Dan McLaughlin:
We will soon enough be leaving behind the 2016 election and entering the era of the Trump Administration, but now that the popular votes have all finally been counted, it’s worth running a few more times through what we can learn from the numbers. Today’s lesson: the historically unusual dependence of Hillary Clinton on the voters in a single state, California.
As you’ve undoubtedly heard by now, Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.86 million votes (48.2% to 46.1%), due entirely to a 4.27 million vote margin of victory in California, which she carried by more than a 30-point margin (61.7% to 31.6%). Her margin in California was a million votes wider than Obama’s in 2008, the previous record for the largest margin in a single state. In fact, only five times in U.S. history has a candidate won a state by 2 million or more votes: after Hillary and Obama ‘08 (3.26 million), we have Obama ‘12 in California (3.01 million), LBJ in New York in 1964 (2.67 million) and Obama in New York in 2008 (2.05 million). Excluding 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt won California and took almost all the state’s Republican voters from President Taft, Trump’s 31.7% of the vote was the lowest by any Republican in California since 1856, and the lowest by any major-party candidate there since 1920.
Outside California, Trump outdistanced Hillary by 1.41 million votes, 47.8% to 46.6%. As I have noted before, Hillary’s support was so geographically narrow that she won a popular vote majority in only 13 states (plus DC), the fewest of any major-party candidate since Bob Dole, barely half as many as Obama four years ago. Bill Clinton in 1992 is the only candidate since World War II to win the election without winning a majority in at least 15 states. Trump, who won a majority of the vote in 23 states and won 7 of the 10 largest states, nonetheless had his support spread out much more broadly: his largest total margins of victory were in Texas (807,000 votes) and Tennessee (652,000 votes). By contrast, Hillary also won New York by 1.73 million, Illinois by 944,000, Massachusetts by 904,000, and Maryland by 734,000.
What I wondered, looking at these numbers, was how historically rare it was to see a candidate’s support as concentrated in a single state as Hillary’s. It turns out that it’s rare in post-WWII America, but the trend has varied over time more with population shifts than anything. 13.29% of Hillary’s votes came from California, the most for any candidate from a single state since we went to 50 states. The last candidate to draw more than 13% of his votes from a single state was Tom Dewey in 1944:
The chart goes back to 1880, the first election after the end of Reconstruction (I listed “51” states for elections from 1964 on that included DC). As you can see, the top 9 candidates on the list – and 11 of the top 12 – lost the election. The top 3 (Al Smith, Dewey and Wendell Willkie) all even lost New York, the state where they got the most votes. It turns out that running candidates with a geographically narrow appeal has always been a losing strategy.
That said, the predominant fact of this chart is the size of California and, before it, New York. The past century has seen a dramatic shift in the political balance of power among the states, and it’s not done yet – if we include the latest population projections at this decade’s midpoint, Florida may be ready to surpass New York in House seats and thus electoral votes (which are a state’s House seats +2), whereas a century ago, New York was ten times Florida’s size:
Read more
Read more
The Hillary Clinton Archipelago.
Do people really think these voters ought to dictate to our bread basket about how to run the country?
Have they seen how CA’s breadbasket is doing under their rule?
@Nanny G: Read that California had opened an embassy in Moscow (though I’m not sure that was not ‘fake news’) but it would be appropriate, maybe Russia will allow them to become a state in Russia after leaving the US. One of the conditions of leaving the USA should be a requirement that they build a solid wall between California and any US State. Also, since Social Security can’t be sent to foreign countries, they would either have to move to the US or forfeit any future income from SS. Any outside commerce should have to comply with all laws, such as the appropriate taxes for water, electricity, etc. Of course all US military forces should be removed from California. They want to be a foreign country, let them.
I wonder what the population of California would be after the secession? I would guess that all SS recipients would move to the US prior to the secession. California has done such a fine job handling their finances, the state is only about 125 billion is debt in a state with laws that prohibit it from running a deficit. Imagine if they are allowed to print their own money and have no laws limiting their debt. They could run up debts like Obama has. I think a vote in the US as to whether to allow them to secede would pass by a tremendous majority. It wouldn’t be like when the South actually seceded and the US went to war to force them back into the Union. We would likely fight to make sure that Cal was not allowed to come back in.
Moonbeam Brown is a blabbering poltroon and nincompoop all the way to the top of his pointed little head
California has a GDP that is 40 percent larger than that of Texas, which is apparently a state of underachieving slackers.
California’s GDP as a state ranks 7th against the world’s national economies—including that of the entire United States, minus California.
@Greg:
62% – of Democrats – hope they’re done with Hillary Clinton as a candidate
@Greg: yes, and probably about half it’s population would move out if they secede. They don’t even produce enough water or electricity to support their citizens. Other than fruits (both kinds) and vegetables, I can’t think of anything produced in California. I’ll have to read up on them, I guess. Hope they have some good wall builders. Trade has long been a major factor, but without US goods being shipped out of and into California, that should drop to near zero. Since agriculture is such a big part of economy, without them being able to buy water from the Colorado, that’s gonna kinda slow that down. I suspect a huge part of their business for a few years will be moving families out of that ‘country’ back to the US. But that’ll drop off after a while.
Yes, bring the secession bill up now. I’ll certainly vote for it.
You might start by looking up “Silicone Valley.” I understand California is also home to around 10 percent of the world’s aerospace industries, and a film industry that supports 2.4 million jobs nation-wide. It’s also our part of the Pacific Rim. It’s the nation’s largest exporting state to Asian markets.
@Greg:
I suspect I wouldn’t find much under that heading, but Silicon Valley seems to be a place where they do a lot of internet, software, engineering, and no manufacturing.
Oh, now I get it. Silicone Valley refers to that place where fruits are produced. Haha, a little sly there Greg.
@Greg:
and about zero percent of aerospace manufacturing.
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/business/T019-S010-states-with-the-fastest-job-growth-in-2016/index.html
CA barely makes 10th out of the top ten states economies in the country.
High unemployment: 5.6%
*fewer opportunities for California’s tech and other exports*
*high cost of living*
Are posters correct that welfare families will leave?
Will the homeless leave?
Will the illegals, with their underground, untaxed economy, leave?
California can’t keep up with the costs of all their people as it is, imagine if they were their own country!
They would have to print money…..like Venezuela.
@Nanny G:
But you have to have paper for that and California doesn’t have any paper mills and no money to buy paper.
@RedTeam:
@RedTeam: According to the social security website, ss benefits can be sent to foreign countries, with some exceptions.
A bigger problem for Calexit, would be that not all of the state would want to go. I imagine two discontiguous countries centered on LA and SF, with the center staying in the US.
Let those idiots in Southern Mexifornia seced we here in the State of Jefferson can do just like they did in West Virginia did Let Moonbeam rub elbows with the russkies him and his kind are triators
@RedTeam:
Hmmm….
Good point.
Maybe the nation of California could be the first to go paperless!
They hate paper!
This was part of the reason hubby retired from printing business there, inferior Chinese and Indonesian paper.
Trump might not know about this yet, but simply be agreeing that paper tar, a 100% renewable, green energy could be re-legalized for use in paper mills and America’s superior paper mills would be back in contention.
@Nanny G: Enjoy the winter
Spurwing I notice you always post in code. What country are you from?
@Jim S: I checked the SS site and you are correct in some cases. but there are a ton of laws that apply and in many, if you are eligible to receive them you still have to come to US occasionally. Many countries are excluded, many you have to be a US citizen that earned the rights yourself, not as a dependent. Seems there are thousands of laws that apply. One thing for sure, you can’t get Medicare benefits outside of the US, citizen or not.
Yes, I was looking at electoral map of california and I have to agree that the middle of the existing state would likely remain a part of the US with all foreign shipments going into and out of the US. Which means the two foreign countries wouldn’t benefit from imports and exports. The northern country could be Gayfornia and the southern part Mexifornia.