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

[NOVA Green]

This is something I noticed in the election results. Trump did far worse in the suburbs in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, and marginally worse in North Carolina, Florida, and even South Carolina. But he did better with suburban voters in Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and performed on performed on par in Pennsylvania. Can anyone explain why this shift occured?

Wait--- what?

I don't think Trump performed better among Northern suburban voters than among Southern suburban voters overall....

I believe there was a greater swing towards Trump among Upper-Income Southern suburban voters than among Northern suburban voters.

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by "suburban voters" so we can all discuss with a common understanding, as well as better/worse. Are we talking swings or overall Rep vote % / Margins?

Is the definition of suburban based upon Exit Polling or Census based MSA type statistics?

[NOVA Green]

This is something I noticed in the election results. Trump did far worse in the suburbs in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, and marginally worse in North Carolina, Florida, and even South Carolina. But he did better with suburban voters in Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and performed on performed on par in Pennsylvania. Can anyone explain why this shift occured?

Wait--- what?

I don't think Trump performed better among Northern suburban voters than among Southern suburban voters overall....

I believe there was a greater swing towards Trump among Upper-Income Southern suburban voters than among Northern suburban voters.

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by "suburban voters" so we can all discuss with a common understanding, as well as better/worse. Are we talking swings or overall Rep vote % / Margins?

Is the definition of suburban based upon Exit Polling or Census based MSA type statistics?

I mean compared to Romney. I couldn't fit it inside the title, so I had to stick with what I said. I'll add it to the OP.

Aaah... ok super6646, I think I get it now, and makes a bit more sense, if one compares it against Romney '12 numbers.

So in Atlas speak we have "swings" (Change in total % margin between the two major party candidates) and "trends" (How the state/county/city... etc) compares to the National/Statewide % margin.

Not trying to be condescending, just want to make sure everyone is discussing based upon the same data points.   

So, if we look at Macomb County Michigan (Famous example of "Reagan Democrats")

2008: (53.3 D- 44.7 R)        + 8.6 D
2012: (51.3 D- 47.3 R)        + 4.0 D      (+ 4.6% R Swing)
2016: (42.1 D- 53.6 R)        +11.5 R     (+15.5% R Swing!)

Oakland County, Michigan

2008: (56.4 D- 41.9 R)        +14.5 D
2012: (53.4 D- 45.4 R)        +  8.0 D     (+ 6.5% R Swing)
2016: (51.3 D- 43.2 R)        +  8.1 D     (+ 0.1% D Swing)

Both are widely considered "suburban counties" of Detroit...

So for the examples of "Southern" suburban states that you use, the suburban counties of the major Cities of Texas, as well as Metro-Atlanta, and Northern Virginia (NoVA) definitely swung towards the Democrats in '16.

Still, the juxtaposition of North/South is a bit off, since the Suburban counties close to Philly swung towards HRC, as did Westchester County NY, and Bergen County NJ.

Maybe the real question is: "Why did suburban counties in Ohio (Delaware Co aside) and Michigan not swing towards HRC, compared to suburban counties elsewhere in the Country?"

[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