Here is how each county voted in the 2016 election for US president. The bluer a county, the more heavily it went for Democrat Hillary Clinton. The redder the county, the more it went for Republican Donald Trump (click to enlarge on all maps):
Note that Alaska is not divided by county. And maybe not Hawaii either..
The great thing about the county map is that you can compare it to other county maps, like those shaded for race, education, unemployment, etc, giving you some idea of what accounts for the voting pattern.
Race: (non-Hispanic) Whites by county in 2011 (darker red counties have a higher proportion of Whites):
Beyond the northern third of the country (New England, the Upper Midwest and the Northwest), it seems that Whites went heavily for Trump.
Blacks by county in 2010:
Latinos in 2010:
Natives in 2010:
Asians in 2014:
Immigration: If there is a rough match with race, there might be an even better one with immigration, particularly since it is an issue that Trump ran on. But new immigration, at least at the county level, seemed to have had no clear effect:
Unemployment: this seemed to have had no clear effect either, at least not at the county level:
You can see the Black belt, which went for Clinton, but you can also see the hard hit counties of Appalachia, which went for Trump.
Education: Many of the White counties that went for Clinton have a higher proportion of people with university degrees. It helps to account for, say, the suburbs of Philadelphia, the coast of Maine and that strange blue county in the middle of Tennessee.
Poverty: Trump does well in poor White counties, Clinton in poor Black, Latino and Native counties:
Religion: Here are the county maps for Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, the two largest religions:
Trump won 81% of White Evangelical Protestants. Going by these maps, that seems to be a nice way of saying “White Southerners”. While Evangelicals drop off north of the Kentucky border in Ohio and West Virginia, Trump’s support does not.
Regions: using Colin Woodard’s Eleven Nations of North America:
If you look at the election map (repeated below) you can see the rough outlines of Yankeedom and the Deep South, but not the Far West.
Here, by the way, is the 2012 map (Obama blue, Romney red. Notice how it is less polarized – more light blues and light reds):
Trump did well in Greater Appalachia and the Midlands, poorly in El Norte, the Left Coast and New Netherland, and middling in the Deep South, the Far West and Yankeedom.
Conclusion: Race seems to be the strongest factor, education second, region third. Stuff like religion, unemployment, poverty and immigration seem to have had little effect, at least at the county level.
From these maps you would expect Trump to do best among Whites, particularly those without a university degree, but not because of religion, hard times or immigrants currently pouring into their counties.
– Abagond, 2016.
Update (November 16th): Here is the population density map. Some of Clinton’s wins are big cities, some not:
- The 2016 election for US president
- “It’s not about racism”
- US geography
- Southern Strategy