2020 Presidential Election Results by Top 50 MSA

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by edale

Yes, I agree with this. Also, from a natural resource perspective, the Central and Southern parts of the state require water from the far north and Sierras in the eastern parts of the state.

Overall, I do agree that it would be better for the US if CA was split up into two states. It is crazy that we have the same number of senators as states like Maine and Wyoming.

Right the "obvious" place to split the state is the nearly straight line formed by the northern edges of San Bernardino/Kern/San Luis Obispo County, but then that would leave LADWP land in Inyo/Mono Counties as part of the wrong state.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by craigs

Where are you getting the 40k stat?

Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.

[themaguffin]

But how could they lose Pittsburgh? That metro is full of eds and meds.

Pittsburgh and Allegheny country are solidly blue, but the outer counties are not and they are very white. Most of the population in the outer counties are not suburban, but are fragmented old industrial towns.

[M II A II R II K]

To avoid a tie perhaps there should be an odd number of EC votes to divide up.

But in this case of the 7 million+ vote lead only like 0.6% of that number counts to put Biden over the top.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.

Trump would've been re-elected under that scenario, but it would be the end of the Electoral College.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.

The fact that such a scenario (very decisive popular vote victory with a tie/loss in electoral college) is not only a mathematical possibility, but something we relatively narrowly missed this election frankly scares the f%c$ out of me for what such a plausible outcome would mean for our democracy. It's not great when a candidate wins the popular vote by a couple pct pts but loses the electoral college. It might be another thing entirely when a candidate wins the popular vote (with an overall majority) by ~5 pct pts or more but loses the electoral college. Actually - fun fact - of the 5 presidential elections in US history in which the winner did not carry the popular vote, only one (1876 election of Hayes) did the popular vote winner get a majority of the vote (Tilden won 50.9% of the vote, ~3 pct pts more than Hayes.....so that election I suppose was most similar in terms of the numerical outcome we thankfully dodged here).

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Yes. Truman had signed an executive order racially integrating the U.S. armed forces, while also asking Congress to support his civil rights agenda in February of that year. His agenda called for a federal banning on lynching (something FDR initially ran on during his FIRST campaign), better protection for the right to vote and a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission. It was dead on arrival, which forced Truman to sign his EO desegregating the armed forces. In response to this, Southern Democrats walked out on the party. This was the first shift of their abandoning the Democratic Party. The second shift would come when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Thanks for the filling in the actual policy details that prompted this jaw-dropping shift in the MS vote over one cycle. One of those historic facts that the brain still has trouble believing even with repeated documentation and explanation.

Even without the details, one just knew it was widespread racism in the electorate behind it in one shape or form.

Perhaps this was also an early precursor and unfortunate long-term electoral strategy 'instructive' for Rs for the eventual rolling out of their Southern Strategy....

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

The fact that such a scenario (very decisive popular vote victory with a tie/loss in electoral college) is not only a mathematical possibility, but something we relatively narrowly missed this election frankly scares the f%c$ out of me for what such a plausible outcome would mean for our democracy. It's not great when a candidate wins the popular vote by a couple pct pts but loses the electoral college. It might be another thing entirely when a candidate wins the popular vote (with an overall majority) by ~5 pct pts or more but loses the electoral college. Actually - fun fact - of the 5 presidential elections in US history in which the winner did not carry the popular vote, only one (1876 election of Hayes) did the popular vote winner get a majority of the vote (Tilden won 50.9% of the vote, ~3 pct pts more than Hayes.....so that election I suppose was most similar in terms of the numerical outcome we thankfully dodged here).

2004 was similar, even without counting Ohio. Bush won reelection with a majority of the popular vote (51-48) and yes, had he lost Ohio, he would have lost reelection despite that majority, but Kerry lost Ohio by 119,000 votes, so, it wasn't too close (more similar to Michigan this go around). Had he won Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, however, he would have tied the Electoral College at 269 with Bush. He lost those three states by a combined 37,547 votes.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Thanks for the filling in the actual policy details that prompted this jaw-dropping shift in the MS vote over one cycle. One of those historic facts that the brain still has trouble believing even with repeated documentation and explanation.

Even without the details, one just knew it was widespread racism in the electorate behind it in one shape or form.

Perhaps this was also an early precursor and unfortunate long-term electoral strategy 'instructive' for Rs for the eventual rolling out of their Southern Strategy....

Absolutely a precursor. Those Southern Democrats were conservative on most issues and tolerated FDR because he advanced a level of infrastructure programs that helped bring the rural South into the 20th Century. The thing is, a great amount of them also opposed other New Deal legislation but Roosevelt pacified them by not pushing stronger on civil rights issues.

Which is funny because FDR was a Yankee Liberal. But it was actually the semi-Southern Truman, who was a member of the KKK when he was a young man, who didn't seem to care two shits about what southern politicians thought of him. FDR was a consensus builder, Truman was the exact opposite.

The split was only temporary.

Strom Thurmond, who had run as a Dixiecrat in 1948, rejoined the Democratic Party when he decided to run for Senate in South Carolina. At the 1952 convention, the Southern Democrats were seated and John Sparkman of Alabama was selected as the party's vice presidential nominee, which helped sooth over any lasting anger from the 1948 election.

Against Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson II (who was pressured to accept the nomination by Truman) of Illinois, won back the South against Eisenhower.

But the margins were nowhere near what they had been prior to Truman.

Stevenson won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. To show how much had changed post-1948, even Al Smith, the Catholic Democrat from New York, who lost in a landslide to Hoover in 1928, won Mississippi with 82% of the vote.

Stevenson won most the South but, as I said, it wasn't by the same margins as prior to 1948. Tennessee went to Eisenhower, as did Virginia. In 1956, with Stevenson again running, Kentucky went Republican and has remained Republican for the most part.

In 1960, Kennedy did about as poorly as Truman in the South, despite LBJ being on the ticket, as Mississippi and Alabama gave their electors to Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, while Kennedy was able to carry Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, he lost Florida.

That was the last election, until Carter in 1976, the Democrats won a majority of the Southern states.

[Manitopiaaa]

Hi everyone,

For the record, I wanted to update my totals for *certified* totals. So here's the updated page using the New York Times final count of 81,283,098 Biden, 74,222,958 Trump nationally. Remember, these are two-party vote share (since our electoral system is first-past-the-post, not proportional, and third party access is hodgepodge across the nation, looking at two-party and margins is, to me, the most even way to gauge a metro area's politics). Third party does provide a good look into the protest vote, however, so that's definitely another angle not covered here.

NEW 12/19/2020 UPDATE *FINAL CERTIFIED FIGURES*:


OLD 11/13/2020 TABLE:


If you want to spot differences, the best way is to download both pics and use next/back on your photo viewer.

But here are the notable changes I picked up on:

• No metro areas flipped with final numbers. I was particularly worried Biden's 470-vote margin in Louisville MSA would evaporate, but Biden wound up winning the MSA by 505 votes ultimately.
  
• Baltimore's margin expanded from Biden +25 to Biden +27
  
• Boston's margin expanded from Biden + 36 to Biden +37
  
• Buffalo's margin expanded from Biden +1 to Biden +11(!). This was a stunner, since it bucked the red trend in other Rust Belt metros. I was thinking this would flip with final numbers, since Biden +1 seemed rosy. But Upstate New York State snapped back to Dems this year.
  
• Detroit's margin expanded from Biden +13 to Biden +14
  
• New York's margin expanded from Biden +22 to Biden +28 once NYC dropped its final counts
  
• Portland's margin contracted from Biden +32 to Biden +31, due to minor rounding (+31.52% > 31.48%%)
  
• Riverside's margin contracted from Biden +10 to Biden +9, due to the last batch being slightly more Rep-leaning (-0.16% margin) + rounding
  
• Sacramento's margin contracted from Biden +18 to Biden +17, as Placer County was disproportionately out.
  
• Washington margin expanded from Biden +47 to Biden +48, as Montgomery County was disprortionately out.

Just like I added Clinton, the long-term plan is to add 2000-2012 presidential numbers.

[Manitopiaaa]

And here's a look into Top 50 margins as a collective:



Some points:

• 62.52% of Biden's votes came from these Top 50 MSAs. 45.83% of Trump's votes did.
  
• In these Top 50 MSAs, Biden garnered a whopping +16,798,507 net margin. In the Rest of the U.S.A., Biden lost by 9,738,367. In total, Biden's nationwide margin was +7,060,140.
  
• In the Top 50 MSAs, Biden won 59.9% of the two-party vote. Trump won 40.1%. So Biden +20. In the Rest of the U.S.A., Biden won 43.1% of the two-party vote, while Trump won 56.9%, or Trump +14.
  
• Biden's vote margin over Trump exceeded 1,000,000 in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. He barely missed Philadelphia (+997,306), and Boston was slightly further behind (+940,369)
  
• Trump won 7 of these Top 50 MSAs but, of those wins, 5 of them were by margins of <100,000 votes. Cincinnati was Trump's biggest MSA margin win at +160,449. Jacksonville was the only other one to exceed 100k, with Trump +111,341.

[Manitopiaaa]

And lastly, here are the Top 50 (excl. San Juan) ranked by Biden two-party margin. I've also added in Clinton's margin for comparison. As you can see, Biden actually did way better at the lower end of the list, relative to Clinton, and did worse at the top (there was noticeable shrinking in the margins for San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and Chicago, for example).

[Steely Dan]

^ first of all, thanks once again for all of the number crunching. I truly appreciate it!

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

[*]Buffalo's margin expanded from Biden +1 to Biden +11(!). This was a stunner, since it bucked the red trend in other Rust Belt metros. I was thinking this would flip with final numbers, since Biden +1 seemed rosy. But Upstate New York State snapped back to Dems this year.

Wow, now THAT'S a significant difference from the earlier preliminary numbers.

I'm not that surprised though, because the +11 for biden brings Buffalo much more closely inline with its great lakes cousins: Cleveland (+15), Detroit (+14), and Milwaukee (+10).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

.[*]Biden's vote margin over Trump exceeded 1,000,000 in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. He barely missed Philadelphia (+997,306), and Boston was slightly further behind (+940,369)

Not surprisingly, those seven MSAs that delivered the 7 biggest numerical vote margins for biden are also the "big urban 7" metros. They have the most urban cores, the most intact & functional high urbanism and streetcar urbanism, the highest weighted densities, the most comprehensive inner city and commuter rail systems, etc.

Now, the bigger the metro, the bigger the potential for higher vote margins, of course, but remember that the dallas, houston, and phoenix MSAs are all in that same top 10 strata in terms of size, but all three of them delivered relatively paltry numerical vote margins for biden.

So it's not so much that really big = really blue as much as it is really urban = really blue.


And the #8 city in terms of numerical biden vote margin? Seattle, and by a very decent margin as well over #9 miami.

Most urban observers here seem to think that out of the tier of metros just below the "big urban 7", seattle is making the biggest moves and is most committed to making the leap. This is yet more evidence of that. The populace itself is already there.

[M II A II R II K]

Why Democratic gains in the suburbs will outlast Trump

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-outlast-trump

.....

- Much of Democrats’ recent strength in the suburbs is thanks to gains with college-educated white voters. While this group historically leaned Republican, it has shifted pretty decisively towards Democrats over the past four years. But college-educated whites are not the only reason why Democrats have improved in the suburbs. Two other important trends have also been at play: increasing racial diversity and population growth. --- It’s also important to note that recent voting trends were already happening before Trump descended the golden escalator in 2015. In particular, the movement of white voters with a college degree towards Democrats has been happening since the 1980s.

- Another important factor is that Trump will likely continue to be a major force in Republican politics. Although he lost his bid for re-election, he remains very popular with Republican voters. As long as that remains true, Republican politicians will try to gain his favor, adopt his positions, and court his supporters. --- If Trumpism continues to be a dominant force in Republican politics, newly Democratic suburban voters who may have voted for Republicans in the McCain/Romney era may be reminded of why they left the party in the first place. And that would probably help keep them in the Democratic column for the foreseeable future.

.....

[SamInTheLoop]

These data cuts are fantastic (where have I been?!) - huge thank you to Manitopiaaa for putting together. Absolutely fascinating to pour through them and draw broad conclusions and tease out some interesting more nuanced trends.


One of the broadest conclusions I'd make is exactly what that The Hill piece that M II A II R II K posted is getting at, but I'll go further: Republicans aren't even trying to be a majority winning party in national elections. In fact, as disastrous as Trumpism was electorally (again on a national election basis - clearly congressional and state/local elections can certainly be a different story), instead of trying to reorient themselves to once again be competitive in a national election (which would involve major changes in policy platform - first even having a platform! - appealing to a much wider constituency than their non-college educated white core, etc), they are actually doubling down with white nationalistic grievance, the right wing media/social media ecosphere (including governance and politics by alt right meme), conspiracist nuttery..........after Trump has ignominously left office! This is such incredible political history that we're living through - it's both endlessly fascinating and horrifying at the same time.

Just look at the data. The ongoing shift from R to D in the fast-growing suburbs of the nation's largest metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc) is only going to accelerate unless R's unexpectedly reverse course in dramatic fashion. Can't see that happening, as they've apparently made the decision that they are going to continue with white grievance/anti-democracy/conspiracist nuttery politics even post-Trump in the hopes that they'll be able to continue to turn out enough lower-propensity, rural/small town/smaller metro white, non-college educated voters to be competitive in congressional and state and local elections.

Just wow.

[memph]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

These data cuts are fantastic (where have I been?!) - huge thank you to Manitopiaaa for putting together. Absolutely fascinating to pour through them and draw broad conclusions and tease out some interesting more nuanced trends.


One of the broadest conclusions I'd make is exactly what that The Hill piece that M II A II R II K posted is getting at, but I'll go further: Republicans aren't even trying to be a majority winning party in national elections. In fact, as disastrous as Trumpism was electorally (again on a national election basis - clearly congressional and state/local elections can certainly be a different story), instead of trying to reorient themselves to once again be competitive in a national election (which would involve major changes in policy platform - first even having a platform! - appealing to a much wider constituency than their non-college educated white core, etc), they are actually doubling down with white nationalistic grievance, the right wing media/social media ecosphere (including governance and politics by alt right meme), conspiracist nuttery..........after Trump has ignominously left office! This is such incredible political history that we're living through - it's both endlessly fascinating and horrifying at the same time.

Just look at the data. The ongoing shift from R to D in the fast-growing suburbs of the nation's largest metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc) is only going to accelerate unless R's unexpectedly reverse course in dramatic fashion. Can't see that happening, as they've apparently made the decision that they are going to continue with white grievance/anti-democracy/conspiracist nuttery politics even post-Trump in the hopes that they'll be able to continue to turn out enough lower-propensity, rural/small town/smaller metro white, non-college educated voters to be competitive in congressional and state and local elections.

Just wow.

We'll see how it works out, but it seems like they've still made gains in a decent number of places so that it might not be totally hopeless for them. It will certainly lead to a messy next decade, but it's not entirely clear that it will be a losing strategy for the Republicans.

Trump did a pretty good job of fucking himself over in the last year, which put him on the defensive.

The question though is how much Biden-Harris will be on the defensive going forward? How long will it take for the pandemic situation to improve under their leadership? How long will it take for the economy to recover? If the recovery can happen by 2022, and they can get one of two key policy wins on something that a large number of Americans would support, then they'll be in a really good spot going forward. But if not, I think it could be difficult. I think McConnell will make it as difficult as possible for the Democrats to score any wins.

Trump managed to energize people against him, but will that negative energy be as elevated a few years from now? GA, AZ and WI were only won by 10-20k votes and half a percentage point. If Republicans win those back and hold onto TX, FL and NC that's 270 for them.

I think you're also over-estimating the suburban gains because a lot of the suburban counties are still Republican.

For example, Montgomery County, TX, home to Conroe and The Woodlands north of Houston, with a population of over 600,000 and rapid population growth. It shifted 6.9 points Democrat. You're probably thinking that's really good news for Democrats, a large rapidly growing suburban county shifting significantly to the left. But what does that actually look like?

2016
R: 150,314 (73.5%)
D: 45,835 (22.4%)
Libertarian: 6,142 (3.0%)
51.1 point lead for Republicans
104,479 vote lead for Republicans

2020
R: 193,382 (71.2%)
D: 74,377 (27.4%)
43.8 point lead for Republicans
119,005 vote lead for Republicans

So in what might seem contradictory at first, Democrats significantly reduced the percentage point gap, while Republicans were still able to increase their vote lead, which is what actually matters in terms of who wins the state's electoral college points.

I call this the "Gastonia effect" because the same thing happened in Gaston County, NC (I could call it the Montgomery effect if it weren't for the fact that there's another heavily populated Montgomery County in MD). The overall balance of votes in Houston's suburban counties actually shifted Republican due to this effect.

Trump also made major gains in Hispanic majority areas, most notably South Florida, the Rio Grande Valley and the Bronx. He also made surprising gains in Queens, Philadelphia, Santa Cruz County AZ (Nogales) and Imperial County CA. For example, Trump gained more votes in Philadelphia than any other county in Pennsylvania.

But just like we have to ask whether those that voted Biden-Harris will be as negatively energized against Trumpism in future elections, we also have to ask whether Trump's 2020 voters will be as energized in future elections now that Trump has been further disgraced by the Capitol Riots (and may not be able to run in 2024?).

[Crawford]

Trumpism isn't Republicanism. The GOP badly underperforms under Trumpism when Trump isn't on the ballot (see Midterms, GA runoff).

So the idea that Trumpism can sustain the GOP when Trump isn't on the ballot, and when he doesn't have the bullhorns of the Oval Office and social media, is unlikely. Personality cults need the personality, and the personality isn't fungible.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by memph

For example, Montgomery County, TX, home to Conroe and The Woodlands north of Houston, with a population of over 600,000 and rapid population growth. It shifted 6.9 points Democrat. You're probably thinking that's really good news for Democrats, a large rapidly growing suburban county shifting significantly to the left. But what does that actually look like?

2016
R: 150,314 (73.5%)
D: 45,835 (22.4%)
Libertarian: 6,142 (3.0%)
51.1 point lead for Republicans
104,479 vote lead for Republicans

2020
R: 193,382 (71.2%)
D: 74,377 (27.4%)
43.8 point lead for Republicans
119,005 vote lead for Republicans

metro houston isn't the best place to go looking for the suburban blue shift. though slowly trending blue over the long term, it remains one of the most stubbornly purple MSAs over 3M people in the nation (along with dallas and phoenix).

for a counter-example, look at what happened in atlanta's burbs, and how the significant blue shift there was able to flip the entire state. If the GOP decides to stay on board trump's crazy train, instead of coming back to some semblance of sanity, they likely loose GA again in 2024.

[Crawford]

Also, Florida is a unique Trumpy case. FL's Hispanics are very Trumpy, but not very GOP. They've been shifting away from the GOP for 30 years, but Trump's populism/cult of personality brought them back. Biden outperformed Hillary in Florida outside of the Latino vote.

It's highly unlikely that a Trumpy future GOP candidate engenders the same Latino support in FL, meaning that its a probable tossup.