Commentor TnnsNe1 did some research. Thanks! I didn’t realize, until the moment I saw it, that I had been wanting to know.
From ESPN: “If you are a city in America, you are a racist city,” (Michael) Smith stated.
So, I did a bit of research (all figures by county) on the election results. Here are the results for the 15 most populated urban areas:
NYC Clinton 82%
LA Clinton 72%
Chicago Clinton 84%
Houston Clinton 48%
Philadelphia Clinton 82%
Phoenix -Trump- 48%
San Antonio Clinton 54%
San Diego Clinton 57%
Dallas Clinton 61%
San Jose Clinton 73%
Austin Clinton 66%
Jacksonville -Trump- 48%
San Francisco Clinton 85%
Indianapolis Clinton 58%
Columbus Clinton 60%
Emphasis added (because I just didn’t see, when I first read it). We can re-order it by Clinton’s percentage:
San Francisco 85%
Chicago 84%
NYC 82%
Philadelphia 82%
San Jose 73%
LA 72%
Austin 66%
Dallas 61%
Columbus 60%
Indianapolis 58%
San Diego 57%
San Antonio 54%
Houston 48%
Phoenix under 48%
Jacksonville under 48%
Given the premise that a vote for Hillary was a vote for the worst human being in that 4-way race, my guess would be that people are
- reasonable in Phoenix, Jacksonville, Houston, San Antonio.
- And less so in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, San Jose, Los Angeles.
I’m not shocked that California has many of America’s less-reasonable people.
Finally, I must point out that this is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College: so that America’s large cities – what with their numbers, kraziness and groupthink – would not have an overpowering influence in choosing the President (nor in the Senate).
This proves that you’d have to be crazy to live in a city.
Trump is a NYC guy. His results in NYC aren’t so shocking.
I’m surprised Washington, DC wasn’t on the list. (I would guess overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.) Maybe because the population in the District isn’t that large, although the metropolitan area, with counties and cities in two states plus the District does add up.
I am agree that this is indeed why the Electoral College was invented–and why it should stay in place.
Here’s are a couple of maps where one can compare POTUS voting patterns with murder stats.
Think of it what you will.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-could-it-be.html
And there’s the wonder at an ESPN commentator speaking on this… I don’t watch ESPN at all but I hear they’re circling the drain. And, by gum, they can’t figure out why.
Clinton received about 82% of the vote in NYC, not 59%,
I’m surprised Boston wasn’t on that list.
#5.. you are correct. I mistakenly used the number for NY state.
#6 Boston is not one of the top 15 cities.
I only had time at work to loo at 15 areas. Good thing my boss is not a Clinton fan.
That, in one small stat, encapsulates everything about Election 2016. The person who achieved those remarkable stats could only muster 59% of the vote in an entire state which elected her to the US Senate. That’s a poorer showing than George McGovern got in South Dakota in 1972. It’s even worse if one views the county stats for The Empire State. What do 41% of New Yorkers know about Hillary Clinton that the rest of the country doesn’t? Shouldn’t they have been so proud to send yet another New Yorker (albeit a carpetbagging one) to the White House, especially one who would have made
historyherstory?And yet the apologists in her fan club continue to maintain she was cheated, like Merrick Garland, to her rightful place in government service.
Thanks guys, I have edited the post to show NYC at 82%.