Where Each Candidate's Voters Lived By State (Exit Poll States Only)

[RINO Tom]

I thought it would be interesting to look at where each candidate's voters actually came from, according to the 2016 exit polls.  We can say things like "urban areas are blue, and rural areas are red," and those things are definitely true ... but it's oversimplified, and I think this gives us a better picture of who the voters are who shape each of these states' Republican and Democratic electorates, which can help us understand why they elect the candidates they do.  First, using the simple Urban-Suburban-Rural classification used by the exit polls, here is how each state broke down (colored for which candidate won those voters):

Arizona: 54% Urban, 40% Suburban, 6% Rural
California:   67% Suburban, 30% Urban, 3% Rural (N/A)
Colorado: 49% Suburban, 39% Urban, 12% Rural
Florida: 46% Urban, 45% Suburban, 9% Rural
Georgia: 58% Suburban, 23% Urban, 18% Rural
Illinois: 48% Suburban, 26% Urban, 26% Rural
Indiana: 46% Suburban, 33% Urban      21% Rural
Iowa: 39% Rural, 33% Suburban, 28% Urban
Kentucky: 61% Rural, 28% Urban, 11% Suburban
Maine: 51% Suburban, 43% Rural, 6% Urban
Michigan: 50% Suburban, 27% Rural, 23% Urban
Minnesota: 43% Urban, 30% Rural, 26% Suburban
Missouri: 44% Suburban, 34% Urban, 22% Rural
Nevada 71% Urban, 15% Suburban, 14% Rural
New Hampshire: 53% Suburban, 37% Rural, 9% Urban
New Mexico: 51% Urban, 32% Rural, 17% Suburban
New York: 45% Urban, 40% Suburban, 15% Rural
North Carolina: 39% Suburban, 37% Urban, 24% Rural
Ohio: 59% Suburban, 31% Urban, 9% Rural
Oregon: 45% Suburban, 36% Urban, 19% Rural
Pennsylvania: 53% Suburban, 27% Urban, 19% Rural
South Carolina: 55% Suburban, 35% Urban, 10% Rural
Texas: 48% Suburban, 43% Urban, 8% Rural
Utah: 49% Suburban, 35% Urban, 16% Rural
Virginia: 51% Suburban, 30% Urban, 19% Rural
Washington: 48% Suburban, 35% Urban, 17% Rural
Wisconsin: 39% Urban, 34% Suburban, 27% Rural


Now, for (what I believe to be) the more interesting part: what percent of Hillary's and Trump's voters hailed from each of these regions in each state:

AZ DEM: 59.51% Urban, 35.09% Suburban, 5.40% Rural
AZ GOP: 48.55% Urban, 44.95% Suburban, 6.50% Rural
CA DEM: 68.38% Suburban, 31.62% Urban, N/A Rural
CA GOP:69.73% Suburban, 30.27% Urban, N/A Rural
CO DEM: 48.37% Suburban, 42.50% Urban, 9.13% Rural
CO GOP: 49.44% Suburban, 34.88% Urban, 15.68% Rural
FL DEM: 51.91% Urban, 41.20% Suburban, 6.90% Rural
FL GOP: 49.48% Suburban, 39.13% Urban, 11.39% Rural
GA DEM: 58.52% Suburban, 26.85% Urban, 14.63% Rural
GA GOP: 58.91% Suburban, 30.69% Rural, 10.40% Urban
IL DEM: 46.19% Suburban, 37.76% Urban, 16.05% Rural
IL GOP: 51.17% Suburban, 38.93% Rural, 9.90% Urban
IN DEM: 43.53% Suburban, 39.91% Urban, 16.56% Rural
IN GOP: 47.37% Suburban, 28.80% Urban, 23.83% Rural
IA DEM: 37.39% Urban, 32.47% Suburban, 30.15% Rural
IA GOP: 47.47% Rural, 32.52% Suburban, 20.02% Urban
KY DEM: 53.53% Rural, 46.44% Urban, N/A Suburban
KY GOP: 78.01% Rural, 21.99% Urban, N/A Suburban
ME DEM: 49.15% Suburban, 40.54% Rural, 10.31% Urban
ME GOP: 54.05% Suburban, 44.62% Rural, 1.32% Urban
MI DEM: 44.13% Suburban, 34.31% Urban, 21.56% Rural
MI GOP: 56.22% Suburban, 32.07% Rural, 11.71% Urban
MN DEM: 51.00% Urban, 26.35% Suburban, 22.64% Rural
MN GOP: 38.22% Rural, 34.94% Urban, 26.84% Suburban
MO DEM: 48.11% Urban, 36.90% Suburban, 14.99% Rural
MO GOP: 48.77% Suburban, 26.71% Rural, 24.52% Urban
NV DEM: 73.96% Urban, 18.75% Suburban, 7.29% Rural
NV GOP: 68.55% Urban, 20.58% Rural, 10.86% Suburban
NH DEM: 53.02% Suburban, 37.02% Rural, 9.96% Urban
NH GOP: 54.06% Suburban, 37.74% Rural, 8.20% Urban
NM DEM: 60.10% Urban, 25.14% Rural, 14.76% Suburban
NM GOP: 41.03% Rural, 39.74% Urban, 19.23% Suburban
NY DEM: 57.69% Urban, 32.82% Suburban, 9.49% Rural
NY GOP: 51.00% Suburban, 26.29% Urban, 22.71% Rural
NC DEM: 48.68% Urban, 30.79% Suburban, 20.53% Rural
NC GOP: 46.55% Suburban, 27.69% Rural, 25.76% Urban
OH DEM: 51.68% Suburban, 42.57% Urban, 5.75% Rural
OH GOP: 65.15% Suburban, 22.82% Urban, 12.03% Rural
OR DEM: 46.09% Urban, 43.43% Suburban, 10.48% Rural
OR GOP: 48.35% Suburban, 27.71% Rural, 23.94% Urban
PA DEM: 49.45% Suburban, 40.08% Urban, 10.47% Rural
PA GOP: 57.33% Suburban, 28.06% Rural, 14.60% Urban
SC DEM: 44.59% Suburban, 42.14% Urban, 13.27% Rural
SC GOP: 62.92% Suburban, 29.70% Urban, 7.38% Rural
TX DEM: 53.46% Urban, 41.66% Suburban, 4.88% Rural
TX GOP: 54.06% Suburban, 35.07% Urban, 10.87% Rural
UT DEM: 47.05% Urban, 43.33% Suburban, 9.62% Rural
UT GOP: 49.36% Suburban, 30.66% Urban, 19.97% Rural
VA DEM: 48.46% Suburban, 35.79% Urban, 15.75% Rural
VA GOP: 54.02% Suburban, 23.48% Rural, 22.51% Urban
WA DEM: 44.42% Suburban, 40.16% Urban, 15.42% Rural
WA GOP: 53.35% Suburban, 26.86% Urban, 19.79% Rural
WI DEM: 51.16% Urban, 28.52% Suburban, 20.32% Rural
WI GOP: 38.40% Suburban, 34.37% Rural, 27.23% Urban

I think it is very interesting that even in states were the GOP lost the suburban vote (like Colorado), a very large plurality of its votes came from suburbanites.  Conversely, in Kentucky where the map looks like Democrats getting destroyed in the rural areas (true) and clinging to one metro area (true), a MAJORITY of Clinton votes came from rural areas.  Also surprising, Clinton actually won the rural vote (obviously mostly from Blacks) in South Carolina, while losing the urban and suburban votes.

This can also help us understand why certain states keep nominating certain types of Republicans/Democrats.  Ohio definitely swung to Trump because of protectionism, but at the same time nearly TWO THIRDS of its Republican voters are from suburbs, maybe explaining why they have Portman and Kasich types in the party.

No real point here, just thought this would be interesting to calculate.

[The_Doctor]

How did you calculate this? If I can ask?

[Goldwater]

Interesting, I wonder where they draw the line between the different categories. For example, I assumed that most of the population in Nevada and Arizona would have actually lived in places considered "suburban" rather than "urban".

[RINO Tom]

Cal,

Here is Texas as an example:

Urban Voters (43%): 53% Clinton, 42% Trump
Suburban Voters (48%): 58% Trump, 37% Clinton
Rural Voters (8%): 70% Trump, 26% Clinton

We'll do the GOP as an example.  They won 42% of 43% of the vote (urban), 58% of 48% of the vote (suburban) and 70% of 8% of the vote (rural).  That means 18.06% of all voters were urban Republicans, 27.84% of all voters were suburban Republicans and 5.60% of all voters were rural Republicans.  Adding those up, 51.5% of people polled in the exit poll voted for Trump (he actually got 52.6%, so this even understates his support).  From that, we can just take each of those percentages (18.06% urban Repubs, 27.84% suburban Repubs and 5.60% rural Repubs) and divide them by the total Republican percent (51.50%) to find out that 54.06% of Trump voters were suburbanites, 35.07% were from urban areas and 10.87% resided in rural areas.

Goldwater,

Unfortunately, being an exit poll, it's self-identification, so it's not perfect.   Best we have, though!

[Goldwater]

Goldwater,

Unfortunately, being an exit poll, it's self-identification, so it's not perfect.   Best we have, though!

Ah, I thought maybe it was a by county thing, for example saying that everyone who lives Maricopa County, AZ or Clark County, NV lives in an "urban" area, which would be somewhat misleading IMO.

[RINO Tom]

Interesting. Those TX and FL numbers are hard to believe, but I guess it's plausible.

I was especially surprised by Texas.  I wonder if some counties that are "rural counties" are REALLY pretty much suburbs, or at least exurbs, at this point?

[jimrtex]

Goldwater,

Unfortunately, being an exit poll, it's self-identification, so it's not perfect.   Best we have, though!

Ah, I thought maybe it was a by county thing, for example saying that everyone who lives Maricopa County, AZ or Clark County, NV lives in an "urban" area, which would be somewhat misleading IMO.

Since an exit poll is based on polling location, the pollster would classify the voters. "Urban" might mean the central city of a metropolitan area, suburban anything else in a metropolitan area. The pollster may be  classifying based on other criteria such as income, and just including urban/suburban/rural for presentation purposes. It Texas, "urban" might include places like Amarillo and McAllen.

[Green Line]

The Illinois numbers are obviously fake news.  They don't make sense.

[The_Doctor]

I was looking back at this as I was thinking about the economic output of each county. It's interesting to see the geographic polarization in some areas but seeing Clinton get a large share of her vote from rural areas. I'd have to dig deeper why in some cases that's the case happening and in other states, why not. 

As an aside, for the record, this is a great set of political research. I must say, respectfully, I was wrong about you and I apologize for attacking you quite viciously in the past. Your insight and posts are some of the more interesting ones around here, if even I'm still not agreeing 100%.

[RINO Tom]

The Illinois numbers are obviously fake news.  They don't make sense.

Yeah, I guess it would really depend on how you classify things.  Are people in Kewanee, IL (a little under 13,000 people) rural?  My grandparents and cousins live there, and I think most of them would describe themselves as living in a "small city/town" but draw a distinction between themselves and "rural voters."  Their daily experience would be closer to someone who lives in Peoria (obviously not rural) than it would to someone who lives on a farm.  Anyway, I had put this together earlier this year for my own entertainment, but here is how Illinois' population actually breaks down (most people make the mistake of forgetting how many Chicago suburbanites - as counted in the total population of the metro - actually live in Indiana and Wisconsin, and therefore overcount Chicagoland as a percentage of the state's population):

Chicago: 2,719,000 (21.11% of the state)
Chicago Suburbs: 5,819,257 (40.99% of the state)
Other Northern IL: 1,134,210 (8.81% of the state)
Central IL: 2,547,533 (19.78% of the state)
Southern IL: 1,200,000 (9.32% of the state) ... over 700,000 of which is suburbs of St. Louis

People are always pretty surprised to learn that more people live in the central third of the state than the Chicago city limits.  Anyway, that translates to:

Chicagoland: 7,998,257 (62.10% of the state)
Downstate: 4,881,743 (37.90% of the state) ... some people define Downstate as South of I-80, but I'm a fan of defining it as "Illinois without Chicagoland."

Anyway, I am inclined to agree with you that the rural numbers are too high.  People overrate how rural Downstate actually is by the time you add Rockford, the Quad Cities, Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, Springfield and the St. Louis suburbs all together.

[Nyvin]

Iowa has two rurals

[muon2]

The Illinois numbers are obviously fake news.  They don't make sense.

Yeah, I guess it would really depend on how you classify things.  Are people in Kewanee, IL (a little under 13,000 people) rural?  My grandparents and cousins live there, and I think most of them would describe themselves as living in a "small city/town" but draw a distinction between themselves and "rural voters."  Their daily experience would be closer to someone who lives in Peoria (obviously not rural) than it would to someone who lives on a farm.  Anyway, I had put this together earlier this year for my own entertainment, but here is how Illinois' population actually breaks down (most people make the mistake of forgetting how many Chicago suburbanites - as counted in the total population of the metro - actually live in Indiana and Wisconsin, and therefore overcount Chicagoland as a percentage of the state's population):

Chicago: 2,179,000 (16.92% of the state)
Chicago Suburbs: 5,819,257 (45.18% of the state)
Other Northern IL: 1,134,210 (8.81% of the state)
Central IL: 2,547,533 (19.78% of the state)
Southern IL: 1,200,000 (9.32% of the state) ... over 700,000 of which is suburbs of St. Louis

People are always pretty surprised to learn that more people live in the central third of the state than the Chicago city limits.  Anyway, that translates to:

Chicagoland: 7,998,257 (62.10% of the state)
Downstate: 4,881,743 (37.90% of the state) ... some people define Downstate as South of I-80, but I'm a fan of defining it as "Illinois without Chicagoland."

Anyway, I am inclined to agree with you that the rural numbers are too high.  People overrate how rural Downstate actually is by the time you add Rockford, the Quad Cities, Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, Springfield and the St. Louis suburbs all together.

I'm not sure where you got these numbers, but they aren't from the Census.

Illinois 2010 - 12,830,632; 2015 - 12,859,995
Chicago 2010 - 2,695,598; 2015 - 2,720,546
Cook (inc Chicago) 2010 - 5,194,675; 2015 - 5,238,216

Chicago was 21.0% of the state in 2010 and is up to 21.6% as it has been growing while the rest of the state shrinks. It's definitely bigger than central IL. Cook is bigger than all of downstate. The five county Metro East was 633,042 in 2010.

[RINO Tom]

Got my numbers from a variety of sources, mostly figuring out the counties that were considered Northern, Central and Southern Illinois, then adding their county population totals together, then subtracting out metro area numbers from Wikipedia.  The confusion on Chicago might be that I accidentally flipped the 1 and the 7!  Haha, it is supposed to be 2,719,000, according to a 2013 estimate.  As for Cook, I know it is bigger than all of Downstate, but I have never seen the value in separating out Cook suburbs or lumping them in with Chicago in things like exit polls ... I think city vs. suburbs is just fine as a distinction.

Also, the 2014 estimate for Illinois' population was 12.88 million, so that is what I used as the base for the total to divide by.

[RINO Tom]

Iowa has two rurals

Fixed.

[muon2]

Got my numbers from a variety of sources, mostly figuring out the counties that were considered Northern, Central and Southern Illinois, then adding their county population totals together, then subtracting out metro area numbers from Wikipedia.  The confusion on Chicago might be that I accidentally flipped the 1 and the 7!  Haha, it is supposed to be 2,719,000, according to a 2013 estimate.  As for Cook, I know it is bigger than all of Downstate, but I have never seen the value in separating out Cook suburbs or lumping them in with Chicago in things like exit polls ... I think city vs. suburbs is just fine as a distinction.

Also, the 2014 estimate for Illinois' population was 12.88 million, so that is what I used as the base for the total to divide by.

The voting pattern in suburban Cook is sufficiently different from the collar counties that it makes sense to look at them separately. Among the differences is the large minority population in suburban Cook that is much smaller in the collars. By splitting them one can divide the state into five relatively even areas of population, too.

One way to separate northern and southern IL is to use the "Downstate Line" drawn by the NY Times in 2014 based on Facebook allegiances. That puts all the I-74 counties in the north (+ Mercer - DeWitt and Piatt).

The 2010 populations are then

Chicago City 2,695,598 (21.0%)
Suburban Cook 2,499,077 (19.5%)
Collar Counties 3,121,975 (24.3%)
Downstate Cubs 2,189,123 (17.1%)
Downstate Cards 2,324,759 (18.1%)

[RINO Tom]

How on Earth do Downstate Cardinals outnumber Downstate Cubs?!  Rockford, the Quad Cities, most of Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, etc. are all in Cubs territory, and even with the Metro East, you'd think the Cardinals counties would still fall short.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

How on Earth do Downstate Cardinals outnumber Downstate Cubs?!  Rockford, the Quad Cities, most of Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, etc. are all in Cubs territory, and even with the Metro East, you'd think the Cardinals counties would still fall short.

When was it done?  Teams tend to expand their territory on the edges when they are good.  If it was from five years ago, Cardinals territory would cut into present Cubs territory.  As crazy as this may sound, on the boundaries between fandom zones, there actually are swing regions that will flip back and forth based on who is winning- even if the teams are bitter rivals. 

In Middle Tennessee, we are swing country between the Braves and the Cardinals with maybe a slight lean towards the Braves.  But, if the Cardinals are making a big run, Nashville may become a plurality Cardinals city.

[RINO Tom]

How on Earth do Downstate Cardinals outnumber Downstate Cubs?!  Rockford, the Quad Cities, most of Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, etc. are all in Cubs territory, and even with the Metro East, you'd think the Cardinals counties would still fall short.

When was it done?  Teams tend to expand their territory on the edges when they are good.  If it was from five years ago, Cardinals territory would cut into present Cubs territory.  As crazy as this may sound, on the boundaries between fandom zones, there actually are swing regions that will flip back and forth based on who is winning- even if the teams are bitter rivals. 

In Middle Tennessee, we are swing country between the Braves and the Cardinals with maybe a slight lean towards the Braves.  But, if the Cardinals are making a big run, Nashville may become a plurality Cardinals city.

Right, but I'm just talking about the county populations of those that are plurality Cardinals vs. plurality Cubs, not necessarily the exact number of Cardinals fans vs. Cubs fans.  I would really like to see new New York Times maps of Illinois, both after Lovie was hired as the U of I coach and after the Cubs won the World Series.

[muon2]

How on Earth do Downstate Cardinals outnumber Downstate Cubs?!  Rockford, the Quad Cities, most of Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, etc. are all in Cubs territory, and even with the Metro East, you'd think the Cardinals counties would still fall short.

When was it done?  Teams tend to expand their territory on the edges when they are good.  If it was from five years ago, Cardinals territory would cut into present Cubs territory.  As crazy as this may sound, on the boundaries between fandom zones, there actually are swing regions that will flip back and forth based on who is winning- even if the teams are bitter rivals.  

In Middle Tennessee, we are swing country between the Braves and the Cardinals with maybe a slight lean towards the Braves.  But, if the Cardinals are making a big run, Nashville may become a plurality Cardinals city.

Right, but I'm just talking about the county populations of those that are plurality Cardinals vs. plurality Cubs, not necessarily the exact number of Cardinals fans vs. Cubs fans.  I would really like to see new New York Times maps of Illinois, both after Lovie was hired as the U of I coach and after the Cubs won the World Series.

The data is from 2014, so before the 2016 WS there were more downstate Cards fans than Cubs fans. The margin is larger if I take remove from downstate the Chicagoland counties that make up the "ring around the collar". At that point I don't think even the WS would have a lasting impact to switch the downstate majority from the Cards. As the NYT article notes some of these lines may reflect whether or not their ancestors voted for Lincoln or Douglas in 1860.

[publicunofficial]

How on Earth do Downstate Cardinals outnumber Downstate Cubs?!  Rockford, the Quad Cities, most of Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, etc. are all in Cubs territory, and even with the Metro East, you'd think the Cardinals counties would still fall short.

When was it done?  Teams tend to expand their territory on the edges when they are good.  If it was from five years ago, Cardinals territory would cut into present Cubs territory.  As crazy as this may sound, on the boundaries between fandom zones, there actually are swing regions that will flip back and forth based on who is winning- even if the teams are bitter rivals. 

In Middle Tennessee, we are swing country between the Braves and the Cardinals with maybe a slight lean towards the Braves.  But, if the Cardinals are making a big run, Nashville may become a plurality Cardinals city.

An area filled with both Cardinals and Braves fans sounds like Hell on Earth, tbh.