Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 03:41:15 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Electoral Map of "People Who Were Born There"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Electoral Map of "People Who Were Born There"  (Read 849 times)
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« on: June 29, 2017, 08:31:51 am »
Ignore

Has anyone ever messed around and tried to hypothesize what these maps might look like? Tongue  A recent conversation about how CO went Republican for so long, but the changes that occurred eventually swung it to the Democrats got me thinking that Trump almost certainly won people who were born in the state of CO, considering how badly he probably lost those who moved in ... it also kind of reminds me of the old "Take Back Vermont" campaign, suggesting maybe George W. Bush might have almost won native Vermont(ites?) in 2000.  Any guesses on how 2016 went for voters who have lived in that state their whole lives?  Would it look different at all?  What about those whose parents were born in that state?

I know this is total guessing, so feel free to move, Mods.  Just thought it'd be interesting for someone more knowledgeable than I am to take a stab at it.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14784


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2017, 09:54:32 am »
Ignore

Considering that people who went away to college and/or moved to big cities were more likely to support Clinton while people who stayed at home were more likely to support Trump, removing the former means a Trump surge in this map. You're vaporizing a lot of those Republicans in TX-32 and GA-6 who wouldn't vote for Trump, for example.
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 984
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2017, 10:06:35 am »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 10:10:37 am by Tintrlvr »Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2017, 11:13:17 am »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

I think Democrats' advantages among "the highly educated" is a LITTLE exaggerated.  Yes, Clinton won 58% of them, and that is a very, very solid win ... but that's only 1% more than Trump got with Whites, and we don't talk about White voters as this iron clad Republican group, we just talk about them as a group that leans Republican overall and varies widely by location (as education does, seeing as Republicans win postgrads in several states).  Additionally, I think if you isolated it to Whites with an advanced degree, there would hardly be a Democratic advantage...
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3996
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2017, 11:17:06 am »
Ignore

I imagine that CO, NV and VA would flip most likely.
Logged

2017/18 Gubernatorial Endorsements:
AL - Kay Ivey (R)
CA - Gavin Newsom (D)
FL - Adam Putnam (R)
GA - Brian Kemp (R)
ID - Brad Little (R)
MI - Bill Schutte (R)
TN - Randy Boyd (R)

VA - Ed Gillespie (R)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8375
Marshall Islands


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2017, 12:36:50 pm »
Ignore

Has anyone ever messed around and tried to hypothesize what these maps might look like? Tongue  A recent conversation about how CO went Republican for so long, but the changes that occurred eventually swung it to the Democrats got me thinking that Trump almost certainly won people who were born in the state of CO, considering how badly he probably lost those who moved in ... it also kind of reminds me of the old "Take Back Vermont" campaign, suggesting maybe George W. Bush might have almost won native Vermont(ites?) in 2000.  Any guesses on how 2016 went for voters who have lived in that state their whole lives?  Would it look different at all?  What about those whose parents were born in that state?

I know this is total guessing, so feel free to move, Mods.  Just thought it'd be interesting for someone more knowledgeable than I am to take a stab at it.
France has 11 constituencies for citizens living outside France (distinct from the French overseas departments and territories which also have representation), with the electorate based on consulate registrations. They even have voting precincts. For example, one constituency is for French citizens residing in the United States and Canada.

A state could create legislative districts of three types:
(1) Born in the state, but living elsewhere, based on place of residence.
(2) Born out of the state, but living in the state, based on place of birth.
(3) Born in, and living in the state, based on place of residence. There would twice as many districts for these persons.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14784


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2017, 01:43:58 pm »
Ignore

I imagine that CO, NV and VA would flip most likely.

NV would go from 6 to 3 EVs, too.

KY, WV, MS, AL, MI, PA, IA, MO would become relatively stronger in the electoral college and boost Trump.
Logged
reagente
Full Member
***
Posts: 169
Portugal


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2017, 02:20:13 pm »
Ignore

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

The CCES 2016 study (through IQSS, Harvard University / MIT) actually does have data on this by state, so I could make a map of that.

I imagine that CO, NV and VA would flip most likely.

NV would go from 6 to 3 EVs, too.

KY, WV, MS, AL, MI, PA, IA, MO would become relatively stronger in the electoral college and boost Trump.

Why would NV go down in EVs? Non-citizens already count towards apportionment.
Logged

RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10930
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.35

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2017, 02:56:32 pm »
Ignore

I imagine that CO, NV and VA would flip most likely.

NV would go from 6 to 3 EVs, too.

KY, WV, MS, AL, MI, PA, IA, MO would become relatively stronger in the electoral college and boost Trump.

Why would NV go down in EVs? Non-citizens already count towards apportionment.

Only 25% of Nevada residents were born there.
Logged
reagente
Full Member
***
Posts: 169
Portugal


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2017, 03:14:44 pm »
Ignore

I imagine that CO, NV and VA would flip most likely.

NV would go from 6 to 3 EVs, too.

KY, WV, MS, AL, MI, PA, IA, MO would become relatively stronger in the electoral college and boost Trump.

Why would NV go down in EVs? Non-citizens already count towards apportionment.

Only 25% of Nevada residents were born there.

I know - but I was under the impression that in this scenario, suffrage rules were changed only so that you had to be born in a state to vote there, not that people were never capable of relocating between states.
Logged

Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 984
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2017, 05:14:35 pm »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

I think Democrats' advantages among "the highly educated" is a LITTLE exaggerated.  Yes, Clinton won 58% of them, and that is a very, very solid win ... but that's only 1% more than Trump got with Whites, and we don't talk about White voters as this iron clad Republican group, we just talk about them as a group that leans Republican overall and varies widely by location (as education does, seeing as Republicans win postgrads in several states).  Additionally, I think if you isolated it to Whites with an advanced degree, there would hardly be a Democratic advantage...

Trump won nearly every state if only white people voted. That's a big deal. Same goes (in reverse) for the highly educated.

And... what? Are you arguing that people with advanced degrees are disproportionately more minority than people without advanced degrees? That's a pretty rarefied error. In any case, highly educated people of all backgrounds are going to be much more mobile than less educated people of any background.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 05:17:24 pm by Tintrlvr »Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2017, 08:41:50 am »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

I think Democrats' advantages among "the highly educated" is a LITTLE exaggerated.  Yes, Clinton won 58% of them, and that is a very, very solid win ... but that's only 1% more than Trump got with Whites, and we don't talk about White voters as this iron clad Republican group, we just talk about them as a group that leans Republican overall and varies widely by location (as education does, seeing as Republicans win postgrads in several states).  Additionally, I think if you isolated it to Whites with an advanced degree, there would hardly be a Democratic advantage...

Trump won nearly every state if only white people voted. That's a big deal. Same goes (in reverse) for the highly educated.

And... what? Are you arguing that people with advanced degrees are disproportionately more minority than people without advanced degrees? That's a pretty rarefied error. In any case, highly educated people of all backgrounds are going to be much more mobile than less educated people of any background.

No, I'm saying that if Democrats won only 58% of postgrads, it's probably safe to assume they won at least 75% of minority postgrads ... so, their margin with WHTIE postgrads - to even out to 58% - was probably closer to 52% or so.  Really not dominating or anything.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14893
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2017, 11:13:10 am »
Ignore

^Still pretty good when you consider that they lost all White voters by 20 points.

Anyway, this is definitely a good idea, but it's just so hard to find and compile data on this matter. I'd love to see the results for Montana, because migration has actually had a big impact on the state, especially since the 90s.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2017, 04:51:36 pm »
Ignore

^Still pretty good when you consider that they lost all White voters by 20 points.

Anyway, this is definitely a good idea, but it's just so hard to find and compile data on this matter. I'd love to see the results for Montana, because migration has actually had a big impact on the state, especially since the 90s.

Yes, obviously they do better with this group.  I think it's clear as day that the reasoning is that certain fields which lend themselves to more liberal views and more Democratic voting (like education, for example) practically require a "postgrad" degree to go anywhere, while other fields that lend themselves to more conservative views and more Republican voting (finance and agriculture, for example) really don't provide much incentive to go to more school ... it's simply not usually worth it for your career.  However, I'm sure the narrative will stay that it is the increased education IN AND OF ITSELF that just *makes* people more Democratic, LOL.  Whatever floats their boats.

But my point is that White postgrads are about as loyal to the Democratic party as the state of Minnesota ... it's a "blue state," but there are TONS of Republicans there, and if you met a Minnesotan, you wouldn't just assume they were a Democrat ... same would be true of meeting a White person who told you they had a postgrad degree.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
RIP guaranteed R senate supermajority
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3057


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2017, 09:01:29 pm »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

I think Democrats' advantages among "the highly educated" is a LITTLE exaggerated.  Yes, Clinton won 58% of them, and that is a very, very solid win ... but that's only 1% more than Trump got with Whites, and we don't talk about White voters as this iron clad Republican group, we just talk about them as a group that leans Republican overall and varies widely by location (as education does, seeing as Republicans win postgrads in several states).  Additionally, I think if you isolated it to Whites with an advanced degree, there would hardly be a Democratic advantage...

What does the difference between white and nonwhite postgrad voting have to do with the fact that postgrads being a democratic group that tends to move around would lead to democrats doing worse if only people who were born in a state voted?
Logged

Caution: this poster is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

Look at this signature. Now imagine how you'd feel if it was a sexual story of me being murdered.
Southern Deputy Speaker/National Archivist TimTurner
TimTurner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5121
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2017, 12:42:10 am »
Ignore

Question, so if people who moved to states had to vote in the states they were in originally, how much would that alter the map?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 12:55:09 am by Southern Delegate TimTurner »Logged


Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244197.0
Different states!
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2017, 08:57:45 am »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

I think Democrats' advantages among "the highly educated" is a LITTLE exaggerated.  Yes, Clinton won 58% of them, and that is a very, very solid win ... but that's only 1% more than Trump got with Whites, and we don't talk about White voters as this iron clad Republican group, we just talk about them as a group that leans Republican overall and varies widely by location (as education does, seeing as Republicans win postgrads in several states).  Additionally, I think if you isolated it to Whites with an advanced degree, there would hardly be a Democratic advantage...

What does the difference between white and nonwhite postgrad voting have to do with the fact that postgrads being a democratic group that tends to move around would lead to democrats doing worse if only people who were born in a state voted?

Nothing, I just threw that in there. Smiley
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9636
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2017, 07:20:50 pm »
Ignore

Generally speaking, Republicans are going to do much better across the country among people who have never moved (or never moved out of their home state) than Democrats, relatively speaking. The only states where I think this might not be true are Hawaii and New Mexico, plus maybe some of the Deep South as whites tend to be wealthier and thus more mobile than blacks. After all, the Democrats do very well among (i) immigrants and (ii) the highly educated, which are the two groups that are most likely to have born outside of their current state of residence (by definition, in the case of immigrants), everywhere.

I'm curious if anyone has done a map of the results if only natural-born citizens could vote. At a guess, it looks close to as dominant for Trump as the whites-only map.

Agreed, though I recall (I think the data was from 1990 or 2000) that Democratic states (at the time) were slightly more likely to have above average % of people born in state. Not saying that that concept can't coexist with your bolded statement, just throwing that out.
Logged



"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines