Not Every Trump Voter Is A Freeloader-- But The Most Economically Productive Areas All Voted Against Him

According to a Nov. 10th poll conducted by Pollfish, 23% of Trump supporters would have voted for Democratic hopeful, Bernie Sanders, based on his commitment to fight for the middle class and against large corporations. The same poll shows some regret already. 32% of Trump voters thought he wouldn't actually win and now 11% say if they had it to do over again, they wouldn't vote for him! When asked to describe the reason they chose to cast a vote for so flawed a candidate, "better of two evil," "America needs change" and "I voted against Hillary" were some of the most popular sentiments. Many Trump supporters were tired of the establishment, and just wanted CHANGE, perhaps forgetting that change can also be for the worse.

That said-- and remembering that Hillary has a growing 2.32 million raw vote lead over Trump now-- there were just 2 states-- Oklahoma and West Virginia-- where Trump won every single county. Hillary managed to win one county (Teton) in Wyoming, 2 counties in Utah (Salt Lake and Summit), 2 in North Dakota (Rolette and Sioux), 2 in Idaho (Latah and Blaine), 2 in Kansas (Douglas and Wyandotte), 2 in Kentucky (Jefferson and Fayette-- in other words, Louisville and Lexington) and 2 in Nebraska (Douglas and Lancaster, which hold, respectively Omaha and Lincoln, the state's only two actual cities).

And in Missouri, where Clinton only took 3 of Missouri's 114 counties, there were the 3 counties that are responsible for much of the state's prosperity: St Louis (county and city), Boone (Columbia) and Jackson (Kansas City). Am I saying that the parts of Missouri that gave Trump his mammoth 57-38% win in that state are all a bunch of unproductive freeloaders? Well... it's not that straight-forward. Richard Florida has done some research on the idea and has written a bit about it, pointing out that Large metros voted for Clinton where everywhere else went for Trump and that the large metro areas generate 90% of the nation's economic output. Hillary won 51% of the metros to Trump's 44%. In fact, when you look at metropolitan areas with over a million population, Trump just got 40% of the vote.

"Clinton," he wrote, "captured the largest metros. She bested Trump with 55 percent compared to 40 percent of the vote in metros with more than one million people, and won eight of the ten largest metros. These metros accounted for more than half the vote and generate two-thirds of America’s economic output... Rather than being a significant break with the past, the 2016 election reinforces America’s deepest divides: between the country’s larger, denser, more affluent, more highly educated, more knowledge-based and more diverse metro areas; and its smaller, less advantaged, less educated, and less diverse."

Back in 2012 he wrote that "America is divided between cities of knowledge and skill and the rest. The residents of these knowledge cities not only do better economically, they are better-traveled, better-connected to the global economy, and more open to diversity. Perhaps because the work of the knowledge-based metros centers turns on knowledge, creativity, and abstract thinking, their residents tend to be more open to the notion that government can help improve the economy, better the environment, provide essential services (like healthcare), and protect the fundamental rights of disadvantaged or discriminated-against groups... Those who live outside these places see knowledge-based centers as elitist and coddled by government. They are well aware of the growing gap between the metro haves and have-nots, and know they are losing ground. They'd like to somehow stop the forces of change that are leaving them behind and bring back the good old days when they, and their more traditional vision of, America was on top."

Other factors in the results, according to Professor Florida:

• Clinton support was concentrated in metros with higher incomes and wages, while Trump support was concentrated metros with lower incomes and wages.

• Clinton support came from metros with higher shares of college grads, while Trump support came from metros with smaller shares of college grads. These correlations are substantially higher than in 2012.

• Clinton support was concentrated in metros where knowledge, professional and creative class workers make up a larger share of the workforce, while Trump support was negatively associated with this. Conversely, Trump support was much greater in metros with a larger share of the working class, with Clinton support negatively associated with it.

• Clinton support was also much greater in metros with larger concentrations of startups, venture capital investment, and high-tech industry, while Trump votes were negatively correlated with each.

• Clinton support was positively associated with both the size of metros and even more so with their density, while Trump support was negatively associated with both... Trump support was positively associated with the share of people who drive to work alone, a proxy indicator for sprawl... Clinton support was also higher in metros where a greater share of the workforce uses public transit, while Trump support was negatively associated with public transit use.

• Trump support was positively associated with the share of residents who own their own homes... Clinton support was higher in metros with more expensive housing, while Trump’s was negative.

• Trump support was highly concentrated among whites. Metros with higher shares of whites went for Trump... Clinton support was higher in metros with greater shares of Hispanic and Latino residents... Clinton support was even more closely correlated with the share of metro residents who are foreign born, while Trump’s support was even more negatively correlated with the foreign-born population.
• Clinton support was positively associated with income inequality and even more so with wage inequality. America has not only become more unequal, it has become increasingly sorted and segregated by socio-economic class. Clinton not only did better in more unequal metros, she did better in more economically segregated ones as well.

But what about gerrymandering, you might ask. Yeah, that's a problem-- a big one. But... just a few hours ago a federal court ordered North Carolina "to hold a special legislative election next year after 28 state House and Senate districts are redrawn to comply with a gerrymandering ruling." That's big-- really big.

U.S. District Court judges earlier this year threw out the current legislative district map, ruling that 28 of them were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. They allowed the 2016 election to continue under the old maps, but ordered legislators to draw new districts in 2017.

...“While special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander,” the three-judge panel wrote in the order.

...The order gives legislators a March 15 deadline to draw new district maps. Every legislator whose district is altered will have their current term shortened.

A primary would be held in late August or early September-- the legislature is responsible for setting the exact date-- with the general election in November, the order says.

Republican legislators who oversee redistricting blasted the decision in a news release Tuesday evening.

“This politically-motivated decision, which would effectively undo the will of millions of North Carolinians just days after they cast their ballots, is a gross overreach that blatantly disregards the constitutional guarantee for voters to duly elect their legislators to biennial terms,” Rep. David Lewis and Sen. Bob Rucho said in the release, adding that they have already appealed the original U.S. District Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represented plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit, praised Tuesday’s order.

“North Carolinians deserve fair representation in the state legislature, and that is impossible to achieve with racially gerrymandered districts,” executive director Anita Earls said in a news release. “A special election in the affected districts in 2017 is the best way to protect the rights of all North Carolinians.”

Hopefully this ruling will be a precedent that other courts in other jurisdictions will also follow-- and in time for the 2020 congressional redistricting. Just a few weeks ago, 49.9% of voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates-- resulting in a House that is now 51.2% Republican. That's because of hyper-partisan gerrymandering. Hopefully that won't keep happening into eternity.