Read on Twitter
1) Two interesting maps of Ohio from the NY Times' fascinating Extremely Detailed Map of the 2020 Election. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html
2) Here are the final 2020 results in Ohio.
The overall pattern is familiar: the largest cities are blue, the inner suburbs are blue-to-pink, the outer suburbs are reddish, and the rural areas are red.
The overall pattern is familiar: the largest cities are blue, the inner suburbs are blue-to-pink, the outer suburbs are reddish, and the rural areas are red.
3) What is most interesting to me is the shift from 2016 to 2020. As in the rest of the country, the largest cities shifted slightly red, the suburbs shifted blue, and the rural area shifted even redder.
4) When you dive a little deeper, the shifts are even more nuanced. The blue-collar portions of the urban areas (city and suburb) shifted redder, while the white-collar portions shifted bluer.
5) If you know Ohio geography, you can see it from even this scale:
the affluent, white-collar suburbs were the ones that shifted blue (eastern Cleveland, northern Cincinnati, northern Columbus, southeast Dayton, northern Akron, western Toledo)
the affluent, white-collar suburbs were the ones that shifted blue (eastern Cleveland, northern Cincinnati, northern Columbus, southeast Dayton, northern Akron, western Toledo)
6) The blue shift was virtually nonexistent in the heavily blue-collar suburbs, many of which shifted red.
The inner cities shifted red as well, but to a lesser extent than many other parts of the country, partly because the Latino population in Ohio is very small.
The inner cities shifted red as well, but to a lesser extent than many other parts of the country, partly because the Latino population in Ohio is very small.
7) Ohio has a far higher proportion of blue-collar suburbs to white-collar suburbs than most states its size. The share of affluent, professional class voters is lower.
Consequently, all of these shifts were a complete wash, and the end result was identical to 2016: Trump +8.
Consequently, all of these shifts were a complete wash, and the end result was identical to 2016: Trump +8.
8) You can read more (if interested) about what I think this continued divergence between professional-class and working-class voters means for places like Ohio, here: https://eig.org/news/the-post-election-view-from-northeast-ohio
9) An illuminating contrast to Ohio in the 2016/2020 shift is metro D.C.
Nearly everywhere shifted blue, because there are virtually no blue-collar suburbs here. The blue shift was most muted in the least white, least professional-class place: Prince George's County.
Nearly everywhere shifted blue, because there are virtually no blue-collar suburbs here. The blue shift was most muted in the least white, least professional-class place: Prince George's County.
10) You can see this same working class/professional class divergence in New York.
The least white, least professional class places (the Bronx, much of Queens, portions of Brooklyn) shifted the most heavily red, while the professional class portions of L.I. went bluer.
The least white, least professional class places (the Bronx, much of Queens, portions of Brooklyn) shifted the most heavily red, while the professional class portions of L.I. went bluer.
12) People dismissing these trends with the hand-wavy (true) statement that Biden still won these areas by a lot are ignoring how political realignments actually happen. They take multiple election cycles to build enough momentum to regularly make a difference in the outcome.
13) The 2016-2020 non-white working class shift could come to nothing in the end.
It could also alter the political trajectory of the country for a generation or more. No one knows yet. But to act like the latter outcome is impossible is to whistle past the graveyard.
It could also alter the political trajectory of the country for a generation or more. No one knows yet. But to act like the latter outcome is impossible is to whistle past the graveyard.
