AN63093's Definitive Map of US Regions

[AN63093]

I know there have been threads on this subject in the past- if the mods would prefer to delete/merge this into another thread, that's fine by me.

First, a bit about myself- I have lived in just about every region of the US, and have been to 48 out of 50 states (missing just AK and ND).  I don't say this in order to toot my own horn, but rather to explain that my perspective on this is not a limited one.  I am forming these opinions based on personal knowledge and experience, as opposed to stereotypes or just lifting regions out of a map without having actually been to the places.

Second, a few guidelines I followed.  I tried to make regions as small as possible.  No region has more than 7 states, with the Midwest as the largest (this region could be further divided into Upper and Lower Midwest).  The reason is simple- the larger a region is, the more meaningless it becomes.  For example, I have seen maps before that put almost everything in between the Rockies and the Appalachians as the "Midwest."  There's no reason to even delineate a "Midwest" region at that point, if practically half the country falls within it.

Third, because a state has some areas that have the culture of another region, does not make that state part of another region.  For example, it's often claimed that PA is "Pittsburgh, Philly, and Alabama in the middle."  While there is some truth to that, if we label every state that has rural, conservative areas as "Southern," then almost the entire US is Southern, except for maybe 1 or 2 states.

Fourth, on border states.  To be labeled a border state, it must have 2 or more distinct cultures, that are geographically separated such that the state is bifurcated, and the cultures must be substantially different.  Difference can be measured by, e.g., demographic data.  If I could split states with the Atlas tool (or were I to make a county-level map), the states would be split between different regions.

Fifth, history is mostly ignored.  Because a state was in the Confederacy or remained in the US is mostly irrelevant to today's regions, unless that history is still reflected in the current prevailing culture of the state.


Here is the map:

West Coast, blue (R>50).  HI, OR, WA.

Mountain West, green (I>50).  CO, ID, MT, NV, UT, WY.

Southwest, blue (R>70).  AZ, NM.

Plains States, dark red (D>90).  KS, NE, ND, SD.

Texas, dark green (I>90).  TX.

Midwest, light blue (R>30).  IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, WI.

Upper South/Appalachia, cyan (I>30).  AR, NC, OK, TN, WV.

Deep South, fuchsia (D>30).  AL, GA, LA, MS, SC.

Florida, dark green (I>90).  FL.

Mid-Atlantic, dark blue (R>90).  DE, DC, MD, PA, NJ, NY.

New England, green (I>40).  ME, MA, NH, RI, VT.


Border States, red (D>50):

CA- Northern CA in West Coast, Southern in Southwest, with the dividing line at approx. San Luis Obispo.

MO- Kansas City MSA in Plains States, St Louis MSA in Midwest, the rest of the state in Upper South.

KY- Louisville MSA and Cincinnati MSA in Midwest, the rest of the state in Upper South.

VA- The "Urban Crescent" (DC MSA, Richmond MSA, Hampton Roads MSA) in Mid-Atlantic, the rest of the state in Upper South.

CT- The areas that are part of the NYC CSA (i.e., Bridgeport, Stamford, New Haven, Fairfield, etc.) in Mid-Atlantic, the rest of the state in New England.


In re Texas:

I made this a separate region unto itself for a couple reasons.  First, it is arguably the state that has the strongest state-specific culture of any state in the US.  Second, it could've been labeled a "border state" with a lot of distinct cultures (e.g., the west and south in Southwest, the panhandle in Plains States, the Dallas MSA in Upper South, the Houston MSA in Deep South), but these areas all have more in common with each other (as just Texas), then being split off in separate regions.

     
In re Florida:

Similar to TX.  If labeled a border state, the North would be Deep South, the South would be its own little region (or more accurately, part of Latin America).  The Center (I-4 corridor, etc) is difficult to qualify since it consists of primarily migrants from mostly the Mid-West and Upper South that were priced out of more affluent coastal areas.


In re Alaska:

The only state I didn't categorize.  I'm not sure where to put it- part of the state seems like Mountain West, part of it is similar to the West Coast (such as around Juneau) and the northern half is unlike any area in the US at all (is most similar to maybe parts of Canada like the Yukon or Northwest Territories).  I guess I'd put it in Mountain West or West Coast, but not sure.

[Nyvin]

It'd be a lot more effective to do this by counties, but that'd be a lot more work obviously.

[AN63093]

That's my next big project- a county-by-county map.  That would prevent some of the odd looking areas in my map- particularly in the Appalachian region.

I don't know if anyone here has read that book American Nations, which has a cultural region map of the US by county.  The one big problem I have with that map, however, is that I think it's too heavily influenced by original settlement demographics, and doesn't account enough for modern migration patterns.  The book tries to answer that argument by stating people who have migrated into areas have 'adopted' the prevailing culture of the area, but I don't think that's true for every region, only for some.  I think I could create a much more accurate map for current demographics, which is my next project.

One state I waffled on a lot in my map above is NV.  There is a good argument that by my own criteria, it should be either a border state (between Mountain West and Southwest), or even a Southwest state outright (since Clark County accounts for almost 75% of the population in the state, and the Las Vegas MSA has much more in common with the Southwest than the rest of the Mountain West).

Come to think of it, NV should probably be re-classified.

[AN63093]

Updated map with NV correction:

[Bismarck]

If you are splitting the south and west and northeast up into smaller regions, you should split Minnesota and Wisconsin and probably Michigan and Iowa off to be upper midwestern.

[Tintrlvr]

Given what you're doing with border states, Pennsylvania should clearly be a border state also, with at least the Pittsburgh MSA (and maybe Erie) in the Midwest. Arguably New York should be the same with the Buffalo MSA in the Midwest, but that may be pushing it. The pop-soda line is roughly the cultural border between Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

And West Virginia would also be a border state because (i) Wheeling is clearly Midwest rather than Upper South (especially given that Cincinnati and Louisville are Midwest by your definition) and (ii) Jefferson County is in the DC MSA so in the Mid-Atlantic by your definition.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

A few MSAs I would move:

Louisville: Midwest --> South
Pittsburgh, Erie, Buffalo: Mid-Atlantic --> Midwest
Memphis: Upper South --> Deep South
Atlanta: Deep South --> Upper South

Cincinnati is also a Midwest/Upper South hybrid, as is St. Louis.

Also, I recently visited a few places on the Delmarva Peninsula.  Most of that is Southern and very different from what you think of when you think of those states.

[muon2]

I like your thinking on many of these. In my travels I've found WV to be a border state, too, with the northern half (Wheeling, Morgantown) to be like western PA and the southern half (Charleston) in the Upper-South/Appalachia group.

If you do a county version, I'll be curious to see how your map compares to one I did in a series of posts four years ago.

[AN63093]

Bismarck-

I thought about that too.  The South I split up since it would've otherwise been at least 10, if not more, states.  I decided to just keep the Midwest together since to me, "Upper Midwest" only includes MN/WI and it seemed a little too small for a region.

Tintrlvr-

I agree with WV.  On the state map, I left it as "Upper South" since those areas aren't a very large portion of the state and I was trying to limit the number of border states, but you'll see them on my county map (in the works).  My county map doesn't have border states, since I can divide them up appropriately.

I also thought about Erie and Pittsburgh, and Buffalo as well.  These cities definitely have a more "rust belt" feel to them than, say, Philly or NYC.  But I'm not sure I'd put them in the Mid-West either.  When I think of the quintessential Mid-West city, I think of Chicago, and I'm not sure those cities have more in common with Chicago than the Mid-Atlantic.  To be honest, (this goes for Pittsburgh particularly), it feels more like Louisville or Cincinnati (similar architecture, on a hilly river valley, strong Appalachian culture, etc.) than say, Chicago.  But I'm putting Louisville and Cincy in the Mid-West, so maybe at least Pittsburgh should be too.  I'll have to think about this one a little more.

The Wheeling area I do have in the Mid-West though, so fair point.  I've moved on to the Western US in my county map draft... once I post version 1, I may go back and make some adjustments.

[AN63093]

A few MSAs I would move:

Louisville: Midwest --> South
Pittsburgh, Erie, Buffalo: Mid-Atlantic --> Midwest
Memphis: Upper South --> Deep South
Atlanta: Deep South --> Upper South

Cincinnati is also a Midwest/Upper South hybrid, as is St. Louis.

Also, I recently visited a few places on the Delmarva Peninsula.  Most of that is Southern and very different from what you think of when you think of those states.

Memphis I have in the Deep South in my county map I'm currently building.

Pittsburgh, etc., see my comments above to Tintrlvr.

Delmarva, see my guidelines about regions.  Yes, portions of Delmarva feel "Southern," but you can find places that feel Southern in just about every state.  I'm not going to have these little Southern pockets in every region- rather, the pockets in question have to be contiguous with the greater South and large enough, and the pockets in Delmarva are neither.

Atlanta- that's an interesting point.  I thought about not only Atlanta, but Greenville and Huntsville also.  All are either far enough north or are in the Piedmont area, so geographically they aren't in the coastal plain.  However, I define the Deep South to include more than just the coastal plain, and am also looking at culture.  I've lived in GA, and maybe this is just my opinion, but Atlanta to me felt more like a Deep South city than an Appalachian city.

I disagree with Louisville and Cincinnati.  Having lived in Louisville, visited Cincy many times, and lived in the Upper South (Nashville), as well as the Deep South, I think there is a distinction.  First, take the design and architecture of the city.  Both feel more like a place like Pittsburgh, than anywhere else- narrow hilly roads, outdoor power lines connecting residences, rowhouses with wood siding, etc.  You'll also find neighborhoods in both that also have brick rowhouses (e.g., Old Louisville and Bardstown) which is a very rare housing style in the South (basically non-existent in places like Atlanta).

Second, the culture and demographics are different.  A lot of the people I met in Louisville, for example, had extended family or roots in places like Southern OH, Indiana, some southern Illinois, a couple from St Louis, etc.  Was much rarer to find someone that had moved up there from say, NC, or the Deep South.  I did meet one person from TN.

Finally, the "feel" of those places is more "Rust Belt" like, than a city like Nashville, or Knoxville, or Raleigh, or Winston-Salem (all clear Upper South cities IMO).  Rather, even just driving around, you "feel" more like you're in a place like St Louis or Indianapolis.

I'm leaving both in the Mid-West, but they are very much "border towns" or "gateway cities" to the Upper South.  Once you leave their respective MSAs and drive South, you have entered the South.

[AN63093]

I like your thinking on many of these. In my travels I've found WV to be a border state, too, with the northern half (Wheeling, Morgantown) to be like western PA and the southern half (Charleston) in the Upper-South/Appalachia group.

If you do a county version, I'll be curious to see how your map compares to one I did in a series of posts four years ago.

Thanks, muon.  I am indeed working on a county version (this one is obviously taking longer).. about halfway done currently.  It looks like we may share quite a bit of similarity in some places, such as our border in New England, and how we handled southern CO, and a couple of other places.  Once I finish, we can compare notes more extensively.

[AN63093]

Cool map!

To what degree do you think the rural vs. urban divide in certain states makes it difficult to classify them geographically? For example:

1. Rural upstate New York vs. NYC
2. LA/SF/San Diego California vs. Rural parts of the San Joaquin Valley
Etc.

Well that divide is very real of course, but in my opinion, they still "feel" more like their anchoring large city than a completely different region.  Take NYC, for example- which is where I grew up.  Rural NY is quite a bit different, for sure.  But even rural NY will "feel" more like a place like NYC than say, rural Kansas.

One reason is the people- you'll find people that move to NYC from upstate (and vise versa), or people that go to college upstate, then move elsewhere, and so on, and while people upstate will be more conservative and bitch about how crowded it is in Manhattan and the hipsters in Brooklyn and what not, at the end of the day, you notice that things like speech patterns, accents, cuisine, other cultural quirks (e.g., following the NFL, either Giants or Bills, and indifferent about college football), using the word "bodega" in speech, stuff like that... it may be rural, but it's still very much "culturally New York."

I'd argue the same for CA.  I've never lived there but have family in Orange County and my brother lived in both the Bay Area and LA for over 20 years, so I can't even count how many times I've been to CA.  I know people in LA, etc., like to joke about how the central valley is the "Alabama" of their state.  But as someone who's lived in the Deep South, take it from me- even rural CA still feels more like California than it does the real South.  Again, it's often the "little" things that help identify a culture.  You can take a guy that grew up in Fresno and plop him down in the Mission, and I guarantee you he would still feel it's less foreign than if you plopped him down in Charleston SC.

Now, to be fair, the farther east you get, it changes.  At some point, as you're driving on I-80, you have left "West Coast culture" and have entered the Mountain West.  Does that point occur before Reno?  Maybe.  I'm building a county-by-county map now with regions that don't necessarily align precisely with state lines and I hope to incorporate some of these ideas.  I'm about halfway done with it, working my way east to west and currently am in CO/UT.

[AN63093]

Here is my very rough initial draft of my county map.  Some notes will follow in a separate post.

[AN63093]

Notes:

-Click on copy image location to get a larger version.  I also have a huge 3600x2300 version for anyone that wants it.

-Regions.  I tried to keep the same color scheme as my state map as much as possible, but had to change a few because the contrast was too difficult to see.

West Coast, fuchsia.
Mountain West, green.
Southwest, blue.
Plains States, dark red.
Texas, dark green.
Midwest, light blue.
Upper South/Appalachia, red.
Deep South, cyan.
Florida, dark green.
Mid-Atlantic, dark blue.
New England, green.

-AK and HI are not included because I could not find a good high-res blank county map that had them.  HI would be included in West Coast in its entirety.  AK would be partially West Coast (the area around Juneau), partially Mountain West (the southern area of the state), and partially a distinct region (the northern and western areas).

-TX was kept as a region unto itself for the reasons previously given.  I guess TX could be chopped up into multiple regions (the next version of this map may do that).  The panhandle would be part of Plains States (approx Amarillo and above), the south and west would be Southwest, and the east would be divided into Upper South (the area anchored by the Dallas Metroplex) and Deep South (the area anchored by Houston).  I have not decided where Austin would be.  San Antonio would be in the Southwest.

-FL was mostly kept as a region unto itself, except for the north, which is pretty clearly Deep South.  The reason for keeping the rest as a separate region is because it is not easily categorized.  The I-4 corridor could be described as a mix of middle-class migrants from the Mid West and Upper South, but it is distinct enough from those regions that I didn't think it belonged to either, and besides, it would not be a contiguous region in that case.  The Miami MSA is part of Latin America and not really similar to any other area of the US.  For these reasons, FL south of about Ocala was kept as a separate region.

-I went back and forth on whether to include Huntsville and Greenville in the Upper South, so I'm not sure if I want to keep the Upper/Deep South boundary where it is.  I am open to arguments either way on this.  Atlanta I kept in the Deep South.

-As discussed above, I am also unsure whether Pittsburgh, Erie, and maybe Buffalo are more appropriately considered Mid-West.  I am open to arguments either way on this one as well, though for now I had already put them in Mid-Atlantic so I left them there.

-I am least satisfied with the boundaries between Plains States and Mountain West/Mid-West.  Unfortunately, this area of the country is sparsely populated and there is not as clear of a divide as you move from one region to the other.  Ultimately I felt the state boundaries between the Plains and Mid-West were as good as anything else.  Between Plains and Mountain West, I generally used I-25 as a boundary.  In CO, I think the Front Range Urban Corridor is not part of the Plains, and should be in Mountain West, but is the "gateway," so to speak, and once you leave those MSAs and go east, you are definitely in the Plains.  This goes for Cheyenne as well.  In MT, I divided the state at roughly around Billings.

-I left the Central Valley CA as part of the West Coast.  I know many people in CA derisively look upon that area of the state, but I just do not feel the culture is more similar to the Mountain West.  Places like Fresno and Modesto are not Mountain West cities IMO.  I am open to compelling  arguments to the contrary on this.

[AN63093]

Detail of the Plains/Mid-West/Upper South Boundary:




Detail of the Baltimore/DC CSA and surrounding area:

[muon2]

I drive across northern MO frequently to visit my family north of KC. If you want to separate the KS-like area from the rest of the state, I-35 is probably the best dividing line. That is those counties containing I-35 go with the west. Similarly on the east, it's hard to see the St Louis metro together, but not Hannibal and Quincy. I find the best measure of what part of northern MO still is like the part south of the Missouri is to use Little Dixie even though it stems from pre-Civil War history.

[Tintrlvr]

A few MSAs I would move:

Louisville: Midwest --> South
Pittsburgh, Erie, Buffalo: Mid-Atlantic --> Midwest
Memphis: Upper South --> Deep South
Atlanta: Deep South --> Upper South

Cincinnati is also a Midwest/Upper South hybrid, as is St. Louis.

Also, I recently visited a few places on the Delmarva Peninsula.  Most of that is Southern and very different from what you think of when you think of those states.

Memphis I have in the Deep South in my county map I'm currently building.

Pittsburgh, etc., see my comments above to Tintrlvr.

Delmarva, see my guidelines about regions.  Yes, portions of Delmarva feel "Southern," but you can find places that feel Southern in just about every state.  I'm not going to have these little Southern pockets in every region- rather, the pockets in question have to be contiguous with the greater South and large enough, and the pockets in Delmarva are neither.

Atlanta- that's an interesting point.  I thought about not only Atlanta, but Greenville and Huntsville also.  All are either far enough north or are in the Piedmont area, so geographically they aren't in the coastal plain.  However, I define the Deep South to include more than just the coastal plain, and am also looking at culture.  I've lived in GA, and maybe this is just my opinion, but Atlanta to me felt more like a Deep South city than an Appalachian city.

I disagree with Louisville and Cincinnati.  Having lived in Louisville, visited Cincy many times, and lived in the Upper South (Nashville), as well as the Deep South, I think there is a distinction.  First, take the design and architecture of the city.  Both feel more like a place like Pittsburgh, than anywhere else- narrow hilly roads, outdoor power lines connecting residences, rowhouses with wood siding, etc.  You'll also find neighborhoods in both that also have brick rowhouses (e.g., Old Louisville and Bardstown) which is a very rare housing style in the South (basically non-existent in places like Atlanta).

Second, the culture and demographics are different.  A lot of the people I met in Louisville, for example, had extended family or roots in places like Southern OH, Indiana, some southern Illinois, a couple from St Louis, etc.  Was much rarer to find someone that had moved up there from say, NC, or the Deep South.  I did meet one person from TN.

Finally, the "feel" of those places is more "Rust Belt" like, than a city like Nashville, or Knoxville, or Raleigh, or Winston-Salem (all clear Upper South cities IMO).  Rather, even just driving around, you "feel" more like you're in a place like St Louis or Indianapolis.

I'm leaving both in the Mid-West, but they are very much "border towns" or "gateway cities" to the Upper South.  Once you leave their respective MSAs and drive South, you have entered the South.

Seems like maybe an "Ohio Valley" region separate from the Midwest might be in order. Would include Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Athens, Huntington, Cincinnati, Louisville and Evansville at least, and maybe extend north to Indianapolis and/or Dayton and possibly other areas, like Youngstown. Definitely the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes developed entirely separately historically, and it's just an accident of line-drawing that the "southern Midwest" states comprise parts of both.

[AN63093]

I drive across northern MO frequently to visit my family north of KC. If you want to separate the KS-like area from the rest of the state, I-35 is probably the best dividing line. That is those counties containing I-35 go with the west. Similarly on the east, it's hard to see the St Louis metro together, but not Hannibal and Quincy. I find the best measure of what part of northern MO still is like the part south of the Missouri is to use Little Dixie even though it stems from pre-Civil War history.

Thanks muon.  I wasn't sure exactly how far east to extend the "Kansas portion" of MO, so this is very helpful.  Atchison/Holt/Nodaway I included for sure.  Are you familiar with the area around St Joseph?  I was admittedly not positive whether to include it in the KS portion.  I've drove through this area on I-29, but don't have the best "feel" for the area.

So your suggestion, if I'm getting this right, is basically a line upwards on I-35... so including Clinton, DeKalb, Gentry, Worth, Harrison, Daviess, Caldwell. 

I'm not too familiar with Hannibal and Quincy.  Should they be in the Mid-West?  I could probably use some help getting northern MO a little more precise.  My sense was that there are probably areas north of I-70 that are still "Upper South" due to the high presence of Southern Baptists that goes all the way up to the IA border.  If you look at a religious denomination map, there is a very stark and sudden drop off of Baptists right at the border.

Columbia I would include in the Upper South for sure.  How much farther north to go... any suggestions you could offer would be most helpful.

[AN63093]

Seems like maybe an "Ohio Valley" region separate from the Midwest might be in order. Would include Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Athens, Huntington, Cincinnati, Louisville and Evansville at least, and maybe extend north to Indianapolis and/or Dayton and possibly other areas, like Youngstown. Definitely the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes developed entirely separately historically, and it's just an accident of line-drawing that the "southern Midwest" states comprise parts of both.

Interesting suggestion.  I'm not sure if this region would be large enough to be a region outright, but what I'm thinking of doing is maybe regional maps with "sub-regions," in which case, the Ohio Valley would probably be a distinct area from the rest of the Mid-West.

You are definitely right that these areas developed separately historically.  If you look at migration patterns from the East Coast too, different ethnic groups tended to settle in the Great Lakes area, as opposed to down the Ohio River.  I understand this area "feels" a little different and has different culture than the Upper Midwest, but at the same time, it seems awkward putting this area in the South, since as I've gone into detail above about, places like Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Evansville, etc.... these are not Southern cities to me.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Seems like maybe an "Ohio Valley" region separate from the Midwest might be in order. Would include Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Athens, Huntington, Cincinnati, Louisville and Evansville at least, and maybe extend north to Indianapolis and/or Dayton and possibly other areas, like Youngstown. Definitely the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes developed entirely separately historically, and it's just an accident of line-drawing that the "southern Midwest" states comprise parts of both.

Interesting suggestion.  I'm not sure if this region would be large enough to be a region outright, but what I'm thinking of doing is maybe regional maps with "sub-regions," in which case, the Ohio Valley would probably be a distinct area from the rest of the Mid-West.

You are definitely right that these areas developed separately historically.  If you look at migration patterns from the East Coast too, different ethnic groups tended to settle in the Great Lakes area, as opposed to down the Ohio River.  I understand this area "feels" a little different and has different culture than the Upper Midwest, but at the same time, it seems awkward putting this area in the South, since as I've gone into detail above about, places like Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Evansville, etc.... these are not Southern cities to me.

I have never actually been to Louisville, but most of the people I have met from there seem Southern, if that counts for anything.

[BuckeyeNut]

Lumping together the Upper South and Appalachia is a big mistake. West Virginia is entirely Appalachian, and the region bleeds into East Ohio and West PA, as well as East KY before going further SE.

[muon2]

I drive across northern MO frequently to visit my family north of KC. If you want to separate the KS-like area from the rest of the state, I-35 is probably the best dividing line. That is those counties containing I-35 go with the west. Similarly on the east, it's hard to see the St Louis metro together, but not Hannibal and Quincy. I find the best measure of what part of northern MO still is like the part south of the Missouri is to use Little Dixie even though it stems from pre-Civil War history.

Thanks muon.  I wasn't sure exactly how far east to extend the "Kansas portion" of MO, so this is very helpful.  Atchison/Holt/Nodaway I included for sure.  Are you familiar with the area around St Joseph?  I was admittedly not positive whether to include it in the KS portion.  I've drove through this area on I-29, but don't have the best "feel" for the area.

So your suggestion, if I'm getting this right, is basically a line upwards on I-35... so including Clinton, DeKalb, Gentry, Worth, Harrison, Daviess, Caldwell. 

I'm not too familiar with Hannibal and Quincy.  Should they be in the Mid-West?  I could probably use some help getting northern MO a little more precise.  My sense was that there are probably areas north of I-70 that are still "Upper South" due to the high presence of Southern Baptists that goes all the way up to the IA border.  If you look at a religious denomination map, there is a very stark and sudden drop off of Baptists right at the border.

Columbia I would include in the Upper South for sure.  How much farther north to go... any suggestions you could offer would be most helpful.

I would be careful about the use of Southern Baptists as a measure in a traditional border state like MO. When the SBC split from the northern Baptists over slavery in the period before the Civil War, they did so on a state-by-state basis, so for a long time the SBC only had churches in its original states. However, the SBC has expanded more recently, for example you can see  the percentage of adherents in south central IA shows a cross over from northern MO.

Overall speech in southern IA is very similar to northern MO and quite different than northern and central IA which sounds like southern MN. The SW part of IA is very similar to NW MO, and that even extends to religion with a lot of Methodists in both areas (a trait shared with rural central and western KS). On the other side of the state the Mississippi valley is very similar on both sides and Hannibal and Quincy are both old river towns of similar character.

The "southern" part of MO north of the river is usually defined by the counties of Little Dixie: Audrain, Boone, Calloway, Howard, Monroe, Randolph. I'd add Chariton and drop Monroe as it seems to be more midwesternized these days to me. For sure I wouldn't put any of the counties along US-36 in the South, and Monroe's northern boundary is in part that highway.

[Goldwater]

-I left the Central Valley CA as part of the West Coast.  I know many people in CA derisively look upon that area of the state, but I just do not feel the culture is more similar to the Mountain West.  Places like Fresno and Modesto are not Mountain West cities IMO.  I am open to compelling  arguments to the contrary on this.

Yeah, Central Valley is a hard one. It has similarities to, but also doesn't quite fit into, the West Coast, Mountain West, and even the Southwest. Overall, I think West Coast fits best, for multiple reasons:

1. It keeps the Sierra Nevada/Cascades as the western bounty of the Mountain West.
2. Putting in the Southwest looks odd, due to how far north it goes.
3. Due to people being priced out of the Bay Area, parts of the Central Valley have essentially become commuter towns for the people working there.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

As for Deep South, I might use areas where the white population votes virtually unanimously Republican as a good starting point.  Under that logic, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama really separate themselves from anywhere else.  Though, parts of Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas might be able to be added as well.

[King of Kensington]

I take it DC/Maryland/NOVA are put together with NY/NJ/PA (the Census Bureau's Mid-Atlantic) because you don't want to place the former in the South and you want to separate the latter from New England.   But the two "mid-Atlantics" seem very different to me.  NY/NJ/PA are filled with working class white ethnics and ethnic enclaves and have much older housing stock.  DC/MD/NOVA are filled with transplants, grew rapidly after WWII and is much "newer", there is no visible white ethnic presence, and while some say they're no longer "really" Southern they are historically Southern and feels like more of a transition from North to South.