Which state would flip to a Democrat first: South Carolina or Missouri

[I’m not Stu]

In an unlikely circumstance where at least one of these two states flips, Which one flips first?

[I’m not Stu]

Trump won Missouri by a wider margin than South Carolina. MO is R+9. SC is R+8. The population in St. Louis has declined over the years. Missouri has been rapidly trending Republican. South Carolina has been more steady in the past few races.

[AN63093]

Hmm.  This one's tough.

10 years ago, it would've been MO obviously.  In 10 years, it might be clearly be SC.  Consider that SC is one of the top 10 states in growth, MO is just outside of the bottom 10.  The St Louis MSA is just barely growing, and both St Louis County and the city proper are losing population.  The KC MSA, on the other hand, is growing.  Not substantially, but it is growing.

In contrast, all of SC's major cities are growing, some substantially.  Charleston is one of the fastest growing MSAs in the US.  Greenville is a little more modest, but it's still hitting over 7%.  The city itself is on pace to hit close to 30% by the next census.  Both Greenville and Charleston counties swung and trended D in 2016.  Clinton won Charleston, and didn't come close in Greenville, but it would be interesting to see what happens there in 10 years or so.

Both states swung and trended R in 2016, though MO at a faster rate.

Dems have a higher floor in SC, but I get the feeling that although they could get close, those last few % would be next to impossible to get.  On the other hand, though MO has pretty dramatically swung R, I get the impression that there are still lots of ancestral Dems there that would be open to voting D in the right circumstances/for the right candidate.

I dunno, tough call.  I guess I'm going with SC, but just barely.

[Roronoa D. Law]

My family is from SC the suburbs and some large cities are really Republican in South Carolina than many places in America and even south. I can see Democrats solidify the I95 corridor. I guess Greenville and York counties could become closer. I also think in the early to mid 2020s Dorchester and Berkley pull a Cobb and Gwinnett because of minority growth. There is still room to grow in Charleston County Clinton flipped many precincts in North Charleston, James Island, West Ashley, and surprisingly Sullivan's Island.

[Nyvin]

South Carolina.   Missouri has too much rural area,  South Carolina is relatively small.   That makes a huge difference.

Plus I believe South Carolina has a larger AA population.

[RINO Tom]

South Carolina.   Missouri has too much rural area,  South Carolina is relatively small.   That makes a huge difference.

Plus I believe South Carolina has a larger AA population.

I mean, as was said earlier, South Carolina's metro areas vote to the right of the rural areas.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I said Missouri, because it's more elastic than SC, and cities and suburbs in SC, especially Spartanburg, are actually trending R. Spartanburg County is unusual in that while it's growing about as fast as Richland County, it seems to be attracting non-college whites instead of young professionals like we see in most other cities in the sunbelt.

[RINO Tom]

I said Missouri, because it's more elastic than SC, and cities and suburbs in SC, especially Spartanburg, are actually trending R. Spartanburg County is unusual in that while it's growing about as fast as Richland County, it seems to be attracting non-college whites instead of young professionals like we see in most other cities in the sunbelt.

Trump won South Carolina's White college graduates by 31 points, so I'm not sure why an influx of them into anywhere would be good for SC Dems...?

[PragmaticPopulist]

I said Missouri, because it's more elastic than SC, and cities and suburbs in SC, especially Spartanburg, are actually trending R. Spartanburg County is unusual in that while it's growing about as fast as Richland County, it seems to be attracting non-college whites instead of young professionals like we see in most other cities in the sunbelt.

Trump won South Carolina's White college graduates by 31 points, so I'm not sure why an influx of them into anywhere would be good for SC Dems...?

I was assuming that the path to victory in SC for Dems would include picking up a good number of White college grads, but if that's not the case, than my argument is moot.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Missouri is more republican, but also more elastic.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Missouri is more republican, but also more elastic.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

This is  a tough call, for me.

On paper, it would be South Carolina, since it has a large African-American population as well as Whites that are more Democratic than whites in any other Deep South state, but at the same time, I think it's not very elastic.


So, since Missouri has a long history as a bellwether, whereas South Carolina has been fairly solidly GOP since 1964, I'll go with Missouri. it would take a very unique situation for either state to go D, however.

[MT Treasurer]

SC, but both states will remain solidly Republican for a long time. I could see SC trending Democratic, but like I said it's a stretch at this point. MO is a lost cause for Democrats, and it will become even more obvious in 2018.

[RINO Tom]

SC, but both states will remain solidly Republican for a long time. I could see SC trending Democratic, but like I said it's a stretch at this point. MO is a lost cause for Democrats, and it will become even more obvious in 2018.

The fastest growing areas of SC are the most Republican, unlike the more Democratic rural ones.  It's equally likely it trends R.

[AN63093]

SC, but both states will remain solidly Republican for a long time. I could see SC trending Democratic, but like I said it's a stretch at this point. MO is a lost cause for Democrats, and it will become even more obvious in 2018.

The fastest growing areas of SC are the most Republican, unlike the more Democratic rural ones.  It's equally likely it trends R.

You keep saying this, but what areas are you talking about?

The fastest growing areas are in the Charleston MSA, and Charleston Cty both trended and swung D in 2016.  Do you have some precinct level data that breaks it down better?

Also Richland and Lexington Counties (Columbia) trended/swung D.  Greenville Cty swung/trended D....

So what exactly are you referring to?

If you're just talking about margin; well Clinton won Columbia and Charleston.  Trump won Greenville but not by spectacularly better margins than rural areas... better than some, worse than others.  I mean, sure, I get that Allendale Cty is 76% D, and Dems do well in the black belt, but not every rural county in SC is in the black belt, Tom.

[RINO Tom]

SC, but both states will remain solidly Republican for a long time. I could see SC trending Democratic, but like I said it's a stretch at this point. MO is a lost cause for Democrats, and it will become even more obvious in 2018.

The fastest growing areas of SC are the most Republican, unlike the more Democratic rural ones.  It's equally likely it trends R.

You keep saying this, but what areas are you talking about?

The fastest growing areas are in the Charleston MSA, and Charleston Cty both trended and swung D in 2016.  Do you have some precinct level data that breaks it down better?

Also Richland and Lexington Counties (Columbia) trended/swung D.  Greenville Cty swung/trended D....

So what exactly are you referring to?

If you're just talking about margin; well Clinton won Columbia and Charleston.  Trump won Greenville but not by spectacularly better margins than rural areas... better than some, worse than others.  I mean, sure, I get that Allendale Cty is 76% D, and Dems do well in the black belt, but not every rural county in SC is in the black belt, Tom.

1) Even though it fits the cultural grievances of many on this forum (on both sides) like a glove, I don't think 2016 signaled some type of political future of a Middle America GOP vs. a cosmopolitan Democratic Party.  Politics has always been and will always be more complicated than that, and I think there are tons of areas that swung to Clinton that it's frankly laughable to consider "Democratic areas" or even remotely "ripe for gains."

2) Clinton won 54% of the "rural vote" in the exit polls for SC, while Trump won 62% of the suburban vote.  Suburban voters are the bedrock of the SCGOP, and that should be obvious.

[AN63093]

Regarding your first point, I wasn't arguing that SC MSAs are ripe for gains.  I also wasn't making some over-arching theory about the political future of the US.  What I was questioning was your assertion that the metro areas are more R-leaning than the rural areas.  I haven't seen any data to support that, especially given that Clinton won two out of three metro areas, and even Greenville's margins weren't significantly more R than rural areas, except for some of the black belt counties.  I will grant you that Greenville is more R than the black belt.  That is backed up by the data, but that's not what your claim was.

Regarding your second point, your claim wasn't about suburban voters.  It was, and I quote, "South Carolina's metro areas vote to the right of the rural areas."  Metro areas include both suburban and urban (and actually rural, the way MSAs are drawn, but I digress).  I'm going off of the actual vote counts from these counties (Charleston, Richland, Greenville) on the Atlas.  That would seem to me to be more accurate than an "exit poll."

Those vote counts do not support your point, unless you are limiting rural areas to the Black Belt.  Even then, the claim wouldn't be entirely accurate since Columbia had a higher D % than most Black Belt counties.

[Roronoa D. Law]

SC, but both states will remain solidly Republican for a long time. I could see SC trending Democratic, but like I said it's a stretch at this point. MO is a lost cause for Democrats, and it will become even more obvious in 2018.

The fastest growing areas of SC are the most Republican, unlike the more Democratic rural ones.  It's equally likely it trends R.

You keep saying this, but what areas are you talking about?

The fastest growing areas are in the Charleston MSA, and Charleston Cty both trended and swung D in 2016.  Do you have some precinct level data that breaks it down better?

Also Richland and Lexington Counties (Columbia) trended/swung D.  Greenville Cty swung/trended D....

So what exactly are you referring to?

If you're just talking about margin; well Clinton won Columbia and Charleston.  Trump won Greenville but not by spectacularly better margins than rural areas... better than some, worse than others.  I mean, sure, I get that Allendale Cty is 76% D, and Dems do well in the black belt, but not every rural county in SC is in the black belt, Tom.

1) Even though it fits the cultural grievances of many on this forum (on both sides) like a glove, I don't think 2016 signaled some type of political future of a Middle America GOP vs. a cosmopolitan Democratic Party.  Politics has always been and will always be more complicated than that, and I think there are tons of areas that swung to Clinton that it's frankly laughable to consider "Democratic areas" or even remotely "ripe for gains."

2) Clinton won 54% of the "rural vote" in the exit polls for SC, while Trump won 62% of the suburban vote.  Suburban voters are the bedrock of the SCGOP, and that should be obvious.

Actually elections from 2000-2016 creates the whole Middle America vs Cosmopolitan you mentioned. Im not saying all suburbs are trending Democrats or that Clinton gains will hold but metro areas that are considered cosmopolitan and internationally connected are trending democrat. For example Dallas despite it larger size most people view Houston as more cosmopolitan of the two. If you also noticed Houston is more Democratic than Dallas.

As for South Carolina most people believe Charleston is the largest metro area despite it being the 3rd largest in the state. Most people here view Charleston as the most cosmopolitan city in the state because of this Charleston and it suburbs saw larger drop in Trump voter share than let say Lexington County SC.

Suburbs are not one in the same there is a major difference in the suburbs of LA, ATL, and Houston than KCMO, Cleveland, and St Louis. It make no since to say the GOP own the suburban there is no exit poll from recent election that show a convincing win in that category. The GOP does great in exurbs though as for the suburbs not so much. I know you like to say you home state county of Lake became democratic because of an influx of uneducated minorities moving there but for the record Republican won Charleston with 8 points when it was 61% white in 2000 they lost by 8 points last year when it was 69% white.

[Xing]

Missouri, since either state flipping would probably imply a double-digit PV landslide for the Democrats, and as others have said, Missouri is more elastic.

[RINO Tom]

Regarding your first point, I wasn't arguing that SC MSAs are ripe for gains.  I also wasn't making some over-arching theory about the political future of the US.  What I was questioning was your assertion that the metro areas are more R-leaning than the rural areas.  I haven't seen any data to support that, especially given that Clinton won two out of three metro areas, and even Greenville's margins weren't significantly more R than rural areas, except for some of the black belt counties.  I will grant you that Greenville is more R than the black belt.  That is backed up by the data, but that's not what your claim was.

Regarding your second point, your claim wasn't about suburban voters.  It was, and I quote, "South Carolina's metro areas vote to the right of the rural areas."  Metro areas include both suburban and urban (and actually rural, the way MSAs are drawn, but I digress).  I'm going off of the actual vote counts from these counties (Charleston, Richland, Greenville) on the Atlas.  That would seem to me to be more accurate than an "exit poll."

Those vote counts do not support your point, unless you are limiting rural areas to the Black Belt.  Even then, the claim wouldn't be entirely accurate since Columbia had a higher D % than most Black Belt counties.

According to the Census website, these are the ten counties that experienced the most growth in South Carolina last year:

1. Lancaster (Charlotte, NC MSA)
2. Horry (Myrtle Beach MSA)
3. Berkeley (Charleston MSA)
4. York (Charlotte, NC MSA)
5. Jasper (Hilton Head MSA)
6. Beaufort (Hilton Head MSA)
7. Charleston (Charleston city and suburbs)
8. Greenville (Greenville city and suburbs)
9. Lexington (Columbia MSA)
10. Spartanburg (Greenville MSA)

8 of those 10 counties went for Trump, including the top 4:

1. Lancaster: 60.9% Trump, 35.4% Clinton
2. Horry: 67.3% Trump, Clinton 29.5%
3. Berkeley: 56.0% Trump, 38.6% Clinton
4. York: 58.4% Trump, 36.4% Clinton
5. Jasper: 54.8% Clinton, 42.9% Trump
6. Beaufort: 54.9% Trump, 40.6% Clinton
7. Charleston: 50.6% Clinton, 42.8% Trump
8. Greenville: 59.4% Trump, 34.7% Clinton
9. Lexington: 65.6% Trump, 28.8% Clinton
10. Spartanburg: 63.0% Trump, 33.0% Clinton

Clinton was able to get out of the 30s in just THREE of the ten fastest growing counties in the state.  Additionally, only TWO of the fifteen counties she carried in the state made this list.  Yet somehow I imagine this won't turn into a conversation about how SC might be slipping even further away from the Democrats??  That destinction can only be given to states like West Virginia or Kentucky, as they fit the narrative better of how some partisans on BOTH sides are choosing to frame our political reality in the age of Trump.  I apologize if I worded my first post poorly and even used some hyperbole, but as Timmy said in his other post, it's just frustrating to see such narrow-minded, black-and-white and - frankly - Wulfric-esque analysis of our political coalitions and trends on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to the complexities of such things.

[TheSaint250]

South Carolina. Missouri is moving to the right, and SC to the left.

[RINO Tom]

South Carolina. Missouri is moving to the right, and SC to the left.

Going to need a source for that...

McCain: 53.87%
Romney: 54.56%
Trump: 54.90%

I know some of you nerds prefer "TRENDS" over "SWINGS," but it's not "moving to the left," LOL.

[MT Treasurer]

According to the Census website, these are the ten counties that experienced the most growth in South Carolina last year:

1. Lancaster (Charlotte, NC MSA)
2. Horry (Myrtle Beach MSA)
3. Berkeley (Charleston MSA)
4. York (Charlotte, NC MSA)
5. Jasper (Hilton Head MSA)
6. Beaufort (Hilton Head MSA)
7. Charleston (Charleston city and suburbs)
8. Greenville (Greenville city and suburbs)
9. Lexington (Columbia MSA)
10. Spartanburg (Greenville MSA)

8 of those 10 counties went for Trump, including the top 4:

1. Lancaster: 60.9% Trump, 35.4% Clinton
2. Horry: 67.3% Trump, Clinton 29.5%
3. Berkeley: 56.0% Trump, 38.6% Clinton
4. York: 58.4% Trump, 36.4% Clinton
5. Jasper: 54.8% Clinton, 42.9% Trump
6. Beaufort: 54.9% Trump, 40.6% Clinton
7. Charleston: 50.6% Clinton, 42.8% Trump
8. Greenville: 59.4% Trump, 34.7% Clinton
9. Lexington: 65.6% Trump, 28.8% Clinton
10. Spartanburg: 63.0% Trump, 33.0% Clinton

Clinton was able to get out of the 30s in just THREE of the ten fastest growing counties in the state.  Additionally, only TWO of the fifteen counties she carried in the state made this list.  Yet somehow I imagine this won't turn into a conversation about how SC might be slipping even further away from the Democrats??  That destinction can only be given to states like West Virginia or Kentucky, as they fit the narrative better of how some partisans on BOTH sides are choosing to frame our political reality in the age of Trump.  I apologize if I worded my first post poorly and even used some hyperbole, but as Timmy said in his other post, it's just frustrating to see such narrow-minded, black-and-white and - frankly - Wulfric-esque analysis of our political coalitions and trends on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to the complexities of such things.

Yes, and five of the counties you listed trended Democratic in 2016. This doesn't seem like a lot, but when you consider the fact that only 8 out of 46 counties in SC trended Democratic in 2016 it becomes a much more interesting tidbit (and I doubt it's a coincidence). That being said, I made it clear in my previous post that I believe SC will remain solidly Republican for a long time (for some of the reasons you mentioned above), but so will MO (and I bet the latter will remain Republican for a longer time). Obviously MO is more likely to elect a Democratic Senator or statewide official than SC right now, but is it really more likely to vote Democratic in a presidential race? Color me skeptical. Like I said before, I could see SC trending Democratic if demographics become more favorable to Democrats there (and not really because of Romney/Clinton voters anyway), but I don't see a similar situation developing in MO. Also keep in mind that while there's no Democratic trend in SC right now, there wasn't one in TX in 2012 either.

[cvparty]

well Missouri's slipping further and further away from the Democrats while South Carolina hasn't really moved much either way recently...I guess SC but it's way out of reach for Democrats right now

[100% pro-life no matter what]

South Carolina. Missouri is moving to the right, and SC to the left.

Going to need a source for that...

McCain: 53.87%
Romney: 54.56%
Trump: 54.90%

I know some of you nerds prefer "TRENDS" over "SWINGS," but it's not "moving to the left," LOL.

It trended Republican in 2016 too.