Trump's performance in Missouri

[Arbitrage1980]

Trump winning the state was not in doubt, but the margin was stunning, and it's an underrated result from the election. His 18.7% margin is the largest in the state since Reagan 1984. HW Bush won it by just a few points, Bill Clinton won it twice, W Bush and Romney won it by single digits, and McCain barely won it by 0.1%. A lot of the smart political watchers said on election night that Trump's margin in Missouri and Indiana would tell us just how strong his support was with working class whites. Turns out they were right.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Missouri is the home of a number of conservative Christian denominations, and it is one of the most religious of states with major metropolitan areas in it.  It has also seen the exodus of union jobs and, with it, the exodus of Democratic votes. 

[dirks]

The Ferguson thing was a big big deal when the 300lb criminal Michael Brown tried to assault a police officer and take his gun. In the aftermath you had an enormous lie spread (eventually debunked by the coroner) that he had his hands up and back turned when shot. Then you had the riots, a US President siding with the criminal against the police and not enforcing law and order.

This really resonated across the state and they sent a message. And good for them.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Ferguson thing was a big big deal when the 300lb criminal Michael Brown tried to assault a police officer and take his gun. In the aftermath you had an enormous lie spread (eventually debunked by the coroner) that he had his hands up and back turned when shot. Then you had the riots, a US President siding with the criminal against the police and not enforcing law and order.

This really resonated across the state and they sent a message. And good for them.

The funny thing is that the 1992 BILL Clinton wouldn't have made the mistake of buying into Michael Brown's victimstance.

[Hydera]

Missouri is the home of a number of conservative Christian denominations, and it is one of the most religious of states with major metropolitan areas in it.  It has also seen the exodus of union jobs and, with it, the exodus of Democratic votes.  

Yeah its pretty obvious was that there was a collapse in a share of the white rural democrat vote who voted for Trump. Meanwhile like in other states there was a increase of democrats from 2012 voting for Johnson or Stein in 2016 because they didnt like either candidate.

[MarkD]

The surge in pro-Trump voters in rural MO was the most significant factor in the wide margin. Dozens of rural counties that voted for Dukakis in 1988, for B. Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and that were electing Democrats to the MO House of Representatives as recently as 10 years ago, voted for Trump by landslide margins. The fact that MO-8 voted for Trump by a higher margin than MO-7 is stunning.
Another small factor that helped Trump was a noticeable drop-off in voter turnout among the predominantly black areas in MO-1. Across the twelve state representatives districts, all in MO-1, that are predominantly black, there was almost 30,000 less votes for Clinton than for Obama (2012), about 2600 less votes for Trump than had been for Romney, and about 4600 more votes for the minor candidates. There was virtually no reduction in the amount of votes cast in the predominantly white state rep districts in MO-1 and MO-2.
However, Trump lost some ground, compared to Romney's share of the vote in 2012, in MO-2.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

[Technocracy Timmy]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

[Nichlemn]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.

[GlobeSoc]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.

One thing that I did notice was that there appeared to be a strong correlation between the size of the age gap (using 18-29s as a whole) and how the state trended.  States like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Maine all had virtually no (or sometimes reverse) age gaps, while places like Georgia had HUGE ones, though they can be at least partially attributed to 18-29s there being much less white.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.

[The Govanah Jake]

A combination of the state trending Republican, increase in white and wwc percentage for the republicans, decrease in black turnout in the St. Louis/Kansas City Area, Massive gains in the rural areas, A lackluster opponent, and the republican candidate running on a populist change message.

[JGibson]

A combination of the state trending Republican, increase in white and wwc percentage for the republicans, decrease in black turnout in the St. Louis/Kansas City Area, Massive gains in the rural areas, A lackluster opponent, and the republican candidate running on a populist change message.

All are good factors as to why Missouri trended towards Trump, Greitens, and the rest of the GOP bigly, with the backlash against the Ferguson and the Mizzou campus protests and Lila Perry story in Hillsboro thrown in there as well.

[Lothal1]

Another part missed: Georgia, North Carolina, etc all have quite liberal colleges that skew the 18-24 vote to the left also.

[hopper]

Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)

Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.

Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.

EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.

However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).

18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.

One thing that I did notice was that there appeared to be a strong correlation between the size of the age gap (using 18-29s as a whole) and how the state trended.  States like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Maine all had virtually no (or sometimes reverse) age gaps, while places like Georgia had HUGE ones, though they can be at least partially attributed to 18-29s there being much less white.

True Hillary won the under 40 age bracket in Georgia as per CNN exit polls. Hillary won ages 18-24 by 36% points(65-29%), ages 25-29 by 23% points(60-37%) and ages 30-39 by 6% points(50-44%.) The median state result was in the 40-49 age group which voted for Trump 51-45% and the state result was 51-46% Trump.

[hopper]

Another part missed: Georgia, North Carolina, etc all have quite liberal colleges that skew the 18-24 vote to the left also.

Georgia-Its trending Dem because of Black Northeastern Transplants moving into the state most notably Atlanta and its suburbs but the Atlanta Suburbs more so.

North Carolina-Yeah "The Research Triangle" which contains universities Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are trending the state Dem. Also, the city of Charlotte is pretty Dem per info from Wikipedia because South Central, Eastern(I guess Northeastern), and Northern areas of the city are Dem. The only part of Charlotte that is Republican is the southeastern part of the city.

[Santander]

Another part missed: Georgia, North Carolina, etc all have quite liberal colleges that skew the 18-24 vote to the left also.

Georgia-Its trending Dem because of Black Northeastern Transplants moving into the state most notably Atlanta and its suburbs but the Atlanta Suburbs more so.

North Carolina-Yeah "The Research Triangle" which contains universities Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are trending the state Dem. Also, the city of Charlotte is pretty Dem per info from Wikipedia because South Central, Eastern(I guess Northeastern), and Northern areas of the city are Dem. The only part of Charlotte that is Republican is the southeastern part of the city.

Not to nitpick, but Wake is in Winston-Salem, which is nowhere near the Triangle. Also, Charlotte is a financial center, and finance is a lean Democrat industry.

[Sumner 1868]

White voters in Missouri according to exit polls.

2008
McCain: 57%
Obama: 42%

2012
Romney: 65%
Obama: 32%

2016
Trump: 66%
Clinton: 28%

That's how. Draw your own conclusion as why.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The state was tired of being considered a second-tier swing state and so decided to vote for Rs in a big way.

[Tekken_Guy]

The rural areas of Missouri swung heavily to the right, even though no counties changed from 2012 to 2016. Most of Hillary's vote came from Blacks in STL and KC, Mizzou people, and millennials who are anti-Trump.

In NC and Georgia it was definitely minority growth, rising education levels, and greater millennial influence.