 |
| The White House behind the gates Washington D.C. Carolyn Kaster/AP |
Welcome to a brand new week and new subjects to talk about. Today we are going to take a look at just how divided the United States is. By divided, your truly does not mean physically divided, rather, divided along class and geographic lines. Four weeks into the new administration, it is worth taking a look at how this schism affected the presidential election and what it all means. Our for today's discussion is Richard Florida's CityLab article "It's Still About Class and Geography." It seems like it might be too late to another election post-mortem but it is worth reminding everyone this division goes deep and will take a long time to heal.
 |
| Final 2016 Electoral Map Sources: AP, Fox News, CNN, CBS News, ABC News businessinsider.com |
 |
| Martin Prosperity Institute Federal 2016 Federal Election Results Charlotta Mellander: statistical analysis Taylor Blake: map data citylab.com |
Richard Florida's own state-by-state election results confirmed the election conforms to America's underlying basic economic, demographic, and political divides. Instead of a major break with the past, the election reinforced "...existing divides between richer, more highly educated, more knowledge-based states and less advantaged, less diverse, whiter ones. More than anything else, I would argue, the 2016 election hardened these long-standing divides." The first half of this statement is a description of the creative-class that Mr. Florida has written extensively about. He is correct in saying that the 2016 election did concretized those divisions.
The above map is the Martin Prosperity Institute analysis of the Elections. Charlotte Mellander produced the statistical analysis and Taylor Blake organized and mapped the data. The map overlays the past three federal elections: Obama versus McCain (2008); Obama versus Romney (2012), and Clinton versus Trump (2016).
Richard Florida reports, "Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia were extremely closely correlated with Obama's in 2012 (.97) and with Obama's in 2008 (.92)." Taking a look at the correlation between votes for POTUS, Senator John McCain, and former-Governor Mitt Romney, Mr. Florida found a similar correlation: "Trump's were similarly closely correlated with Romney's votes in 2012 (.91) and McCain's in 2008 (.87)." Looking across states, the final tallies neatly aligned themselves with the surveys: "...correlations of .95 for Clinton and .97 for Trump against Pollster's mid-to-late October polls."
|
Clinton 2016
|
Trump 2016
|
Obama 2012
|
Romney 2012
|
Obama 2008
|
McCain 2008
|
|
|
Annual Wage
|
0.82
|
-0.81
|
0.76
|
-0.76
|
0.61
|
-0.61
|
|
College Grads
|
0.77
|
-0.81
|
0.72
|
-0.73
|
0.62
|
-0.63
|
|
Creative Class
|
0.72
|
-0.73
|
0.66
|
-0.66
|
0.46
|
-0.46
|
|
Working Class
|
-0.77
|
0.79
|
-0.75
|
0.75
|
-0.63
|
0.64
|
|
Service Class
|
0.32
|
-0.33
|
0.38
|
-0.39
|
0.40
|
-0.4
|
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
Class
Class remains a primary feature of the American political schism. The above chart illustrates the correlations between voters, class, and annual wage. In the 2016 elections, support for Madame Secretary was focused in "...states with higher wages (.82), greater shares of college grads (.77), and greater share of workforce in knowledge, professional and creative jobs (.72)." Conversely, support for POTUS was centered in states with "...lower 9-.81), smaller shares of college grads (-.81), and smaller shares of the workforce in knowledge, professional, and creative jobs (-.73)." These correlations have grown since the past two elections.
President Donald Trump enjoyed a high level of support in states with a greater share of working class "...(79), similar to Romney in 2012 but up somewhat from McCain in 2008." On the opposite end, Madame Secretary's support was "...negatively correlated with a larger blue-collar share of the workforce (-.77). Again, this was roughly on par with Obama in 2012, but greater than Obama in 2008."
 |
| "Unionize" seattlespectator.com |
The majority of analyses of the American class divide juxtapose the knowledge-base class and older working class. Mr. Florida points out, "few look at the largest class, the service class, which is made up of nearly 70 million American workers, or 45 percent of the workforce who earn low wages..." Madame Secretary's supporter was greater "where the service class in larger (.32), while Trump's support was weaker (-.33)."
As the Democrats plot a course for the future they might do well to remember this, while it is important to win back the Caucasian working class, they should keep in mind "... that the 70 million member, multi-ethnic service is double the size, makes a fraction of the income.
|
Clinton 2016
|
Trump 2016
|
Obama 2012
|
Romney 2012
|
Obama 2008
|
McCain 2008
|
|
|
Density
|
0.71
|
-0.61
|
0.67
|
-0.64
|
0.57
|
-0.53
|
|
Urbanization
|
0.63
|
-0.54
|
0.60
|
-0.56
|
0.52
|
-0.47
|
|
Drive Alone to Work
|
-0.46
|
0.53
|
-0.41
|
0.43
|
-0.39
|
0.41
|
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
Density and Urbanization
Jane Jacobs once said "You are where you live" but we can re-write it "You vote where you are." Density and urbanization are another key feature of the political divide. The correlations totaled:
"Clinton support was positively associated with both density (.71) and the share of the state that is urbanized (.63), while Trump support was negatively associated with both (-.61 with density and -.54 with the urbanized share)." These correlations are similarly to the 2012 numbers and somewhat greater than the 2008 numbers.
However, support for Trump was positively connected with states where the greater share of people drive alone to work, "a proxy indicator for sprawl (.53), while Clinton support was negatively associate with it (-.46)."
|
Clinton 2016
|
Trump 2016
|
Obama 2012
|
Romney 2012
|
Obama 2008
|
McCain 2008
|
|
|
Home-Ownership Share
|
-0.63
|
0.61
|
-0.55
|
0.56
|
-0.30
|
0.30
|
|
Median Housing Value
|
0.75
|
-0.80
|
0.71
|
-0.72
|
0.60
|
-0.61
|
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
Housing is another key component of the political gulf. President Trump's support was "positively associated with states where the share of residents who own homes is higher (.61), while Clinton support was negatively associated with it (-.63)." This is a substantial increase from the 2012 federal elections and more so from the 2008 elections. Housing prices seems to have played a larger role. Richard Florida writes, "Clinton support was higher in states with more expensive housing (with a correlation of .75 to median housing values), while Trump's was negative (-.80)."
Race correlations
citylab.com
Housing is another key component of the political gulf. President Trump's support was "positively associated with states where the share of residents who own homes is higher (.61), while Clinton support was negatively associated with it (-.63)." This is a substantial increase from the 2012 federal elections and more so from the 2008 elections. Housing prices seems to have played a larger role. Richard Florida writes, "Clinton support was higher in states with more expensive housing (with a correlation of .75 to median housing values), while Trump's was negative (-.80)."
|
|
Clinton 2016
|
Trump 2016
|
Obama 2012
|
Romney 2012
|
Obama 2008
|
McCain 2008
|
|
White Share of Population
|
-0.36
|
0.28
|
-0.30
|
0.28
|
-0.22
|
0.19
|
|
Hispanic Share of Population
|
0.31
|
-0.36
|
0.17
|
-0.19
|
0.18
|
-0.17
|
|
Black Share of Population
|
0.13
|
0.02
|
0.05
|
-0.02
|
-0.03
|
0.07
|
Housing Correlations
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
Race
Race played a massive role in the 2016 federal election. However, at the state level, race was less of a factor in deciding whether a state when Blue (Democrat) or Red (Republican).
Predominantly Caucasian states went against Madame Secretary, "...with a negative correlation of -.36 to the white share of the population. The white share of the population was positive but statistically insignificant for Trump." This number is similar to the 2012 numbers but greater than the 2008 correlations. Given the heated campaign rhetoric, it is not that surprising that predominantly Latino states went Blue "...(.31) and even more so against Trump (-.36). This is significantly greater than in 2012 or 2008."
The number of immigrants or foreign-born people played a larger part. Mr. Florida reports, "The share of foreign-born in a state was positively associated with Clinton votes (.67) and negatively associated with Trump votes (-.67)." Blogger is not surprised by this.
Richard Florida notes, "A surprising finding I pointed to in October is the result for the share of the share of the population that is black. While black voters voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and remain a core element of the Democratic coalition, the correlation for the black share of the population is insignificant for both Clinton and Trump at the state level."
The Cultural Correlation
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
The Culture Wars
The differences on white hot cultural and social issues continue to matter in the elections and reflect the underlying divisions in class and geography.
Religion is a major dividing line in the United States but its importance appears to have waned a little in 2016. Mr. Florida reports, "The level of religiosity in a state-measure via Gallup surveys of the share of the states population who say they are very religious, was positively correlated with Trump support (.54) and negatively associated with Clinton (-.55). These correlations are down both 2012 and 2008."
Abortion is a major fault line in American politics. Madame Secretary was positively correlated with access to pregnancy termination services, "...measured as the number of abortion providers normalized for population (.69). These correlations are similar to the past two election cycles."
Gays and gay rights is another powerful dividing line. Precisely speaking, "Clinton support was positively associated with the share of LGBT people in a state (.75), while Trump support was similarly negatively correlated with it (.-75)." These correlations are significantly greater than 2012 or 2008.
Be that as it may, on the policy front, taxes remain the quotidian issue separating both parties. Madame Secretary supported higher taxes with higher state income taxes, while POTUS support is from states with lower tax rates. Mr. Florida writes, "Clinton at the state level is positively associated with state income taxes per capita (.44), while Trump support is negatively correlated (-.42) with such state-by-state tax burdens."
For many American urban dwellers, President Donald Trump's victory was a stunning blow, which some are still recovering from. As hard as it is to believe, this is not quite the anomaly as it was. The fact of the matter is that we are deeply divided along class and geography lines and these divisions are not going to be healed so quickly.
The overarching question is "Can we-or how can we-survive as such a divided nation?" Twenty-four days into the Trump administration and Blogger is not that optimistic that we can survive as a divided nation. This is not to say that the United States should only have a one party system. That would be contrary to foundation of American values. Rather, a compromise, of sorts, may be the best approach. Yours truly believes that at some level both Red and Blue staters fundamentally agree on the key issues. The trick is stop the nonsense, like shushing female senators who want to speak. Another solution for co-existance is giving more power to the states and municipalities. This is greatest to way to acknowledge and respect the differences between the Red and the Blue
citylab.com
Race
Race played a massive role in the 2016 federal election. However, at the state level, race was less of a factor in deciding whether a state when Blue (Democrat) or Red (Republican).
Predominantly Caucasian states went against Madame Secretary, "...with a negative correlation of -.36 to the white share of the population. The white share of the population was positive but statistically insignificant for Trump." This number is similar to the 2012 numbers but greater than the 2008 correlations. Given the heated campaign rhetoric, it is not that surprising that predominantly Latino states went Blue "...(.31) and even more so against Trump (-.36). This is significantly greater than in 2012 or 2008."
The number of immigrants or foreign-born people played a larger part. Mr. Florida reports, "The share of foreign-born in a state was positively associated with Clinton votes (.67) and negatively associated with Trump votes (-.67)." Blogger is not surprised by this.
Richard Florida notes, "A surprising finding I pointed to in October is the result for the share of the share of the population that is black. While black voters voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and remain a core element of the Democratic coalition, the correlation for the black share of the population is insignificant for both Clinton and Trump at the state level."
|
Clinton 2016
|
Trump 2016
|
Obama 2012
|
Romney 2012
|
Obama 2008
|
McCain 2008
|
|
|
Religiosity
|
-0.55
|
0.54
|
-0.61
|
0.63
|
-0.65
|
0.67
|
|
Abortion Providers Per Capita
|
0.66
|
-0.70
|
0.66
|
-0.68
|
0.65
|
-0.66
|
|
Gay Index
|
0.75
|
-0.75
|
0.62
|
-0.63
|
0.57
|
-0.5
|
Martin Prosperity Institute
citylab.com
The Culture Wars
The differences on white hot cultural and social issues continue to matter in the elections and reflect the underlying divisions in class and geography.
Religion is a major dividing line in the United States but its importance appears to have waned a little in 2016. Mr. Florida reports, "The level of religiosity in a state-measure via Gallup surveys of the share of the states population who say they are very religious, was positively correlated with Trump support (.54) and negatively associated with Clinton (-.55). These correlations are down both 2012 and 2008."
Abortion is a major fault line in American politics. Madame Secretary was positively correlated with access to pregnancy termination services, "...measured as the number of abortion providers normalized for population (.69). These correlations are similar to the past two election cycles."
Gays and gay rights is another powerful dividing line. Precisely speaking, "Clinton support was positively associated with the share of LGBT people in a state (.75), while Trump support was similarly negatively correlated with it (.-75)." These correlations are significantly greater than 2012 or 2008.
Be that as it may, on the policy front, taxes remain the quotidian issue separating both parties. Madame Secretary supported higher taxes with higher state income taxes, while POTUS support is from states with lower tax rates. Mr. Florida writes, "Clinton at the state level is positively associated with state income taxes per capita (.44), while Trump support is negatively correlated (-.42) with such state-by-state tax burdens."
For many American urban dwellers, President Donald Trump's victory was a stunning blow, which some are still recovering from. As hard as it is to believe, this is not quite the anomaly as it was. The fact of the matter is that we are deeply divided along class and geography lines and these divisions are not going to be healed so quickly.
The overarching question is "Can we-or how can we-survive as such a divided nation?" Twenty-four days into the Trump administration and Blogger is not that optimistic that we can survive as a divided nation. This is not to say that the United States should only have a one party system. That would be contrary to foundation of American values. Rather, a compromise, of sorts, may be the best approach. Yours truly believes that at some level both Red and Blue staters fundamentally agree on the key issues. The trick is stop the nonsense, like shushing female senators who want to speak. Another solution for co-existance is giving more power to the states and municipalities. This is greatest to way to acknowledge and respect the differences between the Red and the Blue
No comments:
Post a Comment