Trump was the first Republican nominee since Ford or H.W Bush who was not a hard line Christian theocrat. This certainly helped in the Upper Midwest, West Coast, Northeast and especially New England, which have been disgusted by GOP social Conservatism.
This is not true.
Most socially liberal, well-educated areas trended Democratic. Take a look at Massachusetts, the West Coast, the D.C. Metro, and numerous college towns. Hillary also performed very well in traditionally Republican but socially moderate areas like suburban Chicago.
Trump meanwhile achieved record performance among white Evangelicals (never mind that Trump may not be sincerely religious himself). He also overperformed among culturally conservative Democrats, which is why he turned so many rural counties Republican.
2016 clearly widened the urban-rural, social liberal-social conservative divide.
Yes but most people living in the rural/ small city northeast as well as large amounts of the Midwest are not evangelicals. Many social moderates in these areas even if they don't have degrees we're turned off by the GOP's southern flavored evangelism. Many working class whites especially outside of the south are fairly secular (just like a lot of college educated whites in the south and Midwest are very religious)
The Republican party has been increasingly Southernized and socially conservative over the last 30-40 years. That certainly helps them in the bible belt, but it has repelled a lot of voters. All of a sudden the Republicans nominate a big city Yankee from NYC who has not pandered to the religious right. Hillary Clinton, who is a mainstream Methodist, was more religious than Trump. People knew that Trump did not care much or at all about abortion or gay rights. The Republican leaders' holy book is the Art of the Deal, not the bible. This was a pretty revolutionary perception change that helped Republicans in the North.
