2016 New England Town Map

[RI]

This includes the massive write-in total in Vermont, but not in New Hampshire.

[Averroës Nix]

Here is homelycooking's 2012 map for comparison.

[Figueira]

I wonder what happened in northern Vermont?

[GMantis]

I wonder what happened in northern Vermont?

Probably the same thing that happened in northern New Hampshire and Maine.

[smoltchanov]

I wonder what happened in northern Vermont?

A lot of not especially well-to-do working class whites amd almost no one else. You got it)))

[muon2]

I wonder what happened in northern Vermont?

A lot of not especially well-to-do working class whites amd almost no one else. You got it)))

That matches what I saw as I drove through those northern VT towns in late Sep. They didn't have the Birkenstock Belt feel, but seemed like typical old small town New England.

[AGA]

Are those grey boxes in northern Maine even towns? Why is that are divided into different boxes if, apparently, no one lives there?

[Figueira]

Are those grey boxes in northern Maine even towns? Why is that are divided into different boxes if, apparently, no one lives there?

They're unincorporated townships, and they generally have numbers instead of names (e.g. T10 R14 WELS). There are a few people who live up there; I don't know where they vote.

Interesting stuff about northern Vermont. I have to say though I think Bernie write-ins were also a factor up there; most of Trump's Vermont towns gave him less than 50%.

@Skill and Chance this is definitely an underperformance by Clinton across the board in rural New England, but the Birkenstock belt (most of Vermont, most of Western MA, a little into NY/CT/NH) seems to be the only rural white area in the US that voted for Clinton. A lot of former city people here who wouldn't even consider voting for someone like this. I suspect coastal Maine and that patch in northern NH is similar. Far northern Maine has a lot of Francophones.

[SingingAnalyst]

Cambridge, MA trended D, going from 86-11 Obama-Romney to 87-6 Clinton-Trump.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Sobering to see Athol and Orange flip.

[Hnv1]

I wonder what happened in northern Vermont?

From what I can tell they all had a huge Sanders write in vote share (around 10%).

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I'm still shocked that Trump won a county in Rhode Island. I'm less surprised by him doing well in Vermont (for a republican) given the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton in Bernie territory. I'd have expected Stein to do better there than she did, actually.

[Figueira]

Someone on AH.com tells me that Westerly RI actually went for Clinton.

[RI]

Someone on AH.com tells me that Westerly RI actually went for Clinton.

Indeed, it flipped after I posted the map.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

At this point, I'm just trolling NSV, whom I always thought was a lot smarter than he has displayed post-2016 returns.  Any "party of the rich" or "party of the educated" or "white coastal liberals with PhDs plus minorities" or whatever would win a laughably small percent of Americans in any election.  No viable political party is ever "elite," and despite my arguing, I don't think any party ever should be.

[Figueira]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

A lot of the towns in the Vermont/Western Massachusetts region can't be described as "rich."

[Intell]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

Also like... people in Aroostook County, ME aren't rich. Northern Grafton County, NH isn't rich. Berlin NH, Rumford, Bethel, and Lewiston ME sure as *hell * aren't rich.

[ottermax]

It's crazy to me that Northern Maine voted so uniformly Republican, while across the Canadian border New Brunswick voted almost uniformly for the Liberals who are almost a direct opposite of Trump.

I might be making a weak connection, but I wonder what the Democrats can learn from their Northern neighbors about appealing to working class Whites in rural places considering the vast success the Liberals have had with that demographic.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

Also like... people in Aroostook County, ME aren't rich. Northern Grafton County, NH isn't rich. Berlin NH, Rumford, Bethel, and Lewiston ME sure as *hell * aren't rich.

Congrats there are some outliers.  But the bottom line is, the majority of the highly concentrated Democratic areas on that map are bastions of wealthy people... Fairfield County, the towns around Boston, Hartford, etc.

The majority in your party are not comfortable with that, so have fun being in the TINY minority for the rest of your life, trying to convince Democratic voters that they should want something they have spent their entire lives voting against.  One election being unique does not a new party system make.

[RINO Tom]

Basically all the rich areas voted Clinton + the small cities and towns around them.

Does it bother you that, by the very makeup of your voters, your party quite literally CAN'T become the "party of the rich"?

It should bother both of you that you think your party is the 'party of the rich'.

He's just a troll.  He knows full well that educated voters/higher income voters swung towards Clinton in this election and it bothers him for reason.  So he trolls in every single thread I post on.  Also, I don't think Democrats are the party of the rich.  Party of the upper middle class/college educated is more fitting.

The only college graduate group you won is minorities.  As for the asinine bolded claim, let's take a look:

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

Now, if we want to stick to simplified generalizations like you seem to prefer, let's just summarize, shall we?  The only income brackets that your party won were below $50,000.  You lost the four income brackets above that.  However, if you'd like to get more in-depth:

38.59% of Democratic votes were from folks who made under $50,000 per year.  A full 67.07% of the party's votes came from voters who made less than $100,000 per year.  How can you be the "party of the upper-middle class" if two-thirds of your voters make under $100,000 per year?  Ever wonder why even in this age of "DLCism" there isn't a Democrat in the country who isn't campaigning on taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage?  Congressional Democrats relied even more strongly on voters making less than $100,000 per year, as would a usual Democrat.

Republicans also rely on voters who aren't affluent, though not quite as much (64.67% of the party's voters made under $100k, compared to 67.07% for Dems), and Congressional Republicans relied on significantly more affluent voters than Trump did, too.

At the VERY best, you could make up some conspiracy theory about the exit polls and say that the parties are equally affluent overall, but Democrats rely significantly more on "poor" voters (38.59% making below $50k, compared to only 32.28% for the GOP ... and again the first number was higher and the second number was lower for House races) ... but I would say it is nothing short of undeniable that your average Republican is going to be more affluent than your average Democrat.  Is that a good thing?  Absolutely not.  But watching someone perpetuate a blatantly false narrative, like you're doing, on an otherwise informative and great forum is worth correcting.

[LLR]

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

This is a beautiful chart *sniff*. If only we could tie the $50k-99k in exchange for the $200+

[RINO Tom]

Under $30k: 53%-41% DEM ... 17% of the population
$30k-$49k: 51%-42% DEM ... 19% of the population
$50k-$99k: 50%-46% GOP ... 30% of the population
$100k-$199k: 48%-47% GOP ... 24% of the population
$200k-$249k: 49%-48% GOP ... 4% of the population
$250k and Above: 48%-46% GOP ... 6% of the population

This is a beautiful chart *sniff*. If only we could tie the $50k-99k in exchange for the $200+

If I didn't feel the need to constantly point out Non-Swing Voter's WILLFUL ignorance of the coalitions and how they vote, though, I would be able to make the point about those percentages at the end of each line ... NO party that has EVER been successful relies on just affluent voters.  The GOP of the '80s that was winning affluent voters by even more than they do now was still the party of rural Northern farmers and moralists.  That's the whole point of a coalition.  If you took JUST "latte liberals" and added them to all minorities who vote, Democrats would get about 30% of the vote.  Similarly, if you took rich Whites and added them to evangelicals, Republicans would get a laughably small slice of the national vote.  There are WAY more groups in both coalitions that never get talked about, and both are broad.