December 20, 2016 | By Richard C. Longworth

Landslide Cities and 2016's Big Sort

The Democratic Party may have lost the 2016 presidential election but it solidified its hold on America’s major cities. While losing the Electoral College vote, Hillary Clinton matched or even exceeded Barack Obama’s landslide margins in these cities in the two previous elections.

From Boston to Los Angeles, in the Pacific Northwest as in the Deep South, cities are becoming ever more the isolated but still potent bastions of Democratic politics.

It is all part of what Texas author Bill Bishop called “the big sort” – the dramatic grouping of America into geographical enclaves where the overwhelming majority thinks and votes alike. In 1976, only 26 percent of all counties were what he called “landslide counties,” where presidential candidates won by 20 percentage points or more. In a recent article, Bishop said that no less than 60.4 percent of all counties are “landslide counties” now – hundreds of rural counties among them but America’s biggest cities, too.

For decades, post-election maps have graphically displayed the changing American political landscape, with the Republican Party commanding a vast red-colored sweep of America, while Democrats ruled the blue dots that represented the densely populated cities. The post-election maps this year made it clear that the red tide is rising and the blue dots shrinking – but that’s only in area, not population or political importance.  

President Obama swept major cities by margins of 30 to 40, even 50, points in 2008 and 2012. It would have seemed impossible for Clinton to do better, especially in a losing effort nationally. But in many cities, that’s what she did. In the rest, she came close. For instance:

  • Obama won Boston in 2008 by 77 percent to John McCain’s 21 percent, and again in 2016 by 77 percent to Mitt Romney’s 20 percent. Clinton won this year by 79 percent to Donald Trump’s 16 percent. (The results for Boston and for other cities in this report are not for the cities themselves but for their counties, which they all dominate.* In most states, available election returns are broken out by county, not by city. But available city statistics indicate the margins there are even starker. The city of Boston, for instance, went for Clinton by 81.7 percent to Trump’s 14.2 percent.)
  • Los Angeles voted for Obama for 69 percent to 29 percent in 2008, by 68 percent to 29 percent in 2012, and for Clinton by 71 percent to 23 percent.
  • Denver voted for Obama by 75 percent to 23 percent in 2008 and by 73 percent to 24 percent in 2012. It went for Clinton by 75 percent to 18 percent.
  • Atlanta voted for Obama by 67 percent to 32 percent in 2008 and by 64 percent to 34 percent in 2012. This year, it went for Clinton by 69 percent to 27 percent.
  • Seattle voted for Obama by 70 percent to 28 percent in 2008, and by 68 percent to 28 percent in 2012. It went for Clinton by 72 percent to 21 percent.
  • Miami voted for Obama in 2008 by 58 percent to 42 percent and in 2012 by 61 percent to 37 percent. Clinton did even better, beating Trump there by 63 percent to 34 percent.

In some major cities Clinton failed to top Obama’s winning margins, but not by much. For instance:

  • Obama won New York City by 79 percent to 20 percent in 2008 and by a huge 81 percent to 17 percent in 2012. Clinton took the city by 79 percent to 18 percent.
  • Similarly, Obama won Chicago in 2008 by 74 percent to 24 percent and then by 76 percent to 23 percent in 2012. Clinton won Chicago by 74 percent to 21 percent.

Even in some major cities that Clinton lost, she closed the Republican gap. In Phoenix, McCain beat Obama by 53 percent to 44 percent. Romney beat the president in 2012 by 55 percent to 43 percent. Clinton lost Phoenix, too, but only by 49 percent to 45 percent.

Trump beat Clinton by nearly ten percentage points in Texas – but Clinton outpolled Obama in the state’s major cities:

  • In Dallas, Obama won the city by 57 to 42 percent in 2008 and by 57 percent to 41 percent in 2012. Clinton turned Dallas into a landslide – 61 percent to 34 percent.
  • Houston barely went for Obama, by 51 percent to 49 percent in 2008. He and Romney virtually tied in Houston in 2012. But Clinton easily beat Trump there, by 54 percent to 41 percent.
  • Austin, always more reliably Democratic, voted for Obama by 64 percent to 35 percent in 2008 and by 60 percent to 36 percent in 2012. It voted for Clinton by 66 percent to 27 percent.

 

In the Midwestern states that put Trump over the top, Clinton’s strength slipped slightly in major cities. She won Des Moines by 52 percent to 40 percent, well down on Obama’s 2012 margin of 56 percent to 42 percent. Detroit had gone to Obama in 2008 by 74 percent to 25 percent, but Clinton won the city by only 66 percent to 29 percent.  Similarly, Cleveland, which had given Obama identical margins of 69 percent to 30 percent in the two previous elections, voted for Clinton by 66 percent to 30 percent.

Clinton lost Ohio mostly because old industrial cities such as Dayton and Youngstown, which had gone solidly for Obama in 2008 and 21012, went for Trump this year. But in the state capital of Columbus, Clinton won by 60 percent to 34 percent, slightly up on Obama’s winning margins of 59 percent to 40 percent in 2008 and 60 percent to 38 percent in 2012.

Bishop’s 2008 book, The Big Sort, argued that Americans are deliberately sorting themselves into like-minded communities, where more and more people earn similar salaries, go to the same church, hold the same values, and vote the same way. Increasingly, he said, a majority of Americans have arranged their lives so they don’t have to hear something with which they disagree. And per his post-election update, that sorting is growing.

In 2004, he said, 48.7 percent of all voters in central cities lives in landslide counties: now, it’s up to 65.6 percent. Similarly, in 2004, 58.7 percent of all rural voters lived in landslide counties: now it’s up to an overwhelming 80.3 percent – the reason for all that red coloring on the nation’s political map.

Big city suburbs are more balanced, Bishop wrote. In 2004, 50.5 percent of suburban voters lived in landslide counties. In the next two elections, this dropped to about 44 percent. In the last election, it soared to 54.6 percent.

In 2004, 48.7 percent of voters in small cities – metro areas with fewer than 250,000 population -- lived in landslide counties: now it’s 64.7 percent. In rural areas near cities, the percentage of voters living in landslide counties has gone up from 52.7 percent in 2004 to 75 percent now, almost as dramatic as the percentage in more remote rural areas.

Bishop said the 2016 results showed a strong shift from Democrats to Republicans in small cities and rural counties.

In 2004, he said, President Bush got more than 40 percent of the votes in central cities. This year, Trump’s percentage of the central city vote was down to 32 percent. By contrast, Bush got 60 percent of the rural vote in 2004: Trump got nearly 65 percent.

More people are moving to cities, which is good news for Democratic candidates in 2020 and beyond. But with the electoral college weighted in favor of smaller states, this shift might not be enough to outweigh the growing Republican strength in rural areas and smaller cities.

 

* Note: The 2008 results cited here are taken from official results for each state posted by The New York Times. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/president/texas.html is an example for Texas. For 2012 and 2016, I have relied on Politico for the best and clearest official results. See http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/texas/ for 2012 and http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/texas/ for 2016, again both for Texas, as an example; other states are similarly shown.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads: Russia's Crimea Campaign Enters the Kerch Strait

A recent incident between Russia and Ukraine in the Kerch Strait may seem minor, but the stakes are real. If this action by Russia goes unpunished, it could pave the way for Russia to take more territory in eastern Ukraine to establish a land-bridge between Russia and Crimea, which President Vladimir Putin illegally annexed in 2014.


| By Brian Hanson, Gregory Johnsen

Deep Dish: The War in Yemen

The war in Yemen has created one of the greatest unseen humanitarian tragedies in the world. It finally drew public attention after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, which triggered a debate about US involvement in the war.



| By Iain Whitaker

Podium Notes: 20 Eye-Opening Stats From the Council's 2018 Programs

Trade wars, false missile warnings, "babble fish earbuds", and Germany's World Cup whimper: 2018 was a year that sometimes defined description, at least in words. But the numbers tell a story of their own, so here's a smattering of startling stats mentioned on the Council's stage in 2018. To view the full clip, click on the numbers! (These figures were stated by guest speakers and have not been verified by the Council)




| By Iain Whitaker

Podium Notes: Happy Birthday Illinois

Illinois has had an outsize influence on the world, and on the occasion of the bicentennial it seems worthy of a recap.



| By Rory Stewart, Sebastian Mallaby

Deep Dish: Brexit Heads to Parliament

Now that EU leaders have accepted the Brexit deal, it's up to Parliament to decide what happens next. Rory Stewart and Sebastian Mallaby join Phil Levy to discuss.



| By Simon Curtis

Global Cities in the International System: A New Era of Governance

Nation-states need quickly to realize the potential of global cities, and take steps to empower them to meet the global challenges of the twenty-first century. They should allow them more fiscal autonomy and give them a louder, more influential voice in the deliberations of international organizations.


| By Robert Muggah, Sheila Foster

It's Time for Cities to Flex Their Soft Power

Cities, not nation-states, are the dominant unit of human organization in the twenty-first century. Humanity has shifted from a predominantly rural to urban species in a startlingly short period of time. The world today is stitched together by thousands of small, medium, and large cities—including 31 mega-cities, depending on how you define them—that are dramatically transforming our political, social, and economic relations. Yet, despite the centrality of cities in modern life and to resolving critical global challenges, our international affairs are still dominated by nation-states. This status quo is no longer acceptable.



| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads: The US-China Collision at APEC

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit became a flashpoint in what's now the most significant great power clash since the end of the Cold War. “China and the United States hijacked the APEC spirit,” one diplomat said.


This Week's Reads - A Return to the Interwar Era

French President Emmanuel Macron's speech Sunday sounded more like desperation than hope, afraid that we may have already turned the corner into a world full of nationalism, populism, and competition.