HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » " Clinton, in other words...

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:29 AM

" Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy."

An interesting stat from the election.

Donald Trump lost most of the American economy in this election

By Jim Tankersley November 22

In the modern era of presidential politics, no candidate has ever won the popular vote by more than Hillary Clinton did this year, yet still managed to lose the electoral college. In that sense, 2016 was a historic split: Donald Trump won the presidency by as much as 74 electoral votes (depending on how Michigan ends up) while losing the nationwide vote to Clinton by 1.7 million votes and counting.

But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.

The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.


Here's how the researchers, at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, visualized that. You can see immediately what's going on: With the exceptions of the Phoenix and Fort Worth areas, and a big chunk of Long Island, Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country.


(Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program)

This appears to be unprecedented, in the era of modern economic statistics, for a losing presidential candidate. The last candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, Democrat Al Gore in 2000, won counties that generated about 54 percent of the country's gross domestic product, the Brookings researchers calculated. That's true even though Gore won more than 100 more counties in 2000 than Clinton did in 2016.

In between those elections, U.S. economic activity has grown increasingly concentrated in large, “superstar” metro areas, such as Silicon Valley and New York.

But it's not the case that the counties Clinton won have grown richer at the expense of the rest of the country — they represent about the same share of the economy today as they did in 2000. Instead, it appears that, compared to Gore, Clinton was much more successful in winning over the most successful counties in a geographically unbalanced economy.


3 replies, 1459 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply " Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy." (Original post)
riversedge Nov 2016 OP
Aristus Nov 2016 #1
Tommy2Tone Nov 2016 #2
Cha Nov 2016 #3

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:06 AM

1. In other words, the losers, the moochers, and the deadbeats voted for Trump.

I knew that already.

The Duck Dynasty crowd have inflicted their President upon the rest of us...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Aristus (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 01:04 PM

2. Worst to me is a majority of white women voted for him

No wonder white men are a problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Wed Nov 30, 2016, 02:48 AM

3. Wow.. thank you for this, rivers..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread