008 election had three, with Obama winning two for 26 electoral votes and McCain winning one for 11 electoral votes. The 2004 election had four, with Bush the second winning two for 12 electoral votes and John Kerry winning two for 14. The 2000 election was a bit unusual in that Al Gore won four close races to Bush the second's two, but where Gore's four states translated to the same amount of electoral votes, 29, as won by Bush from his two close victories, which included the most closely contested state (and a state actually won by Gore, once all the votes were counted), Florida.
So, let's go back even further. In 1996, Bill Clinton won two close races for 12 electoral votes and Bob Dole won two for 21. In 1992, Bill Clinton won two close races for 17 electoral votes and Bush the first won one for 14. There were no close races in 1988. There was but one close race in 1984, won by Walter Mondale, in his only statewide win over Reagan, for 10 electoral votes.
Now, let's take this in. In 2016, Trump won 71 more electoral votes than Clinton the female in races decided by less than 1.5% of the total vote. This 71 vote margin of victory in the electoral college in these close races is more than the winning margin in similarly close races in the previous 7 elections...combined. He won by 71. Mondale won by 10 in 1984. There were no close races in 1988. Clinton won by 3 in 1992. Dole won by 9 in 1996. In 2000, there was a tie. Kerry won by 2 in 2004. Obama won by 15 in 2008, and then again by 29 in 2012. That's a 68 vote advantage in the Electoral College for those winning races decided by a popular vote of 1.5% or less. Over the last 7 elections. Trump is either insanely lucky or something else was at work.
When one considers that the man has owned casinos for most of his life, and knows all about rigging machines and making the numbers come out in his favor, one might reasonably suspect something else was at work.
But let's not go there...yet. In 1980, Reagan won six close races for a total of 55 electoral votes, and Carter failed to win any close races. This is impressive. Almost Trumpian. We should keep in mind, however, that Reagan won three of these races by wider margins than Trump won his four, and that these 55 votes weren't exactly needed, as Reagan won by 440 votes in the Electoral College.
So let's keep looking. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won one close race for 25 electoral votes, and Gerald Ford won six for 42. There were no close races in 1972. In 1968, Richard Nixon won one close race for 8 electoral votes, and Hubert Humphrey won one close race for 25 electoral votes. In 1964, Barry Goidwater won the only close race for 5 votes. And in 1960, Nixon won one close race for 32 electoral votes, while Kennedy won six close races for 75 electoral votes. Now, keep in mind that Nixon claimed this election was stolen from him. He won 32 votes in close races, but was down a net 43. He also lost the largest state, and the popular vote. Now, just imagine the stink Nixon would have made had he won the popular vote, and the largest state, but still have lost due to his receiving only 4 votes from close races, while Kennedy received 75!
By now you see where this is heading. The 2016 election was both freakishly close, and freakishly one-sided in the luck department. In 1956, there were three close races in which the margin of victory was 1.5% or less, two won by Adlai Stevenson for 27 electoral votes, and one won by Eisenhower for 11 electoral votes. In 1952, the prequel, Stevenson won two close races for 18 electoral votes, and Eisenhower won one for 11 electoral votes. This brings us to 1948. The 1948 election is the closest we've seen to the 2016 election. In some ways it was worse. Seven states were decided by 1.5% or less. Four of these seven were among the five most populous states in the nation. The difference between this and 2016 was the balance. Dewey won four close races for 71 electoral votes, while Truman won three close races for 78, a net gain of 7, a mere smudge compared to Trump's pick-up of 71.
We are now entering the FDR years. In 1944, Tom Dewey won one close race for 25 electoral votes, and Roosevelt won two close races for 35 votes. In 1940, Wendell Willkie won two close races, for 33 electoral votes. There were no close races in 1936. The only close race in the 1932 election was won by Herbert Hoover, for 8 electoral votes. Well, yikes, that means the political genius Franklin Roosevelt won but one close race in four elections, while the complete novice Donald Trump won four in one!
Looking back still further, one can see that in 1928 Al Smith beat Herbert Hoover in two close races, for the grand total of 23 electoral votes. And that in 1924, there were no close races. This bring us then to the election of 1920. In 1920, James Cox beat Warren G. Harding in the only close race, for 13 electoral votes. Well, what about the election of 1916, then? There were four close races in 1916, two won by Woodrow Wilson for 17 electoral votes and two won by Charles Evans Hughes for 23 electoral votes.
We've gone back a hundred years now. Twenty-five presidential elections. In four of these elections, there were no close races decided by less than 1.5%. In thirteen of these elections, the losing candidate won the most electoral votes among states decided by 1.5% or less. Within the close races of these thirteen elections, moreover, these losing candidates had a combined margin of victory of 166 electoral votes. In one election the number of votes received from close races was a tie. That leaves but seven elections (of twenty-five) in which the over-all winner picked up more electoral votes among states decided by 1.5% or less than his opponent. The combined margin of victory for the winners of these close races in these seven elections was 162 votes. Well, do the math. 162 minus 166 is less than zero. The average electoral vote advantage from close races awarded the winners of the U.S. Presidency from 1916-2012 was therefore less than zero! And yet Trump received a SEVENTY-ONE vote advantage in one election, while losing the popular vote by a decisive margin!
Still, let's keep looking. We wouldn't want anyone thinking we're cherry-picking, now would we? (As we go further back in time, the electoral college gradually gets smaller and the impact of each state gets larger, but the percentage of votes between the two top candidates should remain about the same.).
In 1912, there was but one close race, with third-party candidate Theodore Roosevelt picking up 13 electoral votes. In 1908, there were three close races. Taft won two for 26 electoral votes, and William Jennings Bryan won one for 5. In 1904, there was one close race, won by Roosevelt, for 8 electoral votes. There were no close races in 1900. In 1896, there were three close races, two won by McKinley for 20 electoral votes, and one won by Bryan for 4 electoral votes. In 1892, there were four close races, three won by former President Grover Cleveland for 26 electoral votes, and one by sitting President Benjamin Harrison for 23 electoral votes. (There was a third close race won by James Weaver in North Dakota, but the three electoral votes for this state were evenly split among Weaver, Harrison and Cleveland.) The 1888 election was another strange one, roughly akin to the 2000 election, in which the candidate winning the most votes lost the electoral college. But this was still nothing close to the 2016 election. In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won three close races for 24 electoral votes, but was outflanked by challenger Benjamin Harrison, who won two close races for 51 electoral votes. The 1884 election was also closely contested. There, Cleveland won three close races for 57 electoral votes, and James Blaine won one close race for 13 electoral votes. This was a net gain of 44. Since the electoral college was smaller back then, Cleveland's 44 electoral vote advantage in close races represented 11% (44/401) of the electoral college, as compared to the 13.2% (71/538) advantage gained by Trump in 2016. There's also this. Unlike Trump, Cleveland won the popular vote.
So let's keep looking, and see if there's ever been an election besides the 2016 election in which the presidency was decided by a series of close races which made the loser in the popular vote the winner in the electoral college. In 1880, the over-all loser Winfield Hancock won two close races, for 14 electoral votes, and the soon-to-be-assassinated James Garfield won one close race, for 15 electoral votes. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won two close races for 29 electoral votes, and Samuel Tilden won one close race for 15. Tilden also won the popular vote 50.9 to 47.9, but was deemed the loser of the electoral college by 1 vote via a "compromise", in which Hayes agreed to reduce northern control of the southern states, which, led in turn, to the Jim Crow era in which black southerners were denied their right to vote. In 1872, President Grant won one close race for 11 electoral votes, and newspaperman Horace Greeley won one close race for 8 electoral votes. The election of 1868 was another strange one. There Grant won one close race for 5 electoral votes, but lost two to over-all loser Horatio Seymour for a total of 36 electoral votes.
This bring us to Lincoln. In the 1864 election, Abraham Lincoln won one close race, the only close race that year. But it was in the biggest state, New York, at a time when eleven states were waging war against the other twenty-five. As a result Lincoln's net gain of 33 electoral votes (representing 14.2 % of a much-smaller electoral college) from close races can hardly be considered anywhere near as surprising as Trump's pick-up of 71 one hundred and fifty-two years later. The 1860 election was also a bit crazy. Four different candidates won close races. The winner, Lincoln, won one close race for 4 electoral votes. Bell won one for 15. Douglas won one for 9. And Breckinridge won one for 8. There were no close races in 1856. There were two close races in 1852, both won by Franklin Pierce, for 13 electoral votes. There were two close races in 1848, both won by the overall loser Lewis Cass, for 15 electoral votes. And there were three close races in 1844. Henry Clay won two of these races, for 22 electoral votes. But this was more than offset by James Polk's close victory in the great state of New York, which represented 36 electoral votes.
We've just a few more to look at. In the election of 1840, William Henry Harrison won two close races for 40 electoral votes, and Martin Van Buren won one close race for 23 electoral votes. In 1836, Van Buren won one close race for 8 electoral votes, and Harrison won one close race for 8 electoral votes. In 1832, Andrew Jackson won one close race for 8 electoral votes, and Henry Clay won one close race in a state where he was awarded 2 votes more than his opponent. With the election of 1828, the original design for the electoral college--where each state made its own decision as to how to pick the members of the Electoral College, becomes apparent. John Quincy Adams won the only close race, but received only one extra electoral vote for his victory. That we are playing by a different set of rules as we get closer to the birth of the country becomes even more apparent when we look at the election of 1824. There Adams also won the only close race, in Maryland, but was awarded but 3 of Maryland's electoral votes, while Andrew Jackson was awarded 7.
And that's it. Prior to the election of 1824, there was no direct voting for President. It was purely a vote in the Electoral College. In nine states the electors were appointed by the state legislature. In nine states they were elected by the voters on a statewide basis. Four states were divided into districts, with one elector voted into the college per district. And two states had a split system, with one elector voted in per congressional district, and two additional electors voted in on a statewide basis.
So let's see how the elections from 1824-1912 performed. There were no close races in three of these elections. In six of these elections, someone who failed to win the overall election received the most electoral votes from close races in the election. Cumulatively, they received a 74 vote advantage. In the 14 remaining elections, the overall winner received the most votes from close races, for a cumulative 232 vote advantage. So, let's do the math. 232 minus 74 equals 158. 158 divided by 23 is just short of 7. This means that, even before the modern era (1915-2012), in which the overall winners on average received less than zero votes in the electoral college courtesy races decided by less than 1.5%, it was rare to receive much help from these races, the average being less than 7. Trump, let's not forget received 71. When we add this earlier era into more recent times, moreover, and average things out over the 48 elections we've discussed (not including 2016), we find that the 48 previous winners of the presidency have received on average a 3.2 vote advantage from close races. Donald Trump has just received 71!
When a number doesn't make sense in light of expectations, it is sometimes described as an outlier. Well, the possibility exists that Mr. Trump is an out-liar, who stole the 2016 election.
I mean, just think of it. A man who owns casinos wins the biggest prize of all by stringing together the luckiest winning streak in recorded history. No, there's nothing funny there. Not at all.
3. While most of this analysis of the Electoral College and its impact on the 2016 election has focused on its rewarding the same amount of votes for a win, regardless of the nature of the win, there is a significant problem with the college itself, in that it penalizes people living in large successful states, whether or not that state is won by a landslide or not.
Let me illustrate. Some looked at Trump's margin of victory in the sixteen smallest states he won and announced that he'd won in a landslide. These states comprised 36,943,339 people and 1,814,440 mil in GSP. Now, his victory in these states was indeed impressive. He won 64.5 percent of the votes cast for himself or Clinton, which amounts to his winning by 29 points. And yet, his landslide in these states was actually offset by his devastating loss in but one state, California, with its 38,332,521 in population and 2,448,467 in GSP, where Clinton won 66% of the votes cast for Trump or Clinton, and Trump but 34%. That's a 32 point victory, folks.
And yet, Trump was given 82 votes in the Electoral College for winning 16 small states, while Clinton was given but 55 for winning a state with more people than the 16 states put together, and by a wider margin than Trump won those states. And that's not even to mention that the economic might of the state won by Clinton far exceeded the might of the 16 states won by Trump combined. And that Clinton won 20 of the remaining 34 states and districts but still somehow lost the election. Something's wrong here...
4. There's also this... While the electoral college can be fixed or even eradicated, the 2016 election revealed an underlying divide in this country that will probably be with us for awhile.
Let's look at the race based on various factors.
A. First, let's look at the election results to see if the vote was primarily cultural, with the most rural states protesting the influx of immigrants into the country, and concurrent rise in tolerance for previously marginalized Americans, such as African-Americans and homosexuals. Here, then, is a list of the states by population density, reflecting inhabitants per square mile, alongside how each state voted for Clinton against Trump.
DC (10,298) 90.9, NJ (1189) 57.3, RI (1006) 58.3, MA (852) 64.5, CT (741) 57.2, MD (606) 63.8, DE (471) 56.0, NY (415) 61.1, FL (360) 49.4, PA (285) 49.6,
Avg. for the top ten 60.8%
OH (283) 45.8, CA (244) 66.1, IL (232) 59.0, HI (217) 67.5, VA (207) 52.9, NC (201) 48.1,
IN (183) 40.0, MI (175) 49.9, GA (165) 47.4, SC (157) 42.6,
Avg. for the second ten 51.9%
TN (157) 36.4, KY (110) 34.3, NH (147) 50.2, WI (105) 49.6, LA (105) 39.8,
Now, this starts out with a bang. Clinton won the eight most crowded states, and twelve of the top fifteen most crowded states.
WA (103) 58.8, TX (98) 45.2, AL (95) 35.6, MO (87) 39.9, WV (77) 27.9,
Avg. for the third ten 41.8%
VT (68) 65.2, MN (67) 50.8, MS (64) 40.8, AZ (57) 48.1, AR (56) 35.8, OK (55) 30.7, IA (55) 44.9, CO (49) 52.7, ME (43) 51.5, OR (40) 56.2,
Avg. for the fourth ten 47.7%
KS (35) 38.8, UT (34) 37.7, NV (25) 51.3, NE (24) 36.4, ID (20) 31.7, NM (17) 54.7, SD (11) 34.0, ND (10) 30.2, MT (7) 38.9, WY (6) 24.3, AK (1) 41.6,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 38.1%
But it then fizzles out. It's hard to say the rurals rousted the urbans when Trump won eight of the twenty most crowded states and Clinton won five of the fourteen least crowded states. And it's hard to say the rural/urban divide was a key factor when states 31 through 40 voted for Clinton in far greater numbers than states 21 through 30. There must be more to it. A lot more to it.
B. So now, let's look at economic might as a factor instead of population density. Let's list the 2015 rankings of the 51 states and districts by GSP per capita, in thousands, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, alongside the percentage of voters in these states voting for Clinton. .
DC (181.2) 90.9, AK (81.8) 41.6, NY (73.0) 61.1, CT (72.3) 57.2, ND (70.9) 30.2, DE (69.9) 56.0, MA (69.7) 64.5, WY (68.5) 24.3, NJ (64.1) 57.3, WA (62.2) 58.8,
Avg. for the top ten 54.2%
CA (61.9) 66.1, MN (60.3) 50.8, MD (60.1) 63.8, TX (60.0) 45.2, IL (59.5) 59.0, NE (59.2) 36.4, CO (58.0) 52.7, VA (56.9) 52.9, OR (56.0) 56.2, HI (55.6) 67.5,
Avg. for the second ten 55.1%
LA (54.2) 39.8, NH (53.8) 54.7, RI (53.3) 58.3, PA (52.9) 49.6, IA (52.8) 44.9
Well, that's interesting. Even though the second ten voted for Clinton in larger numbers than the first ten, the economy would appear to have been a factor in the election. Clinton won 17 of the 23 most successful states, but only 4 of the remaining 28. Trump, apparently, spoke to these states and offered them real hope for economic improvement. In support, look at the states that didn't vote for Clinton, even though they were doing well. These were primarily rural states, whose success had more to do with their exploitation of natural resources than industrial strength. Perhaps, then, some of the top states voted for Clinton because they were doing well and didn't see the need to shake things up, and some of the top states voted against Clinton because they were afraid she'd shake things up.
WI (51.9) 49.6, SD (51.5) 34.0, OH (51.0) 45.8, KS (50.2) 38.8, NC (50.2) 48.1,
Avg. for the third ten 46.4%
IN (49.3) 40.0, UT (49.0) 37.7, NV (48.6) 51.3, GA (48.6) 47.4, VT (47.5) 65.2, MO (47.2) 39.9, MI (46.6) 49.9, TN (46.5) 36.4, OK (46.3) 30.7, MT (44.3) 38.9,
Avg. for the fourth ten 43.7%
AZ (43.3) 48.1, AL (42.7) 35.6, FL (42.6) 49.4, KY (41.6) 34.3, NM (41.6) 54.7, ME (41.5) 51.5
AR (41.1) 35.8, SC (40.2) 42.6, ID (39.4) 31.7, WV (38.6) 27.9, MS (35.7) 40.8
Avg. for the final eleven 41.1%
And yet, look at Vermont, New Mexico and Maine. Why did they vote for Clinton?
C. Perhaps they have an unusually low unemployment rate and/or poverty rate. Let's look, then, at the states and how they voted, alongside their unemployment rates in numbers of unemployed per one hundred and poverty rates in numbers of people living below the poverty line per one hundred. (This list was created with the help of this chart, and this chart.)
NH (2.8 + 9.2 = 12.0) 50.2, ND (3.0 + 11.1 = 14.1) 30.2, MD (4.2 + 10.4 = 14.6) 63.8, HI (3.2 + 11.5 = 14.7) 67.5, MA (3.3 + 11.7 = 15.0) 64.5, UT (3.2 + 11.8 = 15.0) 37.7, MN (4.0 + 11.4 = 15.4) 50.8, VT (3.3 + 12.2 = 15.5) 65.2, CO (3.5 + 12.1 = 15.6) 52.7, NE (3.3 + 12.3 = 15.6) 36.4,
Avg. for the top ten 51.8%
WY (5.1 + 10.6 = 15.7) 24.3, CT (5.1 + 10.8 = 15.9) 57.2, VA (4.2 + 11.8 = 16.0) 52.9, NJ (5.2 + 11.1 = 16.3) 57.3, IA (4.1 + 12.3 = 16.4) 44.9, DE (4.3 + 13.0 = 17.3) 56.0, WI (4.1 + 13.2 = 17.3) 49.6, KS (4.4 + 13.5 = 17.9) 38.8, ME (4.0 + 14.0 = 18.0) 51.5, AK (6.8 + 11.4 = 18.2) 41.6
Avg. for the second then 47.4%
WA (5.4 + 13.2 = 18.6) 58.8, ID (3.8 + 14.8 = 18.6) 31.7, SD (2.8 + 16.1 = 18.9) 34.0, PA (5.8 + 13.6 = 19.4) 49.6, MT (4.3 + 15.2 = 19.5) 38.9,
OK. Vermont and Maine did well on this chart. Clinton won ten of the fourteen least miserable states. And thirteen of the twenty one least miserable states.
IN (4.4 + 15.2 = 19.6) 40.0, IL (5.6 + 14.3 = 19.9) 59.0, RI (5.5 + 14.8 = 20.3) 58.3, MO (5.1 + 15.5 = 20.6) 39.9, OH (4.9 + 15.8 = 20.7) 45.8,
Avg. for the third ten 45.6%
NV (5.5 + 15.4 = 20.9) 51.3, MI (4.7 + 16.2 = 20.9) 49.9, NY (5.2 + 15.9 = 21.1) 61.1, FL (4.8 + 16.6 = 21.4) 49.4, OR (5.3 + 16.4 = 21.7) 56.2, OK (5.2 + 16.6 = 21.8) 30.7, CA (5.5 + 16.4 = 21.9) 66.1, TX (4.7 + 17.2 = 21.9) 45.2, SC (4.7 + 17.3 = 22.0) 42.6, NC (4.9 + 17.2 = 22.1) 48.1,
Avg. for the fourth ten 50.1%
AR (4.0 + 18.7 = 22.7) 35.8, TN (4.8 + 18.2 = 23.0) 36.4, AZ (5.2 + 18.2 = 23.4) 48.1, GA (5.2 + 18.4 = 23.6) 47.4, KY (5.1 + 19.0 = 24.1) 34.3, WV (6.0 + 18.3 = 24.3) 27.9, DC (6.1 + 18.4 = 24.5) 90.9, AL (5.7 + 19.2 = 24.9) 35.6, LA (6.3 + 19.9 = 26.2) 39.8, NM (6.7 + 20.6 = 27.3) 54.7, MS (5.9 + 21.9 = 27.8) 40.8,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 44.7%
And Trump won twelve of the fourteen most miserable states. So, there seems to be something to this, even though states 31 through 40 voted for Clinton in greater numbers than states 11 through 20 and 21 through 30... Look at the states with high unemployment plus poverty rates voting for Clinton. These states, with the exception of Oregon, had a large number of non-white voters voting for Clinton. Perhaps, then, the key to understanding the election is to look at it in terms of race.
D. Still, let's hold off on that. Perhaps Vermont and Maine voted for Clinton because they were relatively safe states, with low rates of violent crime. Let's see, then, if a reasonable fear of violent crime was a factor in the election of Donald Trump. (Note: I consulted this list in the creation of the list below. It reflects the number of violent crimes per 100,000 population by state).
VT (99) 65.2, ME (128) 51.5, WY (196) 24.3, NH (196) 50.2, VA (196) 52.9, KY (212) 34.3, ID (212) 31.7, UT (216) 37.7, RI (219) 58.3, MN (229) 50.8,
Avg. for the top ten 45.7%
OR (232) 56.2, CT (237) 57.2, HI (259) 67.5, NJ (261) 57.3, ND (265) 30.2, IA (274) 44.9, MS (279) 40.8, NE (280) 36.4, OH (285) 45.8, WA (285) 58.8,
Avg. for the second ten 49.5%
WI (290) 49.6, WV (302) 27.9, CO (309) 52.7, PA (314) 49.6, MT (324) 38.9,
Well. this started out looking pretty good. As anticipated, Vermont and Maine were right at the top. Ten of the fourteen safest states voted for Clinton. But then Clinton won only two of the next eleven. And the overall average for the safest states leans towards Trump.
SD (327) 34.0, NC (330) 48.1, KS (349) 38.8, IN (365) 40.0, IL (370) 59.0,
Avg. for the third ten 43.9%
GA (377) 47.4, NY (382) 61.1, MA (391) 64.5, CA (396) 66.1, AZ (400) 48.1, TX (406) 45.2, OK (406) 30.7, MI (427) 49.9, AL (427) 35.6, MO (443) 39.9,
Avg. for the fourth ten 48.9%
MD (446) 63.8, AR (480) 35.8, DE (489) 56.0, SC (498) 42.6, LA (515) 39.8, FL (541) 49.4, NM (597) 54.7, TN (608) 36.4, NV (636) 51.3, AK (636) 41.6, DC (1,244) 90.9
Avg. for the bottom eleven 56.2%
Make that two of the next fifteen... And three of the bottom five... And the fact the most dangerous states, on average, voted for Clinton. So, no, it doesn't appear that unemployment and poverty rates, or fear of violent crime were much of a factor in the election. And yet, there it is again. The states voting for Clinton towards the bottom of the list all had larger than average numbers of non-white voters.
LET'S SUMMARIZE, SHALL WE?
Now, this gets a bit complicated. We're gonna go back and combine lists C and D together to get a ranking for the dark side of the economy, and add this ranking to the ranking for the bright side of the economy in list B. This should give us an overall picture of the economy in each state.
This first list is the total of of the ranking for each state on lists C and D.
NH (5) 50.2, VT (9) 65.2, UT (14) 37.7, WY (14) 24.3, HI (17) 67.5, MN (17) 50.8, ND (17) 30.2, VA (18) 52.9, ME (20) 51.5, SD (23) 34.0,
Avg. for the top ten 46.4%
CT (24) 57.2, NJ (28) 57.3, NE (28) 36.4, ID (29) 31.7, IA (31) 44.9, CO (32) 52.7, MA (37) 64.5, RI (37) 58.3, WI (38) 49.6, WA (41) 58.8,
Avg. for the second ten 51.2%
MD (44) 63.8, OR (46) 56.2, PA (48) 49.6, OH (49) 45.8, MT (50) 38.9,
KS (51) 38.8, KY (51) 34.3, IN (55) 40.0, IL (57) 59.0, DE (59) 56.0,
Avg. for the third ten 48.2%
NY (64) 61.1, WV (68) 27.9, MO (69) 39.9, MI (70) 49.9, FL (70) 49.4, AK (70) 41.6, CA (71) 66.1, NC (72) 48.1, OK (73) 30.7, TX (74) 45.2,
Avg. for the fourth ten 46.0%
GA (75) 47.4, AZ (78) 48.1, MS (78) 40.8, NV (80) 51.3, SC (83) 42.6, AR (83) 35.8, AL (88) 35.6,
TN (90) 36.4, LA (95) 39.8, DC (98) 90.9, NM (98) 54.7,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 47.6%
This second list presents the ranking of each state in list B (the bright side) added to the combined ranking of each state in lists C and D above (the dark side). The states are placed in order of the sum of this equation.
ND (5 + 7 = 12) 30.2, WY (8 + 4 = 12) 24.3, CT (4 + 11 = 15) 57.2, MN (12 + 6 = 18) 50.8, NJ (9 + 12 =21) 57.3, NH (22 + 1 = 23) 50.2, HI (20 + 5 = 25) 67.5, VA (18 + 8 = 26) 52.9, NE (16 + 13 = 29) 36.4, WA (10 + 20 = 30) 58.8,
Avg. for the top ten 48.6%
CO (17 + 16 = 33) 52.7, MA (7 + 27 = 34) 64.5, MD (13 + 21 = 34) 63.8, NY (3 + 31 = 34) 61.1, UT (32 + 3 = 35) 37.7, DE (6 + 30 = 36) 56.0, VT (35 + 2 = 37) 65.2, SD (27 + 10 = 37) 34.0, IA (25 + 15 = 40) 44.9, RI (23 + 18 = 41) 58.3,
Avg. for the second ten 53.8%
OR (19 + 22 = 41) 56.2, IL (15 + 29 = 44) 59.0, WI (26 + 19 = 45) 49.6, PA (24 + 23 = 47) 49.6, CA (11 + 37 = 48) 66.1,
AK (2 + 46 = 48) 41.6, DC (1 + 50 = 51) 90.9, OH (28 + 24 = 52) 45.8, TX (14 + 40 = 54) 45.2, ME (46 + 9 = 55) 51.5,
Avg. for the third ten 55.6%
KS (29 + 26 = 55) 38.8, IN (31 + 28 = 59) 40.0, ID (49 + 14 = 63) 31.7, MT (40 + 25 = 65) 38.9,
NC (30 + 38 = 68) 48.1, MO (36 + 33 = 69) 39.9, LA (21 + 49 = 70) 39.8, KY (44 + 26 = 70) 34.3, MI (37 + 34 = 71) 49.9, GA (34 + 41 = 75) 47.4,
Avg. for the fourth ten 40.9%
NV (33 + 44 = 77) 51.3, FL (43 + 35 = 78) 49.4, OK (39 + 39 = 78) 30.7, WV (50 + 31 = 81) 27.9, AZ (41 + 42 = 83) 48.1, TN (38 + 48 = 86) 36.4, AL (42 + 47 = 89) 35.6, SC (48 + 45 = 93) 42.6, AR (47 + 46 = 93) 35.8, MS (51 + 43 = 94) 40.8, NM (45 + 51 = 96) 54.7
Avg. for the bottom eleven 41.2%
Now, this should give us the approximate state of the economy, in order from most satisfied state to least satisfied state. And yet a number of the top states voted for Trump, and two of the bottom states voted for Clinton. This election wasn't just about the economy, then. A close look at the top ranking states who voted for Trump reveals them to have been largely white states. Five of the six lowest ranking states who voted for Clinton were close to, or actually, majority non-white states. Race would appear to have been a factor, then.
E. So now let's look at the elephant in the room: race. Let's look at the percentage of non-whites within the population of each state compared to how the state voted, Clinton against Trump. (Note: this chart was consulted in the creation of this list.) Clinton states are in bold.
HI (77.2) 67.5, DC (64.7) 90.9, CA (60.8) 66.1, NM (60.3) 54.7, TX (55.7) 45.2, NV (47.3) 51.3, MD (46.2) 63.8, GA (45.0) 47.4, FL (43.2) 49.4, AZ (43.1) 48.1,
Avg. for the top ten 58.4%
NY (42.6) 61.1, MS (42.5) 40.8, NJ (42.1) 57.3, LA (40.3) 39.8, IL (37.1) 59.0, AK (37.0) 41.6, VA (36.1) 52.9, SC (36.1) 42.6, DE (35.7) 56.0, NC (35.5) 48.1,
Avg. for the second ten 49.9%
AL (33.4) 35.6, OK (33.2) 30.7, CO (30.6) 52.7, CT (30.0) 57.2, WA (28.6) 58.8,
Well, there seems to be something to this. 14 of Clinton's 21 victories were in the 25 states with the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic whites.
AR (27.1) 35.8, TN (25.0) 36.4, MA (24.7) 64.5, RI (24.6) 58.3, KS (22.6) 38.8,
Avg. for the third ten 46.9%
OR (22.4) 56.2, PA (21.4) 49.6, MI (20.7) 49.9, UT (20.2) 37.7, MO (19.5) 39.9, OH (19.4) 45.8, IN (19.1) 40.0, NE (18.7) 36.4, MN (17.7) 50.8, WI (17.2) 49.6,
Avg. for the fourth ten 45.6%
ID (16.6) 31.7, SD (16.2) 34.0, WY (15.4) 24.3, KY (15.2) 34.3, MT (12.8) 38.9, IA (12.0) 44.9, ND (11.9) 30.2, NH (8.0) 50.2, WV (7.2) 27.9, VT (6.0) 65.2, ME (5.9) 51.5
Avg. for the bottom eleven 39.4%
Well, this is how we could have figured, given Trump's many derogatory comments about ethnic and religious minorities. The states with the highest percentages of non-whites, for the most part, voted against him. Even so, this is a bit of a surprise. Clinton won 3 of the 4 whitest states in America, and Trump won 4 of the 10 least white! So, hmm, race was not the dominant factor, after all.
Still, let's combine the rankings of the states by race, from least white to whitest, with our rankings of the states by presumed satisfaction with the economy, to see if they overlap in a way that will separate the states voting for Clinton from the states voting for Trump.
HI (7 + 1 = 8) 67.5, NJ (5 + 13 =18) 57.3, MD (13 + 7 = 20) 63.8, CT (3 + 19 = 22) 57.2, NY (14 + 11 = 25) 61.1, VA (8 + 17 = 25) 52.9, CA (25 + 3 = 28) 66.1, DC (27 + 2 = 29) 90.9, CO (11 + 23 = 34) 52.7, TX (29 + 5 = 34) 45.2,
Avg. for the top ten 61.5%
WA (10 + 25 = 35) 58.8, DE (16 + 20 = 36) 56.0, IL (22 + 15 = 37) 59.0, MA (12 + 28 = 40) 64.5, AK (26 + 16 = 42) 41.6, MN (4 + 39 = 43) 50.8, RI (20 + 24 = 44) 58.3, WY (2 + 43 = 45) 24.3, NV (41 + 6 = 47) 51.3, NE (9 + 38 = 47) 36.4,
Avg. for the second ten 50.1%
GA (40 + 8 = 48) 47.4, UT (15 + 33 = 48) 37.7, ND (1 + 47 = 48) 30.2, FL (42 + 9 = 51) 49.4, LA (37 + 14 = 51) 39.8,
OR (21 + 31 = 52) 56.2, NH (6 + 48 = 54) 50.2, NM (51 + 4 = 55) 54.7, PA (24 + 31 = 55) 49.6, NC (35 + 20 = 55) 48.1,
Avg. for the third ten 46.3%
AZ (45 + 10 = 55) 48.1, SD (18 + 41 = 59) 34.0, KS (31 + 30 = 61) 38.8, MS (50 + 12 = 62) 40.8, WI (23 + 40 = 63) 49.6, OH (28 + 36 = 64) 45.8, IA (19 + 46 = 65) 44.9, OK (43 + 22 = 65) 30.7, SC (48 + 18 = 66) 42.6, VT (17 + 50 = 67) 65.2,
Avg. for the fourth ten 44.1%
MI (39 + 33 = 67) 49.9, AL (47 + 21 = 68) 35.6, IN (32 + 37 = 69) 40.0, MT (34 + 45 = 69) 38.9,
MO (36 + 35 = 71) 39.9, TN (46 + 27 = 73) 36.4, ID (33 + 41 = 74) 31.7, AR (49 + 26 = 75) 35.8, ME (30 + 51 = 81) 51.5, KY (38 + 44 = 82) 34.3, WV (44 + 49 = 93) 27.9,
Avg. for the final eleven 38.4%
Now, that's not bad. The percentage of Clinton voters dwindled as we got toward the bottom of the list. Thirteen of the fourteen states with the best mix of economy and race voted for Clinton, and twenty of the twenty-two states with the worst mix of economy and race voted for Trump. But we're still missing something. We still have states like Wyoming and North Dakota avoiding Clinton like she's poison. And we still have the Vermont and Maine question. That's significant. Two of the whitest states voted for Clinton, even though their economy was far from spectacular and they had far more to complain about than Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota, for example, who voted for Trump.
So there must be more to it than the economy and race.
An Attempt to Find the Missing Factor.
F. So let's test the election results against the lifestyle of the voters. As most of the Trump supporters I've met have expressed fear Hillary and friends will try to take away their guns, I decided to see if there's a connection between gun ownership and voting for Trump. In the list below, the percentage of households owning a gun for each state are presented, from lowest percentage to highest, along with the percentage of votes for Clinton against Trump in that state. (Note: this map was consulted. I later compared it to this map, and found that they had widely divergent numbers on a number of states. I thereby decided to add the numbers from the two maps together to effectively form an average.)
RI (12.8 + 5.8 = 18.6) 58.3, NJ (12.3 + 11.3 = 24) 57.3, NY (18.0 + 10.3 = 28.3) 61.1, DC (3.6 + 25.9 = 29.5) 90.9, DE (25.5 + 5.2 = 30.7) 56.0, CT (16.7 + 16.6 = 33.3) 57.2, MA (12.6 + 22.6 = 35.2) 64.5, MD (21.3 +20.7 = 42.0) 63.8, CA (21.3 + 20.1 = 41.4) 66.1, NH (30.0 + 14.4 = 44.4) 50.2,
Avg. for the top ten 62.5%
IL (20.2 + 26.2 = 46.4) 59.0, HI (6.7 + 45.1 = 51.8) 67.5, OH (32.4 + 19.6 = 52.0) 45.8, FL (24.5 + 32.5 = 57.0) 49.4, NE (38.6 + 19.8 = 58.4) 36.4, WA (33.1 + 27.7 = 60.8) 58.8, PA (34.7 + 27.1 = 61.8) 49.6, ME (40.5 + 22.6 = 63.1) 51.5, AZ (31.1 + 32.3 = 63.4) 48.1, VA (35.1 + 29.3 = 64.4) 52.9,
Avg. for the second ten 51.9%
OR (39.8 + 26.6 = 66.4) 56.2, MI (38.4 + 28.8 = 67.2) 49.9, MO (41.7 + 27.1 = 68.2) 39.9, CO (34.7 + 34.3 = 69.0) 52.7, NC (41.3 + 28.7 = 69.0) 48.1,
Now this is quite convincing. The twelve states with the lowest percentage of gun owners all voted for Clinton.
VT (42.0 + 28.8 = 70.8) 65.2, NV (33.8 + 37.5 = 71.3) 51.3, TX (35.9 + 35.7 = 71.6) 45.2, GA (40.3 + 31.6 = 71.9) 47.4, IN (39.1 + 33.8 = 72.9) 40.0,
Avg. for the third ten 49.6%
OK (42.9 + 31.2 = 74.1) 30.7, KS (42.1 + 32.2 = 74.3) 38.8, UT (43.9 + 31.9 = 75.8) 37.7, IA (42.9 + 33.8 = 76.7) 44.9, MN (41.7 + 36.7 = 78.4) 50.8, WI (44.4 + 34.7 = 79.1) 49.6, TN (43.9 + 39.4 = 83.3) 36.4, NM (34.8 + 49.9 = 84.7) 54.7, SC (42.3 + 44.4 = 86.7) 42.6, LA (44.1 + 44.5 = 88.6) 39.8,
Avg. for the fourth ten 42.6%
KY (47.7 + 42.4 = 90.1) 34.3, SD (56.6 + 35.0 - 91.6) 34.0, MS (55.3 + 42.8 = 98.1) 40.8, ND (50.7 + 47.9 = 98.6) 30.2, AL (51.7 + 48.9 = 100.6) 35.6, WV (55.4 + 54.2 = 109.6) 27.9, MT (57.7 + 52.3 = 110.0) 38.9, AR (55.3 + 57.9 = 111.2) 35.8, ID (55.3 + 56.9 = 112.2) 31.7, WY (59.7 + 54.2 = 113.9) 24.3, AK (57.8 + 61.7 = 119.5) 41.6,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 34.1%
And twenty-two of the twenty-four states with the highest level of gun ownership voted for Trump. If that's not a smoking... well, you know. In any event, it seems clear gun ownership (and perhaps the thought of a woman taking away a man's gun?) was a factor in the election.
G. When trying to think of another factor other than gun ownership by which to distinguish the blue states from red states, I kept going back to alcohol consumption. But every chart I looked at sent a mixed message, with blue states intermingled with red states. I then realized there was a measure relating to alcohol that was indeed indicative of the cultural divide I was seeking to identify, and quantify. And that was the ratio of beer consumption to wine consumption per state. (This list and this list were used to create this list.)
DC (1.07) 90.9, CT (1.61) 57.2, NJ (1.62) 57.3, MA (1.64) 64.5, VT (1.79) 65.2, CA (1.86) 66.1, NY (1.93) 61.1, RI (2.00) 58.3, WA (2.13) 58.8, NH (2.21) 50.2,
Avg. for the top ten 63.0%
HI (2.50) 67.5, OR (2.51) 56.2, DE (2.62) 56.0, FL (2.73) 49.4, VA (2.74) 52.9, MD (2.93) 63.8, AK (2.97) 41.6, NV (2.99) 51.3, ME (3.00) 51.5, IL (3.07) 59.0,
Avg. for the second ten 54.9%
MN (3.73) 50.8, AZ (3.75) 48.1, ID (3.80) 31.7, CO (3.84) 52.7, MI (3.86) 49.9,
WI (4.20) 49.6, NC (4.58) 48.1, IN (4.64) 40.0, MO (4.64) 39.9, OH (4.65) 45.8,
Avg. for the third ten 45.7%
MT (4.88) 38.9, GA (5.00) 47.4, AL (5.10) 35.6, PA (5.29) 49.6, NM (5.48) 54.7, TN (5.59) 36.4, OK (6.00) 30.7, SC (6.07) 42.6, UT (6.09) 37.7, LA (6.51) 39.8,
Avg. for the fourth ten 41.3%
AR (6.57) 35.8, WY (7.00) 24.3, IA (7.32) 44.9, NE (7.32) 36.4, TX (7.48) 45.2, SD (7.80) 34.0, ND (8.18) 30.2, KS (9.38) 38.8, KY (9.43) 34.3, MS (12.54) 40.8, WV (13.04) 27.9,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 35.7%
So, what can I say? If you live in a red state and you want to turn it blue, you need to drink more wine. Lots of it...
H. Now prepare to get mad. While trying to figure out what factors other than race could have played a role in the election I took a look at the percentage of obese people per state. This wasn't just a random act. While looking at lines of Trump supporters outside his rallies on TV, it occurred to me that they seemed a bit fatter than normal. Even for Americans. I mean, these people looked like tanks in line during the battle of the bulge. Or should I say, the battle with the bulge. Sorry. In any event, let's see if my observation was correct. The list that follows presents the percentage of obese people by state in order from smallest percentage to largest percentage, along with the percentage of votes for Clinton against Trump. This list was created with the help of this chart.
CO (20.2) 52.7, DC (22.1) 90.9, HI (22.7) 67.5, MT (23.6) 38.9, CA (24.2) 66.1, MA (24.3) 64.5, UT (24.5) 37.7, NY (25.0) 61.1, VT (25.1) 65.2, CT (25.3) 57.2,
Avg. for the top ten 60.2%
NJ (25.6) 57.3, RI (26.0) 58.3, MN (26.1) 50.8, NH (26.3) 50.2, WA (26.4) 58.8, NV (26.7) 51.3, FL (26.8) 49.4, AZ (28.4) 48.1, ID (28.6) 31.7, NM (28.8) 54.7,
Avg. for the second ten 51.1%
MD (28.9) 63.8, WY (29.0) 24.3, VA (29.2) 52.9, DE (29.7) 56.0, OH (29.8) 45.8,
So, here we go again. Fourteen of the sixteen least obese states voted for Clinton. And eighteen of the twenty-five least obese. That's a pretty good indicator, wouldn't you say, that lifestyle played a role in the election?
AK (29.8) 41.6, ME (30.0) 51.5, PA (30.0) 49.6, OR (30.1) 56.2, NC (30.1) 48.1,
Avg. for the third ten 49.0%
SD (30.4) 34.0, WI (30.7) 49.6, GA (30.7) 47.4, IL (30.8) 59.0, ND (31.0) 30.2, MI (31.2) 49.9, IN (31.3) 40.0, NE (31.4) 36.4, SC (31.7) 42.6, IA (32.1) 44.9,
Avg. for the fourth ten 43.4%
TX (32.4) 45.2, MO (32.4) 39.9, TN (33.8) 36.4, OK (33.9) 30.7, KS (34.2) 38.8, AR (34.5) 35.8, KY (34.6) 34.3, MS (35.6) 40.8, AL (35.6) 35.6, WV (35.6) 27.9, LA (36.2) 39.8,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 36.8%
Yep, it's pretty clear. All of Clinton's victories came within the first thirty-four states. She won twenty-one of the thirty-four least obese states. And the seventeen most obese states ALL voted for Trump.
So now let's add these three behavioral aspects of the states voting for Trump, to see how they line up with the election results. The rankings on the three lists are added up below.
DC (7) 90.9, NJ (16) 57.3, NY (18) 61.1, CT (18) 57.2, CA (20) 66.1, MA (21) 64.5, RI (21) 58.3, HI (26) 67.5, NH (34) 50.2, VT (40) 65.2,
Avg. for the top ten 63.8%
WA (40) 58.8, DE (42) 56.0, MD (45) 63.8, FL (45) 49.4, CO (49) 52.7, VA (58) 52.9, AZ (59) 48.1, OR (62) 56.2, NV (61) 51.3, ME (64) 51.5,
Avg. for the second ten 54.1%
IL (65) 59.0, OH (68) 45.8, MN (69) 50.8, PA (79) 49.6, UT (79) 37.7,
NC (82) 48.1, MT (82) 38.9, MI (83) 49.9, ID (91) 31.7, NM (93) 54.7,
Avg. for the third ten 46.6%
WI (94) 49.6, GA (94) 47.4, AK (94) 41.6, MO (94) 39.9, IN (95) 40.0, NE (97) 36.4, OK (112) 30.7, TX (114) 45.2, WY (114) 24.3, SC (116) 42.6,
Avg. for the fourth ten 39.8%
TN (116) 36.4, IA (117) 44.9, SD (119) 34.0, AL (123) 35.6, KS (125) 38.8, ND (126) 30.2, LA (131) 39.8, AR (135) 35.8, KY (137) 34.3, MS (141) 40.8, WV (147) 27.9,
Avg. for the bottom eleven 36.2%
So, there it is. The cultural divide. Twenty of the twenty-three least fat, least gun-owning, and least beer-gulping states voted for Clinton, while the twenty-one fattest, most beer-gulping and most gun-loving states voted for Trump.
But there's got to be more to it, right? Maybe. I looked at unemployment rates, poverty rates, crime rates, and economic success, etc, but none of these factors were as clear an indicator of the states voting for Trump as beer drinking, obesity and gun ownership. Trump nailed it with his slogan. Make America Great Again. His supporters believed their best days were behind them, not just economically, but physically. Perhaps, then, this wasn't an election over issues, or even over character, as much as it was about the future and fear of the future. A large sector of the country saw an invasion of immigrants coming into the country, and was scared by it. They own guns, and they eat too much, and they drink a lot of beer in comparison to wine. And they resent being told they're wrong for wishing everything could just go back to how it used to be.
Or is that too insulting? Too simple?
So let's look at how people think, and see if that has anything to do with the election.
I. Since the trend going back decades has been that the Christian right votes Republican, I decided to compare a list of the percentage of adults in each state claiming they are "highly religious" to the election results. This list follows, from states with the lowest percentage of "highly religious" citizens to the state with the highest percentage. (This list was consulted in the creation of this list.)
NH (33) 50.2, MA (33) 64.5, VT (34) 65.2, ME (34) 51.5, CT (43) 57.2, WI (45) 49.6, WA (45) 58.8, AK (45) 41.6, NY (46) 61.1, HI (47) 67.5,
Avg. for the top ten 56.7%
CO (47) 52.7, OR (48) 56.2, MT (48) 38.9, RI (49) 58.3, NV (49) 51.3, MN (49) 50.8, CA (49) 66.1, IL (51) 59.0, ID (51) 31.7, DE (52) 56.0,
Avg. for the second ten 52.1%
PA (53) 49.6, ND (53) 30.2, MI (53) 49.9, DC (53) 90.9, AZ (53) 48.1,
Well, we're off to a good start. Sixteen of the twenty least religious states voted for Clinton.
WY (54) 24.3, NE (54) 36.4, MD (54) 63.8, IN (54) 40.0, FL, (54) 49.4,
Avg. for the third ten 48.3%
NJ (55) 57.3, KS (55) 38.8, IA (55) 44.9, NM (57) 54.7, OH (50) 45.8, SD (59) 34.0, MO (60) 39.9, VA (61) 52.9, KY (65) 34.3, UT (64) 37.7,
Avg. for the fourth ten 44.0%
TX (64) 45.2, NC (65) 48.1, OK (66) 30.7, GA (66) 47.4, WV (69) 27.9, SC (70) 42.6, AR (70) 35.8, LA (71) 39.8, TN (73) 36.4, MS (77) 40.8, AL (77) 35.6
Avg. for the bottom eleven 39.1%
And the thirteen most religious states voted for Trump. So religion would seem to have been a key factor.
J. Let's get more specific. The problem with religion for Clinton is not so much that highly religious people think she's irreligious, as much as they resent her kind of religion, one that accepts science as almost or maybe even more than equal with religion when it comes to understanding the world. So let's look at the election through the lens of two hot-button issues, by adding together the percentage of each state accepting the theory of evolution with the percentage of each state accepting the theory of man-made global warming, and putting the states in order by their cumulative level of acceptance of these theories. (This list and this map were consulted in the creation of this list.)
DC (52 + 81 = 133) 90.9, VT (65 + 68 = 133) 65.2, NY (60 + 72 = 132) 61.1, MA (62 + 69 = 131) 64.5, HI (55 + 75 = 130) 67.5, CT (64 + 66 = 130) 57.2, NJ (61 + 68 = 129) 57.3, CA (57 + 70 = 127) 66.1, RI (61 + 66 = 127) 58.3, ME (59 + 64 = 123) 51.5,
Avg. for the top ten 64.0%
WA (53 + 68 = 121) 58.8, NH (60 + 61 = 121) 50.2, MD (52 + 68 = 120) 63.8, AK (58 +62 = 120) 41.6, IL (52 + 67 = 119) 59.0, CO (52 + 66 = 118) 52.7, OR (50 + 67 = 117) 56.2, DE (52 + 65 = 117) 56.0, FL (51 + 64 = 115) 49.4, MN (49 + 63 = 112) 50.8,
Avg. for the second ten 53.8%
NM (46 + 66 = 112) 54.7, VA (48 + 64 = 112) 52.9, NV (47 + 64 = 111) 51.3, AZ (48 + 62 = 110) 48.1, WI (48 + 61 = 109) 49.6,
PA (46 + 62 = 108) 49.6, MI (45 + 61 = 106) 49.9, TX (42 + 63 = 105) 45.2, OH (45 + 59 = 104) 45.8, IA (44 + 60 = 104) 44.9,
Avg, for the third ten 49.2%
GA (40 + 63 = 103) 47.4, NE (44 + 58 = 102) 36.4, SC (42 + 59 = 101) 42.6, IN (43 + 58 = 101) 40.0, MT (41 + 60 = 101) 38.9, NC (38 + 62 = 100) 48.1, KS (42 + 58 = 100) 38.8, MO (38 + 60 = 98) 39.9, SD (39 + 59 = 98) 34.0, ID (38 + 58 = 96) 31.7,
Avg. for the fourth ten 39.8%
LA (38 + 57 = 95) 39.8, OK (36 + 57 = 93) 30.7, ND (35 + 58 = 93) 30.2, WY (38 + 55 = 93) 24.3,
MS (32 + 59 = 91) 40.8, UT (31 + 60 = 91) 37.7, KY (33 + 58 = 91) 34.3, WV (37 + 54 = 91) 27.9, AL (34 + 56 = 90) 35.6, TN (29 + 58 = 87) 36.4, AR (26 + 57 = 83) 35.8
Avg. for bottom eleven 34.0%
Well, heck, that's far and away the best metric so far. The ten states most accepting of accepted science voted for Clinton at almost twice the rate as the ten states least accepting of science, who voted overwhelmingly for Trump. That's a bad bad omen for the Democratic Party.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT TOLERANCE. Three charts were studied. The prevalence of people of the belief all abortions should be illegal, the prevalence of people strongly opposed to same sex marriage, and the prevalence of people thinking immigrants are a burden on society (times .5). These numbers were added up. Here are the totals
DC (NA) 90.9, NH (29.5) 50.2, MA (35) 64.5, OR (35.5) 56.2, RI (38) 58.3, NJ (38.5) 57.3, CT (40.5) 57.2, CO (41) 52.7, NY (41.5) 61.1, WA (42) 58.8,
Avg. for the top ten
CA (43) 66.1, HI (43.5) 67.5, NV (43.5) 51.3, DE (44) 56.0, VT (45) 65.2, MD (47.5) 63.8, MN (47.5) 50.8, IL (48.5) 59.0, AK (48.5) 41.6, AZ (50) 48.1,
Avg. for the second ten
UT (50) 37.7, WI (51) 49.6, ME (52.5) 51.5, MI (52.5) 49.9, FL (53) 49.4,
ID (53) 31.7, MT (54) 38.9, IA (54.5) 44.9, NM (55.5) 54.7, PA (55.5) 49.6,
Avg, for the third ten
KS (56.5) 38.8, VA (57.5) 52.9, OH (58) 45.8, TX (59) 45.2, GA (59.5) 47.4, MO (60.5) 39.9, NE (61.5) 36.4, WY (61.5 approx) 24.3, S NC (65) 48.1, LA (65.5) 39.8,
Avg. for the fourth ten
SD (67) 34.0, ND (67) 30.2, OK (68) 30.7, IN (68.5) 40.0, SC (72) 42.6, AR (74.5) 35.8 TN (76.5) 36.4, KY (80.5) 34.3, MS (83) 40.8, AL (84) 35.6, WV (85) 27.9,
Avg. for bottom eleven
The top eighteen are Clinton states. The bottom nineteen are Trump states. That sounds about right.
K. Well, then let's look at the election in terms of education level. A chart on wikipedia presenting the percentage of adults receiving bachelor's degrees, and advanced degrees, by state, based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau, was consulted. These percentages were then added together. The states are presented with the total in parentheses in order of highest combined total to lowest combined total, along with the percentage at which they voted for Clinton against Trump. A clear trend is obvious.
DC (95.7) 90.9 MA (54.6) 64.5 MD (53.3) 63.8 CT (51.1) 57.2 CO (48.6) 52.7 VA (48.1) 52.9 NJ (47.4) 57.3 NY (46.4) 61.1 VT (46.4) 65.2 NH (43.2) 50.2
Avg for the top ten 61.6%
IL (42.3) 59.0 RI (42.2) 58.3 WA (42.1) 58.8 MN (41.8) 50.8 CA (40.6) 66.1 DE (40.1) 56.0 KS (39.7) 38.8 OR (39.6) 56.2 HI (39.5) 67.5 UT (37.6) 37.7
Avg for the second ten 54.9%
GA (37.4) 47.4 PA (36.6) 49.6 ME (36.5) 51.5 NE (36.2) 36.4 NM (35.7) 54.7
Well, look at that. I think we found the key factor in the election. Clinton won the sixteen most educated states and districts. And eighteen of the nineteen most educated states and districts. And twenty of the twenty-five most educated states and districts. Well, we know what's coming then. Trump won twenty-five of the twenty-six least educated states and districts.
MT (35.7) 38.9 AK (35.6) 41.6 NC (35.3) 48.1 AZ (34.9) 48.1 MO (34.7) 39.9
Avg for the third ten 45.6%
FL (34.3) 49.4 WI (34.1) 49.6 MI (34.0) 49.9 TX (34.0) 45.2 OH (32.9) 45.8 SC (32.7) 42.6 IA (32.5) 44.9 ND (32.5) 30.2 SD (32.4) 34.0 WY (31.7) 24.3
Avg for the fourth ten 41.6%
ID (31.6) 31.7 TN (30.9) 36.4 IN (30.6) 40.0 OK (30.1) 30.7 AL (29.7) 35.6 KY (29.5) 34.3 NV (29.4) 51.3 LA (28.3) 39.8 MS (26.7) 40.8 AR (25.0) 35.8 WV (24.0) 27.9
Avg for the bottom eleven is 36.8%
A SECOND TRY AT EDUCATION
Well, then let's look at the election in terms of education level. A chart on wikipedia presenting the percentage of adults receiving bachelor's degrees, and advanced degrees, by state, based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau, was consulted. And then another list, excluding D.C., was added in. The states are presented with the total in parentheses in order of highest combined total to lowest combined total, along with the percentage at which they voted for Clinton against Trump. A clear trend is obvious.
DC (95.7 + NA = 95.7) 90.9, MA (54.6 + 39 = 93.6) 64.5, CO (48.6 + 38 = 86.6) 52.7, MD (53.3 + 33 = 86.3) 63.8, CT (51.1 + 35 = 86.1) 57.2, NJ (47.4 + 36 = 83.4) 57.3, VT (46.4 + 36 = 82.4) 65.2, VA (48.1 + 34 = 82.1) 52.9, NH (43.2 + 37 = 80.2) 50.2, NY (46.4 + 33 = 79.4) 61.1
Avg for the top ten 61.6%
IL (42.3 + 33 = 75.3) 59.0, MN (41.8 + 33 = 74.8) 50.8, RI (42.2 + 30 = 72.2) 58.3, WA (42.1 + 30 = 72.1) 58.8, CA (40.6 + 30 = 70.6) 66.1, UT (37.6 + 33 = 70.6) 37.7, OR (39.6 + 30 = 69.6) 56.2, HI (39.5 + 30 = 69.5) 67.5, KS (39.7 + 28 = 67.7) 38.8, NE (36.2 + 30 = 66.2) 36.4,
Avg for the second ten 53.0%
DE (40.1 + 26 = 66.1) 56.0, AZ (34.9 + 31 = 65.9) 48.1, AK (35.6 + 30 = 65.6) 41.6, GA (37.4 + 28 = 65.4) 47.4, NC (35.3 + 30 = 65.3) 48.1,
Well, look at that. I think we found the key factor in the election. Clinton won the fifteen most educated states and districts. And eighteen of the twenty-one most educated states and districts.
MO (34.7 + 30 = 64.7) 39.9, PA (36.6 + 28 = 64.6) 49.6, ME (36.5 + 28 = 64.5) 51.5, WI (34.1 + 30 = 64.1) 49.6, NM (35.7 + 28 = 63.7) 54.7,
Avg for the third ten 48.7%
MT (35.7 + 28 = 63.7) 38.9, FL (34.3 + 29 = 63.3) 49.4, MI (34.0 + 28 = 62.0) 49.9, IA (32.5 + 29 = 61.5) 44.9, ND (32.5 + 29 = 61.5) 30.2, TX (34.0 + 26 = 60.0) 45.2, SC (32.7 + 27 = 59.7) 42.6, ID (31.6 + 28 = 59.7) 31.7, OH (32.9 + 26 = 58.9) 45.8, NV (29.4 + 28 57.4) 51.3,
Avg for the fourth ten 43.0%
SD (32.4 + 25 = 57.4) 34.0, WY (31.7 + 24 = 55.7) 24.3, OK (30.1 + 25 = 55.1) 30.7, IN (30.6 + 24 = 54.6) 40.0, TN (30.9 + 23 = 53.9) 36.4, AL (29.7 + 23 = 52.7) 35.6, KY (29.5 + 22 = 51.5) 34.3, LA (28.3 + 23 = 51.3) 39.8, MS (26.7 + 23 = 49.7) 40.8, AR (25.0 + 21 = 46) 35.8, WV (24.0 + 20 = 44) 27.9
Avg for the bottom eleven is 34.5%
And twenty of the thirty most educated states and districts. Well, we know what's coming then. Trump won twenty of the twenty-one least educated states and districts. And the eleven least educated states.
Note that the percentage of votes for Clinton over Trump dropped alongside the percentage of state occupants receiving a higher education. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
There's a direct correlation between having (or being around those having) an upper education and voting for Clinton, or, conversely, lacking (or being around those lacking) an upper education and voting for Trump!
This isn't snobbery. It's fact.
So now let's add together the rankings of the states on these three mental factors: (Lack of) Religiosity, Acceptance of Science, and years of Higher Education, to see how the states ranked high on these lists line up to the election results. The states are listed in order of the lowest rankings total to highest rankings total.
MA (8) 64.5, VT (12) 65.2, CT (16) 57.2, NY (22) 61.1, NH (22) 50.2, DC (26) 90.9, CO (30) 52.7, WA (32) 58.8, HI (33) 67.5, RI (36) 58.3,
Avg. for top ten 62.6%
CA (40) 66.1, ME (42) 51.5, IL (44) 59.0, NJ (44) 57.3, MD (45) 63.8, AK (45) 41.6, OR (46) 56.2, MN (48) 50.8, DE (59) 56.0, WI (60) 49.6,
Avg. for second ten 55.2%
VA (68) 52.9, AZ (71) 48.1, PA (74) 49.6, NV (78) 51.3, MT (79) 38.9,
FL (81) 49.4, MI (83) 49.9, NE (83) 36.4, NM (85) 54.7, KS (89) 38.8,
Avg. for third ten 47.0%
IA (97) 44.9, ID (97) 31.7, GA (99) 47.4, ND (100) 30.2, MO (101) 39.9, UT (102) 37.7, NC (103) 48.1, OH (103) 45.8, TX (105) 45.2, IN (107) 40.0,
Avg. for fourth ten 41.1%
WY (110) 24.3, SC (115) 42.6, SD (116) 34.0, OK (128) 30.7, KY (133) 34.3, LA (137) 39.8, MS (144) 40.8, TN (144) 36.4, WV (144) 27.9, AL (146) 35.6, AR (148) 35.8
Avg. for bottom eleven 34.7%
And now let's add this to the prior list of the three behavioral factors separating Clinton states from Trump states.
MA (8 + 21 = 29) 64.5, DC (26 + 7 = 33) 90.9, CT (15 + 18 = 33) 57.2, VT (12 + 40 = 52) 65.2, NY (22 + 18 = 40) 61.1, NH (22 + 34 = 56) 50.2, RI (36 + 21 = 57) 58.3, NJ (43 + 16 = 59) 57.3, CA (40 + 20 = 60) 66.1, HI (35 + 26 = 61) 67.5,
Avg. for top ten 63.8%
WA (32 + 40 = 72) 58.8, CO (30 + 49 = 79) 52.7, MD (45 + 45 = 90) 63.8, DE (59 + 42 = 101) 56.0, ME (42 + 64 = 106) 51.5, IL (44 + 65 = 109) 59.0, OR (46 + 62 = 109) 56.2, MN (48 + 69 = 117) 50.8, VA (68 + 58 = 126) 52.9, FL (81 + 45 = 126) 49.4,
Avg. for second ten 55.1%
AZ (71 + 59 = 130) 48.1, NV (78 + 61 = 139) 51.3, AK (45 + 94 = 139) 41.6, PA (74 + 79 = 153) 49.6, WI (60 + 94 = 154) 49.6,
MT (79 + 82 = 161) 38.9, MI (83 + 83 = 166) 49.9, OH (103 + 68 = 171) 45.8, NM (85 + 93 = 178) 54.7, NE (83 + 97 = 180) 36.4,
Avg. for third ten 46.6%
UT (102 + 79 = 181) 37.7, NC (103 + 82 = 185) 48.1, ID (97 + 91 = 188) 31.7, GA (99 + 94 = 193) 47.4, MO (101 + 94 = 195) 39.9, IN (107 + 95 = 202) 40.0, IA (97 + 117 = 214) 44.9, KS (89 + 125 = 214) 38.8, TX (105 + 114 = 219) 45.2, WY (110 + 114 = 224) 24.3,
Avg. for fourth ten 39.8%
ND (100 + 126 = 226) 30.2, SC (115 + 116 = 231) 42.6, SD (116 + 119 = 235) 34.0, OK (128 + 112 = 240) 30.7, TN (142 + 116 = 258) 36.4, LA (137 + 131 = 268) 39.8, AL (146 + 123 = 269) 35.6, KY (133 + 137 = 270) 34.3, AR (148 + 135 = 283) 35.8, MS (144 + 141 = 285) 40.8, WV (144 + 147 = 291) 27.9
Avg. for bottom eleven 35.3%
It should be noted that most states performed about the same on the two lists. There were a few exceptions, of course. Florida thinks like a Trump state but has the lifestyle of a Clinton state, and Alaska thinks like a Clinton state but has the lifestyle of a Trump state. It should be noted as well that the only states voting for Clinton that were not in the top bloc, Nevada and New Mexico, were states with a large base of minority voters, that is, with a large number of voters who would never vote for Trump based upon his negative comments about immigrants and Mexicans.
So it's real. The election was not about the economy. It was about a culture war that many on the Clinton side didn't understand. To them, higher education, an appreciation of science, a physically active lifestyle and sensible gun laws are good things--obvious good things--and they can't quite grasp that there is a large sector of the country who disagrees with them on this, and would rather vote for a hate-mongering, self-promoting, tax-cheating con man than a smug woman, who drinks wine and wears pantsuits, for chrissakes.
In sum, then, the people who think like Michael Moore lost, and the people who look like Michael Moore won.
Let's try, as a starter, adding the pct. of each state receiving a bachelor's degree to the pct of each state receiving a higher degree and then adding 1/7 of the pct. of minorities within each state (as of 2012). That should be interesting.
DC (95.7 + 9.2 = 104.9) 90.9, MD (53.3 + 6.5 = 59.8) 63.8, MA (54.6 + 3.5 = 58.1) 64.5, CT (51.1 + 4.3 = 55.4) 57.2, NJ (47.4 + 6.0 = 53.4) 57.3, VA (48.1 + 5.2 - 53.3) 52.9, CO (48.6 + 4.4 = 53.0) 52.7, NY (46.4 + 6.1 = 52.5) 61.1, HI (39.5 + 11.0 = 50.5) 67.5, CA (40.6 + 8.7 = 49.3) 66.1
IL (42.3 + 5.3 = 47.5) 59.0, VT (46.4 + 0.9 = 47.3) 65.2, WA (42.1 + 4.1 = 46.2) 58.8, RI (42.2 + 3.5 = 45.7) 58.3, DE (40.1 + 5.1 = 45.2) 56.0, NH (43.2 + 1.2 = 44.4) 50.2, NM (35.7 + 8.6 = 44.3) 54.7, MN (41.8 + 2.5 = 44.3) 50.8, GA (37.4 + 6.4 = 43.8) 47.4, OR (39.6 + 3.7 = 43.3) 56.2,
KS (39.7 + 3.2 = 42.9) 38.8, TX (34.0 + 8 = 42.0) 45.2, AZ (34.9 + 6.2 = 41.1) 48.1, AK (35.6 + 5.3 = 40.9) 41.6, UT (37.6 + 2.9 = 40.5) 37.7, FL (34.3 + 6.2 = 40.5) 49.4, NC (35.3 + 5.1 = 40.4) 48.1, PA (36.6 + 3.1 = 39.7) 49.6, NE (36.2 + 2.7 = 38.9) 36.4, SC (32.7 + 5.2 = 37.9) 42.6,
MT (35.7 + 1.8 = 37.5) 38.9, MO (34.7 + 2.8 = 37.5) 39.9, ME (36.5 + 0.8 = 37.3) 51.5, MI (34.0 + 3.0 = 37.0) 49.9, WI (34.1 + 2.5 = 36.6) 49.6, NV (29.4 + 6.8 = 36.2) 51.3, OH (32.9 + 2.8 = 35.7) 45.8, OK (30.1 + 4.6 = 34.7) 30.7, AL (29.7 + 4.8 = 34.5) 35.6, SD (32.4 + 2.3 = 34.7) 34.0,
TN (30.9 + 3.6 = 34.5) 36.4, IA (32.5 + 1.7 = 34.2) 44.9, ND (32.5 + 1.7 = 34.2) 30.2, LA (28.3 + 5.8 = 34.1) 39.8, ID (31.6 + 2.4 = 34.0) 31.7, WY (31.7 + 2.2 = 33.9) 24.3, MS (26.7 + 6.1 = 32.8) 40.8, IN (30.6 + 2.7 = 33.3) 40.0, KY (29.5 + 2.0 = 31.5) 34.3, AR (25.0 + 3.7 = 28.7) 35.8, WV (24.0 + 1.0 = 25.0) 27.9
Well, yikes, that's even more impressive. The top 18 states and 19 of the top 20 voted for Clinton, while the bottom 15 voted for Trump.
While looking at various charts it then hit me that Trump won the 17 states with the highest obesity rates. Bravo! And that Clinton won 14 of the 16 states with the lowest obesity rates. So let's include obesity as a factor, by deducting half the obesity rate as of 2015.
DC (95.7 + 9.2 - 11.05 = 93.4) 90.9, MA (54.6 + 3.5 - 12.15 = 45.95) 64.5, MD (53.3 + 6.5 - 14.45 = 45.35) 63.8, CO (48.6 + 4.4 - 10.1 = 42.9) 52.7, CT (51.1 + 4.3 - 12.65 = 42.75) 57.2, NJ (47.4 + 6.0 - 12.8 = 41.6) 57.3, NY (46.4 + 6.1 - 12.5 = 40.0) 61.1, HI (39.5 + 11.0 - 11.35 = 39.15) 67.5, VA (48.1 + 5.2 - 14.6 = 38.7) 52.9,CA (40.6 + 8.7 - 12.1 = 37.2) 66.1
VT (46.4 + 0.9 - 12.55 = 34.75) 65.2, WA (42.1 + 4.1 - 13.2 = 33.1) 58.8, RI (42.2 + 3.5 - 13.0 = 32.7) 58.3, IL (42.3 + 5.3 - 15.4 = 32.1) 59.0, NH (43.2 + 1.2 - 13.15 = 31.25) 50.2, MN (41.8 + 2.5 - 13.05 = 31.25) 50.8, DE (40.1 + 5.1 - 14.85 = 30.35) 56.0, NM (35.7 + 8.6 - 14.4 = 29.9) 54.7, GA (37.4 + 6.4 - 15.35 = 28.45) 47.4, OR (39.6 + 3.7 - 15.05 = 28.25) 56.2,
KS (39.7 + 3.2 - 17.1 = 42.9) 38.8, TX (34.0 + 8 - 16.2 = 42.0) 45.2, AZ (34.9 + 6.2 - 14.2 = 41.1) 48.1, AK (35.6 + 5.3 - 14.9 = 40.9) 41.6, UT (37.6 + 2.9 - 12.25 = 40.5) 37.7, FL (34.3 + 6.2 - 13.4 = 40.5) 49.4, NC (35.3 + 5.1 - 15.05 = 40.4) 48.1, PA (36.6 + 3.1 - 15.0 = 39.7) 49.6, NE (36.2 + 2.7 - 15.7 = 38.9) 36.4, SC (32.7 + 5.2 - 15.85 = 37.9) 42.6,
MT (35.7 + 1.8 - 11.8 = 37.5) 38.9, MO (34.7 + 2.8 - 16.2 = 37.5) 39.9, ME (36.5 + 0.8 - 15.0 = 37.3) 51.5, MI (34.0 + 3.0 - 15.6 = 37.0) 49.9, WI (34.1 + 2.5 - 15.35 = 36.6) 49.6, NV (29.4 + 6.8 - 13.35 = 36.2) 51.3, OH (32.9 + 2.8 - 14.9 = 35.7) 45.8, OK (30.1 + 4.6 - 16.95 = 34.7) 30.7, AL (29.7 + 4.8 - 17.8 = 34.5) 35.6, SD (32.4 + 2.3 - 15.2 = 34.7) 34.0,
TN (30.9 + 3.6 - 16.9 = 34.5) 36.4, IA (32.5 + 1.7 - 16.05 = 34.2) 44.9, ND (32.5 + 1.7 - 15.5 = 34.2) 30.2, LA (28.3 + 5.8 - 18.1 = 34.1) 39.8, ID (31.6 + 2.4 - 14.3 = 34.0) 31.7, WY (31.7 + 2.2 - 14.5 = 33.9) 24.3, MS (26.7 + 6.1 - 17.8 = 32.8) 40.8, IN (30.6 + 2.7 - 15.65 = 33.3) 40.0, KY (29.5 + 2.0 -17.3 = 31.5) 34.3, AR (25.0 + 3.7 - 17.25 = 28.7) 35.8, WV (24.0 + 1.0 - 17.8 = 25.0) 27.9
So now let's try economic success as a factor instead of racial diversity. Let's add in the 2015 rankings of these states by GSP per capita, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. And then add in as a lesser factor (designed to offset that some states have an imbalance of male workers which artificially drives up their GSP per capita numbers) the rankings of each state by percentage of females. This is done by multiplying the first 2 rankings (percentage of citizens receiving a higher education and economic success as measured by GSP per capita) by two, and then adding in the ranking of each state by ercentage of females. The results for each state are presented below, along with the comparative percentage of Clinton vs. Trump, the comparative percentage of Obama vs. Romney in 2012, the shift in percentage from 2012 to 2016, and the 2010 population of the state. Note that the smartest, most successful and most feminine states all voted for Clinton.
DC 1 plus 1 x 2 plus 1 = 5 95.7 2012 92.6 UP 3.1 .6 mil
MA 2 plus 7 x 2 plus 6 = 24 64.5 2012 61.8 UP 2.7 6.7 mil
CT 4 plus 5 x 2 plus 11 = 29 57.2 2012 58.8 DOWN 1.6 3.6 mil
DE 16 plus 2 x 2 plus 2 = 38 56.0 2012 59.4 DOWN 3.4 .9 mil
NY 8 plus 8 x 2 plus 7 = 39 61.1 2012 64.3 DOWN 3.2 19.7 mil
MD 3 plus 14 x 2 plus 5 = 39 63.8 2012 63.3 UP .5 6.0 mil
NJ 7 plus 9 x 2 plus 12 = 44 57.3 2012 59.0 DOWN 1.7 8.9 mil
VA 6 plus 12 x 2 plus 25 = 61 52.9 2012 52.0 UP .9 8.3 mil
IL 11 plus 17 x 2 plus 21 = 77 59.0 2012 58.6 UP .4 12.9 mil
RI 12 plus 25 x 2 plus 3 = 77 58.3 2012 64.0 DOWN 5.7 1.1 mil
CO 5 plus 16 x 2 plus 43 = 85 52.7 2012 52.7 STAYED SAME 5.3 mil
OR 18 plus 10 x 2 plus 31 = 87 56.2 2012 56.3 DOWN .1 3.9 mil
WA 13 plus 11 x 2 plus 41 = 89 58.8 2012 57.6 UP 1.2 7.0 mil
MN 14 plus 13 x 2 plus 36 = 90 50.8 2012 53.9 DOWN 3.1 5.4 mil
NH 10 plus 23 x 2 plus 28 = 94 50.2 2012 52.8 DOWN 2.6 1.3 mil
CA 15 plus 18 x 2 plus 35 = 101 66.1 2012 61.9 UP 4.2 38.3 mil
VT 9 plus 33 x 2 plus 27 = 111 65.2 2012 68.2 DOWN .3 .6 mil
AK 27 plus 3 x 2 plus 51 = 111 41.6 2012 42.7 DOWN 1.1 .7 mil
PA 22 plus 29 x 2 plus 18 = 120 49.6 2012 52.7 DOWN 3.1 12.8 mil
NC 28 plus 28 x 2 plus 9 = 121 48.1 2012 49.0 DOWN .9 9.8 mil
GA 21 plus 34 x 2 plus 15 = 125 47.4 2012 46.0 UP 1.4 10 mil
KS 17 plus 26 x 2 plus 39 = 125 38.8 2012 37.9 UP .9 2.9 mil
NE 24 plus 19 x 2 plus 40 = 126 36.4 2012 38.9 DOWN 2.5 1.9 mil
HI 19 plus 20 x 2 plus 48 = 126 67.5 2012 71.7 DOWN 4.0 1.4 mil
ND 38 plus 4 x 2 plus 50 = 134 30.2 2012 39.9 DOWN 9.7 .7 mil
TX 34 plus 15 x 2 plus 37 = 135 45.2 2012 42.0 UP 3.2 26.4 mil
WY 40 plus 6 x 2 plus 49 = 141 24.3 2012 28.8 DOWN 4.5 .6 mil
UT 20 plus 31 x 2 plus 46 = 148 37.7 2012 25.4 UP 8.3 2.9 mil
ME 23 plus 42 x 2 plus 19 = 149 51.5 2012 57.9 DOWN 6.4 1.3 mil
MO 30 plus 37 x 2 plus 20 = 154 39.9 2012 45.2 DOWN 5.3
IA 37 plus 24 x 2 plus 32 = 154 44.9 2012 53.0 DOWN 8.1 3.1 mil
LA 48 plus 22 x 2 plus 16 = 156 39.8 2012 41.3 DOWN 1.5
OH 35 plus 35 x 2 plus 17 = 157 45.8 2012 51.5 DOWN 5.7 11.6 mil
FL 31 plus 41 x 2 plus 14 = 158 49.4 2012 50.4 DOWN 1.0 19.6 mil
WI 32 plus 30 x 2 plus 38 = 162 49.6 2012 53.5 DOWN 3.9
KY 26 plus 44 x 2 plus 24 = 164 34.3 2012 38.5 DOWN 4.2
SD 39 plus 21 x 2 plus 45 = 165 34.0 2012 40.8 DOWN 6.8 .8 mil
MI 33 plus 39 x 2 plus 23 = 167 49.9 2012 54.8 DOWN 4.9 9.9 mil
TN 42 plus 36 x 2 plus 13 = 169 36.4 2012 39.7 DOWN 3.3
NM 25 plus 43 x 2 plus 33 = 169 54.7 2012 55.3 DOWN .8 2.1 mil
AZ 29 plus 40 x 2 plus 34 = 172 48.1 2012 45.4 UP 2.7 6.6 mil
IN 43 plus 32 x 2 plus 26 = 176 40.0 2012 44.8 DOWN 4.7
SC 36 plus 48 x 2 plus 10 = 178 42.6 2012 44.7 DOWN 2.1
AL 45 plus 46 x 2 plus 4 = 186 35.6 2012 38.8 DOWN 3.2
MT 26 plus 45 x 2 plus 44 = 186 38.9 2012 43.0 DOWN 4.1
OK 44 plus 38 x 2 plus 30 = 194 30.7 2012 33.2 DOWN 2.5
NV 47 plus 27 x 2 plus 47 = 195 51.7 2012 53.4 DOWN 1.7 2.8 mil
MS 49 plus 51 x 2 plus 8 = 208 40.8 2012 44.2 DOWN 3.4
ID 41 plus 47 x 2 plus 42 = 218 31.7 2012 33.6 DOWN 1.9
AR 50 plus 49 x 2 plus 21 = 219 35.8 2012 37.8 DOWN 2.0
WV 51 plus 50 x 2 plus 29 = 231 27.9 2012 36.3 DOWN 8.4
Clinton won the top 17, but only 4 of the remaining 34! Trump won 10 of the the bottom 11, and 20 of the bottom 22!
When one compares this to the 2012 election some other insights are available. Of the top 17, Clinton gained ground in 7 states vs. Obama's numbers in 2012, stayed the same in 1, and lost ground in 9. Of the next 17. Clinton gained ground in 4 and lost ground in 13. Tellingly, however, all 4 of the states in which she gained ground remained below the magic 50% line, and 4 of the states in which she lost ground slipped under this line and became blue states. It was even worse in the final 17, in which she picked up ground in but 1 state, and lost 2 more states below the line.
Now, here's some good news for the Democrats. The states in which she picked up ground account for more than 110 million people. In other words, there are still plenty of new Democrats. The party just has to spread them around.
Because the country is only getting more divided... States won by Obama in 2012 representing roughly 86 million people, got more Democratic or stayed the same for the 2016 election. States won by Obama in 2012 representing 52.9 million got less Democratic but stayed on the blue side of the line. And states won by Obama in 2012 representing 55.9 million got less Democratic, and slipped across the line.
Now look at the red states, those voting for Mitt Romney in 2012. States representing 48.8 million moved towards the center and got more Democratic in the 2016 election. That leaves a bunch of states totaling about 72 million, that are red and getting redder.
So, do the math. Blue states representing around 86 million got bluer, and red states representing about 72 million got redder. That adds up to 158 million people living in states that are becoming less balanced politically. Well, that's half the country. The other half live in states that moved toward the center with the election of 2016.
But that's not the whole picture, is it? Of the 55.9 million living in states which slipped across the line, 34.3 million now live in states that are further from the line than they were in 2012. That means that 60% or so of America is currently living in a state which is getting more polarized, with 27% or so living in states getting further from the middle in the direction of blue and 33% or so getting further from the middle in the direction of red.
It seems likely, moreover, that this will only get worse under President Trump.
5. And no, I'm not kidding. We are probably headed for a constitutional crisis.
While some have tried to write-off the Democrats' loss in 2016 by claiming "Hillary was no Obama" or some such thing, a closer look reveals that in many ways