Why did Trump do better among Northern surburban voters, worse among southern?

[Lechasseur]

The northern suburbs tend to be more blue collar than the southern ones.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Are you saying Trump, a candidate you proudly supported, engaged in face baiting?

Yes? So did every Republican candidate in the modern era?

First of all: false.
Second of all: why would you support someone who you believe is a race-baiter?

he is a troll thats why

[RFayette]

I believe that's normal. Our urban areas and rural areas are more Republican than the North's, but our suburban areas are decidedly more Democratic than the North's.

Not in Chicago, San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, Portland, or NYC, at a very minimum.

[TDAS04]

I believe that's normal. Our urban areas and rural areas are more Republican than the North's, but our suburban areas are decidedly more Democratic than the North's.

Not in Chicago, San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, Portland, or NYC, at a very minimum.

Also, suburban Birmingham, suburban Jackson, and even suburban Little Rock are fiercely conservative--comparable to the suburban areas of the Milwaukee and Indianapolis metros.

Other suburban areas in the South, such as in the Atlanta metro, swung sharply towards Hillary in large part because of increased minority population.  Trump still carried an overwhelming majority of whites there.

[NOVA Green]

I believe that's normal. Our urban areas and rural areas are more Republican than the North's, but our suburban areas are decidedly more Democratic than the North's.

Not in Chicago, San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, Portland, or NYC, at a very minimum.

Also, suburban Birmingham, suburban Jackson, and even suburban Little Rock are fiercely conservative--comparable to the suburban areas of the Milwaukee and Indianapolis metros.

Other suburban areas in the South, such as in the Atlanta metro, swung sharply towards Hillary in large part because of increased minority population.  Trump still carried an overwhelming majority of whites there.

Both the Republican and Democratic avatars are correct...

It is inane that we still have many individuals claiming that somehow Trump performed better in the "suburbs" of the South vs Northern suburbs....

I would like a hit off whatever pipe that claim that to be the case are smoking, since it appears to create a pretty decent high that directly contradicts all evidence to the contrary....

Now, as I have posted elsewhere, it does appear that there were major swings towards HRC in upper-income places through-out the US, although I haven't yet run numbers to do a compare/contrast of Suburban voters by region....

Just because some random poster on Atlas makes a claim without supporting evidence does not make it real.... in fact this claim is verging on "Atlas Fake News" unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Please Democrat/Republican/Independent avatars alike, pull up some supporting evidence or shoot down this bizarre theory that has been presented.

I would argue that maybe the swings towards HRC were higher in Southern 'Burbs than Northern 'Burbs, but other than that, this theory is as bunk as some "acid" that I was offered when I was 15 years old, that was nothing other than rat poison... (Metaphorical and Rhetorical excess combined).

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=259050.75

[Lord Admirale]

Trump did awful in my native Bergen County.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

He didn't, it's just that wealthier Southern whites in the suburbs were traditionally more likely to be GOP than those in the North. On the election day therefore some - more economically cautious and liberal minded - of that persuasion flipped in the South while a similar person in the North had been voting for the Dems in Presidential races for quite some time.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Religion is likely a big issue here when it comes to northern whites vs. southern whites. I don't think it's regional appeal since Clinton and Trump were both New Yorkers and the fact that the Northeast didn't trend towards the GOP in 2012 for the most part (Romney was Governor of Massachusetts after all).

Trump ran a very secular campaign compared to past GOP presidents. When he started talking about God during his inauguration it me about just how little he spoke about God, Jesus, or family values on the campaign trail when compared to Romney, McCain, or Bush. This was likely a pretty big plus to whites in the northeast and upper Midwest who are much more secular than whites in the South; and also helps to explain why he did worse with suburban whites in the south vs. suburban whites in the north.

Romney is technically the former governor of MA, but he shifted further to the right in 2012 vs. 2008. Romney was also simultaneously seen to some extent as a quasi-utah candidate, rather than a proper northeasterner.

Hillary is not really seen as a New Yorker. She is just known for being associated with Bill Clinton.

She was senator of New York for nearly an entire decade.

She was that, but she was not a "New Yorker" in the sense Trump was/is.

That being said, New York is a state where celebrities and national pols can move to and become viable candidates.  New York is an "elitist" state in the sense that it expects its Governors and Senators to be a cut above the crowd and not just simple folks who understand simple folks like themselves.  Rick Lazio was that kind of candidate; a typical suburban GOP kid who grew up to be a lawyer and worked himself up the political ladder.  He got spanked by Hillary, who would have been considered a "Carpetbagger" in any number of states.  There have been exceptions to that, of course, but those are exceptions, and not norms.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I believe that's normal. Our urban areas and rural areas are more Republican than the North's, but our suburban areas are decidedly more Democratic than the North's.

Not in Chicago, San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, Portland, or NYC, at a very minimum.

Also, suburban Birmingham, suburban Jackson, and even suburban Little Rock are fiercely conservative--comparable to the suburban areas of the Milwaukee and Indianapolis metros.

Other suburban areas in the South, such as in the Atlanta metro, swung sharply towards Hillary in large part because of increased minority population.  Trump still carried an overwhelming majority of whites there.

Southern Suburbs have a far higher percentage of churchgoers than do Northern Suburbs; this is one reason.

The other reason is that Southern suburbs are newer and, in a number of cases, growing due to "white flight" from the central cities.  This is not what is happening in Northern suburbs; they are growing mostly through "black flight" from the central cities.  (Michael Barone has often pointed out that "White Flight" to the Northern suburbs happened a long time ago.)

[Averroës Nix]

The northern suburbs tend to be more blue collar than the southern ones.

This site really is going to the dogs. How ignorant, how moronic, how utterly uninformed must a person be to believe this? Just get out.

[Averroës Nix]

I can't stop thinking about the silliness of that comment. Does your definition of blue collar comprise anyone who drives by a derelict factory on their daily drive? Is it based on the median age of a neighborhood's housing stock? The percentage of male adult residents listening to baseball on a typical week night... in your imagination? What are you even on?