Super wealthy towns that heavily swung against Donald Trump

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

It's amazing how terrible Donald Trump did in wealthy towns. There are so many wealthy towns that went from overwhelmingly voting for Romney to overwhelmingly voting for Hillary. Here are some interesting results in extremely wealthy towns I want to share with you guys:

Darien, CT

Median annual household income: $272,365

2012:
Romney: 65.39%
Obama: 34.42%

2016:
Clinton: 52.75%
Trump: 41.06%

Greenwhich, CT

Median annual household income: $246,106

2012:
Romney: 55.24%
Obama: 43.90%

2016:
Clinton: 56.49%
Trump: 39.14%

New Canaan, CT

Median annual household income: $283,718

2012:
Romney: 64.13%
Obama: 35.02%

2016:
Clinton: 52.59%
Trump: 41.41%

Atherton, CA

Median annual household income: "Over $250k" according to US Census
$1,063,888 according to CNNMoney.
The median income here is in the 7 figures by some estimates.


2012:
Romney: 51.5%
Obama: 46.6%

2016:
Clinton: 64.8%
Trump: 27.5%

I found this result to be the most amazing. Atherton is EXTREMELY wealthy.

Weston, MA

Median annual household income: $230,000+

2012:
Obama: 51.23%
Romney: 47.45%

2016:
Clinton: 66.36%
Trump: 25.04%

East Greenwhich, RI

Median annual household income: $190,221

2012:
Romney: 49.93%
Obama: 48.37%

2016:
Clinton: 52.27%
Trump: 40.60%

Woodside, CA:

Median annual household income: $246,042

2012:
Obama: 54.1%
Romney: 43.5%

2016:
Clinton: 68.4%
Trump: 24.8%




I'm posting this because I found it amazing how many towns went from voting for Romney by double digits to voting for Hillary by double digits. This just proves that Donald Trump was really toxic to wealthy voters.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, Birmingham and East Grand Rapids in MI.

[NerdyBohemian]

Norfolk, MA


Median household income: $86,153

2012:
Romney: 56%
Obama: 43%

2016:
Clinton: 50.2%
Trump:42.1%

Not super wealthy, but still affluent suburban Massachusetts town. Located in a traditionally Republican part of the state. To the south is Wrentham, MA former home of Scott Brown. Brown won Norfolk with 67% of the vote.

[RINO Tom]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Millburn, NJ

Median household income: $165,603

2012:
Obama: 55.3%
Romney: 44.0%

2016:
Clinton: 66.4%
Trump: 27.4%

Short Hills, which has a median household income of about 230k is more Republican than the town at large but most likely went Romney in 2012 and Clinton in 2016.

Mountain Lakes, NJ

Median household income: $155,139

2012:
Romney: 58.0%
Obama: 41.1%

2016:
Clinton: 52.6%
Trump: 41.1%

Montgomery, NJ

Median household income: $146,100

2012:
Obama: 52.3%
Romney: 46.0%

2016:
Clinton: 61.7%
Trump: 34.4%

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Woodside, CA:

Median annual household income: $246,042

I don't have 2012 data,  but I'm going to assume that it narrowly voted for Romney

2016:
Clinton: 57.2%
Trump: 21.8%

According to the San Mateo SoV, she did a bit better than that

2016:
Clinton: 68.4%
Trump: 24.8%

2012:
Obama: 54.1%
Romney: 43.5%

2008:
Obama: 63.6%
McCain: 35.2%

[Thunderbird is the word]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

Depends, I think that particularly in Connecticut places like Darien and New Caanan are major commuter towns with a lot of people who work on Wall Street and they normally despise government regulation and will just vote for whichever candidate gives them a bigger tax break but Trump because of his general instability and seeming lack of concern for the health of markets was a turnoff for them. I think someone like Rubio or Kasich would have won those places which are still very conservative in attitude as much as economically, as they've been historically quite provincial. In 2020 in the event that Trump's been impeached I think they'd even swing back to Pence as the nominee. A lot of blue state Republicans even if they might be somewhat more socially liberal then the national party are able to rationalize it because they'd argue something like "even if Roe v Wade was overturned Connecticut would never criminalize abortion!" or at this point "gay marriage is a decided issue anyway!"

[Cruzcrew]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

Depends, I think that particularly in Connecticut places like Darien and New Caanan are major commuter towns with a lot of people who work on Wall Street and they normally despise government regulation and will just vote for whichever candidate gives them a bigger tax break but Trump because of his general instability and seeming lack of concern for the health of markets was a turnoff for them. I think someone like Rubio or Kasich would have won those places which are still very conservative in attitude as much as economically, as they've been historically quite provincial. In 2020 in the event that Trump's been impeached I think they'd even swing back to Pence as the nominee. A lot of blue state Republicans even if they might be somewhat more socially liberal then the national party are able to rationalize it because they'd argue something like "even if Roe v Wade was overturned Connecticut would never criminalize abortion!" or at this point "gay marriage is a decided issue anyway!"

Generally, the financial industry strongly favors stability and predictability. Whether Clinton or Trump would be better for president or not, Clinton is without a doubt, far more predictable than Trump. Meanwhile, Romney won or did far better in these areas by being a fiscal conservative that was predictable and from there, could bring stability.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

Depends, I think that particularly in Connecticut places like Darien and New Caanan are major commuter towns with a lot of people who work on Wall Street and they normally despise government regulation and will just vote for whichever candidate gives them a bigger tax break but Trump because of his general instability and seeming lack of concern for the health of markets was a turnoff for them. I think someone like Rubio or Kasich would have won those places which are still very conservative in attitude as much as economically, as they've been historically quite provincial. In 2020 in the event that Trump's been impeached I think they'd even swing back to Pence as the nominee. A lot of blue state Republicans even if they might be somewhat more socially liberal then the national party are able to rationalize it because they'd argue something like "even if Roe v Wade was overturned Connecticut would never criminalize abortion!" or at this point "gay marriage is a decided issue anyway!"

Generally, the financial industry strongly favors stability and predictability. Whether Clinton or Trump would be better for president or not, Clinton is without a doubt, far more predictable than Trump. Meanwhile, Romney won or did far better in these areas by being a fiscal conservative that was predictable and from there, could bring stability.

-Clinton was more predictable, but offered less stability. My guess is a whole lot of people were making basic category errors.

[Indy Texas]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

Depends, I think that particularly in Connecticut places like Darien and New Caanan are major commuter towns with a lot of people who work on Wall Street and they normally despise government regulation and will just vote for whichever candidate gives them a bigger tax break but Trump because of his general instability and seeming lack of concern for the health of markets was a turnoff for them. I think someone like Rubio or Kasich would have won those places which are still very conservative in attitude as much as economically, as they've been historically quite provincial. In 2020 in the event that Trump's been impeached I think they'd even swing back to Pence as the nominee. A lot of blue state Republicans even if they might be somewhat more socially liberal then the national party are able to rationalize it because they'd argue something like "even if Roe v Wade was overturned Connecticut would never criminalize abortion!" or at this point "gay marriage is a decided issue anyway!"

Generally, the financial industry strongly favors stability and predictability. Whether Clinton or Trump would be better for president or not, Clinton is without a doubt, far more predictable than Trump. Meanwhile, Romney won or did far better in these areas by being a fiscal conservative that was predictable and from there, could bring stability.

-Clinton was more predictable, but offered less stability. My guess is a whole lot of people were making basic category errors.

Hillary offered less stability? Less stability than what? The man who anger-tweets at companies that don't stock his daughter's clothing line? The man whose administration seems to have at least two or three "official" positions on everything?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

Depends, I think that particularly in Connecticut places like Darien and New Caanan are major commuter towns with a lot of people who work on Wall Street and they normally despise government regulation and will just vote for whichever candidate gives them a bigger tax break but Trump because of his general instability and seeming lack of concern for the health of markets was a turnoff for them. I think someone like Rubio or Kasich would have won those places which are still very conservative in attitude as much as economically, as they've been historically quite provincial. In 2020 in the event that Trump's been impeached I think they'd even swing back to Pence as the nominee. A lot of blue state Republicans even if they might be somewhat more socially liberal then the national party are able to rationalize it because they'd argue something like "even if Roe v Wade was overturned Connecticut would never criminalize abortion!" or at this point "gay marriage is a decided issue anyway!"

Generally, the financial industry strongly favors stability and predictability. Whether Clinton or Trump would be better for president or not, Clinton is without a doubt, far more predictable than Trump. Meanwhile, Romney won or did far better in these areas by being a fiscal conservative that was predictable and from there, could bring stability.

-Clinton was more predictable, but offered less stability. My guess is a whole lot of people were making basic category errors.

Hillary offered less stability? Less stability than what? The man who anger-tweets at companies that don't stock his daughter's clothing line? The man whose administration seems to have at least two or three "official" positions on everything?

-Since when have liberal justices on the Supreme Court and a Kagan-backed foreign policy offered anything but instability?

[NOVA Green]

Oregon- 10 wealthiest places in Oregon based on MHI per statisticalatlas.com

Even the wealthiest communities in Oregon aren't nearly as wealthy as places with significantly higher costs of living (Bay Area California, parts of SoCal, Metro NYC, Metro DC, etc..... but as other posters have noted wealth is relative, and obviously only includes income and not net worth, so someone could have a $ 2 Million Home in Oregon, but still only clear an MHI of $ 120k/Yr, and still be considered wealthy by any reasonable standard within Oregon.

 

1.) Bethany- MHI- $109.9k/Yr---- Uninc Washington County- Pop 21.5k

54.7% White (Non-Latino), 32.9% Asian-American, 6.4% Latino.

Asian-Americans heavily Chinese (11.1% of total Pop), Indian (9.7% of total pop), Korean (4.5% of total Pop)

Precinct boundaries shifted between '12 and '16 in WashCo, and there are a few overlaps with other uninc communities on both precinct maps, but still the most reasonable approximation possible.

2012: (53.4% Dem- 43.5% Rep)     +9.9% D Margins
2016: (60.5% Dem- 28.6% Rep)     +31.9% D Margins   (+22% Dem Swing)

2.) Cedar Mill Oregon- MHI $99.7k/Yr---- Uninc Washington County--- Pop 15.4k

77.4% White, 13.2% Asian-American, 4.0% Latino

2012: (60-37 D)    +23 D
2016: (64-35 D)    +29 D     (+6% Democratic Swing)

3.) Happy Valley- MHI $ 92.8k/Yr- Suburban/Exurban City in Clackamas County--- Pop 14.9k

69% White, 18% Asian, 6% Latino

2012: (46-53 R)    +7 R
2016: (49- 41 D)   +8 D      (+15% Dem Swing)

4.) West Linn- MHI $ 84.5k/Yr---- City--- Inner Suburban---Clackamas County---  Pop 25.5k

87% White, 5% Asian, 4% Latino

2012: (55-44 D)    +11 D
2016: (60-29 D)    +31 D    (+20% Dem Swing)

5.) Lake Oswego- MHI $83.6k/Yr--- City- Inner Suburban--- Clackamas County--- Pop 37.0k

87.1% White, 6.5% Asian, 4.0% Latino

2012: (57-41 D)      +16 D
2016: (62-29 D)      +33 D     (+17% Dem Swing)

6.) Sherwood---- MHI $ 78.4k/Yr--- Exurban City- Yamhill County- Pop 18.4k

86% White, 6% Latino, 5% Asian

2012: (47-50 R)     +3 R
2016: (47-39 D)     +8 D      (+11% Dem Swing)

7.) Oatfield- MHI $67.6k/Yr- Uninc- Clackamas County- Pop 14.2k

90% White, 4.4% Latino

2012: (55- 42 D)     +13 D
2016: (51- 38 D)     +13 D     (+0% Dem Swing)

8.) Hillsboro- MHI $ 65.2k/ Yr--- Large City- Clackamas County- Pop 93.9k

60.4% White, 24.2% Latino, 8.9% Asian

2012: (56- 39 D)     +17 D
2016: (55- 32 D)     +27 D   (+10% Swing).

9.) Troutdale- MHI $62.3k/Yr---- Suburban Portland- East Multnomah County- Pop 16.2k

81.6% White, 6.7% Latino, 6.0% Asian

2012: (51- 46 D)   +5 D
2016: (44- 43 D)    +1 D (-4% Dem Swing)

10.) Aloha- MHI $ 61.5k/yr--- Uninc- Washington County- Pop 51.5k

61% White, 22% Latino, 9% Asian

2012: (60- 36 D)      +24 D
2016: (58- 30 D)      +28 D      (+4% Dem Swing)

I have much more data, including more precinct level data on my Oregon 2016 GE Presidential results thread....

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=252085.0

What is most lacking in my thread is breakdown by individual precincts based upon MHI based on US Census tract level data for the City of Portland, but in many of the wealthiest places in Oregon listed above, I did drill a bit more down into precinct level results, as well as some other precincts not part of the communities above, that actually have a higher MHI....

Regardless, the swings towards Clinton in the wealthiest five communities in Oregon, were extremely dramatic and virtually unprecedented....

[Intell]

This strategy of Clinton, wining upper/middle class-class suburbanites worked terrficly, it also turns out, the only group need to win an election.

[White Trash]

This will prove to be the exception rather than the norm.

[RINO Tom]

Yes, he was about the worst possible candidate for them.

True, but I think these places are trending D in the long term anyway.

I know you think that.  I know Eharding thinks that.  I struggle to see why, though.  There will ALWAYS be a high floor in these places for a Republican as long as the GOP is asking for more "pro-rich" policies than the Democrats are; do you honestly see that flipping?  Ever?  Even if you believe that the GOP is going full Trumpist in EVERY geographic area for decades (unlikely in my opinion, especially given that Trumpist GOPers tend to be older and in shrinking areas of the country, but whatever), there is at least as much evidence that the Democratic Party will continue to move to the left economically with millenials becoming more prominent in the party.

[MT Treasurer]

I think Democrats won't move to the left economically, they're destined to become a Fairfax County-type party IMO. Not sure about the GOP, populism or Trumpism (and let's not forget that Trump has basically been governing like a generic R so far, with one or two exceptions like that stupid executive order) alone won't be a winning strategy in the long term. They'll have to combine it with something else. The party will probably be pretty fractured, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

[RI]

More interesting might be the finding the wealthiest town that swung toward Trump.

[RINO Tom]

I think Democrats won't move to the left economically, they're destined to become a Fairfax County-type party IMO. Not sure about the GOP, populism or Trumpism (and let's not forget that Trump has basically been governing like a generic R so far, with one or two exceptions like that stupid executive order) alone won't be a winning strategy in the long term. They'll have to combine it with something else. The party will probably be pretty fractured, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

I'm oh-so skeptical of this.  They're far from that type of party now, and I think they're smart enough to know they'd win about 30% of the vote being such a party.

[RFayette]

More interesting might be the finding the wealthiest town that swung toward Trump.

Probably a town in say, Putnam County, NY or somewhere similar?

[MT Treasurer]

I think Democrats won't move to the left economically, they're destined to become a Fairfax County-type party IMO. Not sure about the GOP, populism or Trumpism (and let's not forget that Trump has basically been governing like a generic R so far, with one or two exceptions like that stupid executive order) alone won't be a winning strategy in the long term. They'll have to combine it with something else. The party will probably be pretty fractured, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

I'm oh-so skeptical of this.  They're far from that type of party now, and I think they're smart enough to know they'd win about 30% of the vote being such a party.

Last time I checked Hillary Clinton won the PV with 48% of the vote, not 30%. Democrats will always have a floor of 46%/47% or so because of White liberals and minority voters.

[The_Doctor]

Tom RINO is right.

[RINO Tom]

I think Democrats won't move to the left economically, they're destined to become a Fairfax County-type party IMO. Not sure about the GOP, populism or Trumpism (and let's not forget that Trump has basically been governing like a generic R so far, with one or two exceptions like that stupid executive order) alone won't be a winning strategy in the long term. They'll have to combine it with something else. The party will probably be pretty fractured, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

I'm oh-so skeptical of this.  They're far from that type of party now, and I think they're smart enough to know they'd win about 30% of the vote being such a party.

Last time I checked Hillary Clinton won the PV with 48% of the vote, not 30%. Democrats will always have a floor of 46%/47% or so because of White liberals and minority voters.

Read what I wrote.  As a "Fairfax County Party," Democrats would win no more than 30% of the vote.  They're NOT one right now (not even close), despite you liking to malign them as such.  Hence, winning more than 30% of the vote.  If Democrats moved to the right on economics, turnout would drop from their base, from minorities, from WHITE LIBERALS (who are not, by any stretch of the imagination fiscally moderate, let alone conservative, even if they are affluent), etc.  The soul of that party is that Republicans are for billionaires.  That's not how they run everywhere, but it's what gets them power every.  Single.  Time.

[MT Treasurer]

I DID read what you wrote, I just disagree with you that they aren't a Fairfax County-type Party already. There's a reason Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination and had such a big appeal among NeverTrump Republicans.

I'm also not saying that only a populist/Trumpist Republican can win a presidential election (I have no doubt that Kasich would have beaten Clinton as well). Trump is obviously hurting the GOP in states like TX and GA and I don't want to see that continuing in the future. That doesn't necessarily have to do with populism though, but rather with Trump being an incompetent moron.

[mgop]

ofcourse they swung when hillary loves wallstreet

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Woodside, CA:

Median annual household income: $246,042

I don't have 2012 data,  but I'm going to assume that it narrowly voted for Romney

2016:
Clinton: 57.2%
Trump: 21.8%

According to the San Mateo SoV, she did a bit better than that

2016:
Clinton: 68.4%
Trump: 24.8%

2012:
Obama: 54.1%
Romney: 43.5%

2008:
Obama: 63.6%
McCain: 35.2%

It turns out my data for Woodside was before all the votes were officially counted. Thanks for the info!
Donald Trump getting crushed in Woodside is not surprising, but I'm surprised that Woodside also voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite the fact that the town is very wealthy, it seems that it has always been overwhelmingly Democratic.