Electoral Map of "People Who Were Born There"

[RINO Tom]

Has anyone ever messed around and tried to hypothesize what these maps might look like?   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.

[RINO Tom]

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...

[RINO Tom]

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.

[RINO Tom]

^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.

[RINO Tom]

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.