Saturday, May 12, 2018

Trump's 2016 white vote share by state

Reuters-Ipsos' interactive polling explorer site has just added state filters back into the mix after pulling them a couple of years ago. This finally allows a look at non-Hispanic white vote share by state for the 2016 US presidential election. The sample size is huge, with 84,210 whites who either voted for Trump or Clinton included. The following map and subsequent table shows Trump's white voter share by state in a two-way race:


StateT'sWht%
1) Mississippi81.5
2) Alabama77.2
3) Louisiana74.4
4) Wyoming71.4
5) Arkansas71.4
6) South Carolina70.8
7) Georgia 70.4
8) South Dakota70.3
9) Tennessee70.2
10) West Virginia68.7
11) Alaska67.6
12) Texas66.5
13) Idaho65.9
14) Oklahoma65.5
15) North Dakota64.7
16) Missouri62.3
17) North Carolina62.2
18) Montana61.6
19) Utah60.7
20) Indiana60.5
21) Kentucky60.4
22) Florida60.1
23) Nebraska60.0
24) Arizona60.0
25) Kansas59.6
26) Virginia57.9
27) New Mexico56.5
28) Pennsylvania56.1
29) Nevada55.2
30) Ohio54.4
31) Colorado53.4
32) Michigan52.8
33) Maryland51.9
34) Delaware51.3
35) Wisconsin50.8
36) New Jersey50.4
37) Iowa50.2
38) Maine49.9
39) Minnesota49.1
40) New York48.9
41) Illinois48.1
42) Connecticut48.0
43) Washington47.8
44) California46.7
45) New Hampshire44.9
46) Oregon43.4
47) Rhode Island43.1
48) Massachusetts40.8
49) Vermont39.4
50) Hawaii36.8
51) District of Columbia36.3

Reuters has a pretty consistent left-leaning bias in its polling. Nationally, it shows Trump getting 56.8% of the two-way white vote compared to the 61.0% reported by the officially commissioned exit poll on election night. Add a compensating four points to Trump's state shares and he picks up Maine, Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Washington, and California. Just an extra 137 electoral votes--no big deal!

The exact hypothetical margin of victory in the 2016 ethnoUnited States presidential election isn't as important as the fact that the Republican victory would be overwhelming both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.

Keep in mind that McMuffin's presence in Utah filches a lot of Trump's margin of white victory from him and that in this rendering McMuffin probably also steals Minnesota from Trump to give to Clinton.

The white vote in the Imperial Capital seems too pro-Trump. The two-way white sample size is only 391 there so make of it what you will.

If the vote were restricted to white men (forgive my not taking the time to shade accordingly--this is purely winner-take-all fantasy fun):

23 comments:

Saint Louis said...

AL and LA appear to be out of order.

Audacious Epigone said...

Saint Louis,

Oops, typo. Fixed it, thanks.

Jim Bowery said...

Since my philosophy of government would grant the vote only to those willing to subject themselves to (at most annual) challenges to natural duel*, the closest proxy measure would be combat military (and reserves), beat police and other first responders. The closest proxy to _that_ would be military.

So I'm wondering how the map would turn out if restricted to active military.

*The consequent civil code, including monetary system, is quite concise. If you think this is out-to-lunch, then good luck when cheap neutron production (already in existence for oil exploration) dispenses with the need for centrifuges to construct cheap, balloon-lofted EMP weapons which then permanently disables electronics infrastructure.

Jim Bowery said...

Clarification: Neutron generators exist and are used for oil exploration but their neutrons are not cheap. The general approach to nuclear proliferation that I see no way of avoiding is the optimization of the general technique used in oil exploration neutron generators, which basically just boils down to figuring out how to take heavy water (deuterium) and generate lots of neutrons. Billions are already being invested in this with the goal of "fusion energy". An intermediate technology was commercialized in the late 90s based on inertial electrostatic confinement and produced 3e11 neutrons per second with modest power input. I'll stop there lest I rile the spooks.

snorlax said...

With white men only Trump would definitely have won NH; Hillary only won the state by 2,754 votes.

NH also gives a ballot to anyone who's been a "resident" of the state for even one night, so Democrats bus in college students from Boston and put them up in motels for one night so they can claim residency. I believe the new Republican governor and state legislature were talking about putting an end to this scam but don't recall if it went through.

216 said...

It would do well for conservative voters in CA to migrate to other states. The red states also need to find ways of harassing their welfare dependent populations into moving to blue state largesse. Eliminating liberal arts/social science professors is also good advice if red states want to achieve self-determination.

Jig Bohnson said...

There is no way Trump got 36% of the white vote in DC. In fact, if you told me he got 36 total white votes in DC I would be suspicious.

kennymac said...

The data is clear, we must repeal the 19th Amendment

Anonymous said...

Do you have a link to the actual poll? your link goes to a different question and i can't find it.

DissidentRight said...

There is no way Trump got 36% of the white vote in DC. In fact, if you told me he got 36 total white votes in DC I would be suspicious.

If he got 36% of the white vote in DC, that's pretty darn encouraging.

snorlax said...

Or discouraging if you slice it a different way.

Jim Bowery said...

There seems to be a singular lack of 2016 by State military vote data -- but there is a lot of noise about it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

R-I has filters for military service but doesn't seem to ever actually include the information in the polls they conduct. The one I'm using here, with a sample size of nearly 150,000, doesn't include military service or lack thereof, unfortunately.

Snorlax,

Yeah, you're likely correct. Similar issue with Iowa. It shows whites there going for Trump but only by the slimmest of margins. That can't be true given that he won the state by 10 points.

216,

To some extent that has already happened. I don't see any reason to expect that it will stop anytime soon. Even the state's white male population will soon be left-leaning on the whole.

Jig,

Agree completely. But I report it as I find it. I attribute it to small sample size--but even then the poll allegedly found over 100 people in DC who said they voted for Trump!

kennymac,

Or separate. That way we can all get what we want--or at least the leaders we putatively want!

Anon,

I found the poll with the largest total sample size--the one selected has been running since the beginning of 2017--and used the filters from it. I filtered to whites and then looked at how many white respondents from each state voted for Trump and for Hillary.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

Maybe there is a little revisionism in people reporting what they did, too.

My sense is Trump is going to do worse in most states in 2020 than he did in 2016. One place I actually think he'll do better, though, is DC.

216 said...

AE,

Trump should theoretically do better, given that Gary voters would return to the R fold.

A North Korea denuclearization might keep both houses of Congress in GOP hands, and replace retiring moderates with Trump loyalists.

A GOP defeat in 2020 means population replacement and gun confiscation. A Pence victory in 2020 probably means WW3. The Right's most loyal voters are aging Silents/Boomers, they will choose "muh retirement" over a breakup of the country on ethnic lines.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/is-a-second-civil-war-inevitable-if-it-is-why.407807/

Read this thread for an understanding of how difficult it would be for us to get self-determination. Forum is mostly center-left .mil/geeks.

DissidentRight said...

My sense is Trump is going to do worse in most states in 2020 than he did in 2016.

That would surprise me, but we'll see.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Agree with the general sentiment there that civil war is highly unlikely.

More likely is secession of a single state and a corresponding lack of political will or popular support to stop said state from leaving. Imagine California wants to secede--lots of Republicans' view will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" and lots of Democrats will cheer the move as a courageous repudiation of the GOP-controlled executive/congress. Similar dynamic if Dems control executive/congress and Texas wants to secede. Once either of those states goes, the Electoral College becomes unwinnable (for the Dems if California leaves, for the GOP if Texas does), and a secession cascade gets put into motion.

Kipling said...

On the subject of Californian succession; have there been any polls of the other 49 on the question? I'd imagine support might be higher outside the state than inside it.

Not seeing how it's ever going to happen but any memetic support for Czechoslovakia rather than Yugoslavia is welcome. Here's to a peaceful separation.

D'Narius said...


"Texas and fair Louisiana now have joined the fight"

From Fort Worth; "Adios, Swamp".

Yeehaa!

Jim Bowery said...

I find it rather amusing when people who are unfamiliar with modern forms of warfare venture opinions on the likelihood of a "second civil war" whatever that means to them.

Check out John Robb's blog for someone who the Joint Chiefs actually use as a consultant on questions like this. Or read his book, "Brave New War".

Audacious Epigone said...

Kipling,

None that have been done recently that I'm aware of. There is one from 2014 that I posted about several years ago that I'll probably revisit because the issue seems even more salient now than it did then.

Jim Bowery said...

Princeton, 1956: 60% of the graduating class served in the military

Princeton, 2006: 0.8% of the graduating class served

James said...

Apparently, the White males in Oregon eat too much soy. Their testosterone levels are too insignificant for them to qualify as men.