We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I am a CT native who left after college. I looked at the 2012 versus 2016 electoral results. Overall, Hillary polled 4% less than Obama. On a town by town basis, I observed an interesting trend: the poorer the town, the greater the tendency for Hillary to poll a lower percentage than Obama. The richer the town, the greater tendency for Hillary to poll a higher percentage than Obama.
The two towns in CT that most bucked that trend, with Hillary polling 16% and 18% greater than Obama, were also the towns with the highest per capita incomes in the state: New Caanan and Darien. The 10 towns that most bucked the trend, where Hillary averaged 11% greater than Obama, had an average per capita income of $76,530.
By contrast, Plainfield and Sterling, where Hillary polled 18% less than Obama- the greatest Hillary losses in the state- have an average per capita income of $25,191. The 10 towns where Hillary lost the most votes compared to Obama- where Obama averaged 16.8% greater than Hillary- had an average per capita income of $28,794.
Of the 169 towns, there were 38 towns where Obama outpolled Hillary by 10% or greater. These towns had an average per capita income of $29,505.
There was a correlation of 0.8 between Obama%-Hillary$ and Per Capita Income. That is rather strong.
Wouldn't a better comparison be D to R or independent?
I mean, pointing out the difference of democrat votes just means some people were too lazy to vote, or more invested to, in the different periods.
Your questions led me to discover that I didn't have a correct final vote tally, so I was able to add 100,000 votes, roughly 6% more, by downloading the current version from the Hartford Courant website. Interesting that Bridgeport added 20,000 votes. That makes me suspicious that there were some stuffed ballot boxes. But living in the state of Landslide Johnson may make me overly cynical.
The total vote was up by 4% over 2012, so stay-at-homes were not a bigger factor compared to 2012. Independents won 4.3% in 2016, compared to 1% in 2012. Here are the vote percentages, by candidate and by year.
If you look at the overall CT vote, it would appear that Trump didn't gain many more votes than Romney, and that Independents gained from Obama voters who didn't want to vote for Hillary. However, if you break down the vote as I did in the previous comment, into what I will call 1)Hardscrabble/Swamp Yankee Trumpists- and 2) Affluent anti-Trumpists, you find that compared to Romney, Trump gained support from the former and lost support from the latter.
There were 39 towns where Obama outpolled Hillary by 10% or greater, which I call Hardscrabble/Swamp Yankee Trumpists. These were primarily in the less affluent eastern part of CT. In these 39 towns, Trump votes were 30% greater than Romney votes. Trump got 50.1% of the vote in these towns, compared to Romney's 41.3%. Voting in these 39 towns was 7.3% greater than in 2012, higher than the CT average of 4%. These 39 towns had a slightly greater tendency than average to vote 3rd party: 5.1% versus 4.3%.
Conclusion: in the towns where Hillary did the worst compared to Obama, this was mainly a result of voters turning to Trump. In these 39 towns, Hillary got 22,000 fewer votes than Obama, while Trump got 30,000 more votes than Romney. Most of the increase in the 2016 vote compared to 2012- 18,000- went to Trump.
In the 10 towns that most bucked the trend, which I call Affluent anti-Trumpists, where Hillary averaged 11% greater than Obama, the 2016 vote was only 0.9% greater than the 2012 vote. The stay-at-home decision was greater in the towns that bucked the "fewer votes for Hillary" trend. Hillary got 17,000 more votes than Obama, while Trump got 21,000 fewer votes than Romney in these towns. There is more symmetry here fewer/more votes in 2016 compared to 2012 because there was not as much of an increase in the overall vote compared to 2012 for the Affluent Anti-Trumpist towns.
Breaking these two groups by percent vote is also interesting.
What we have is a tale of two states. Compared to 2012, the most affluent towns increased support for the Democrat candidate, while the less affluent towns increased support for the Republican candidate.
The problem is that over the years they have gotten enough poor and agendized residents into the state to win election. With about 1.5 million people voting you only have to buy off 750,000 voters with free stuff. Those citizens who work and pay huge taxes to keep the free stuff flowing have two choices: Shut up and keep paying your taxes or move to another state. My advice is to move early and beat the rush. Leave Connecticut to become the next Taxachusetts.