More useful regional boundaries

[WalterWhite]

The US Census Bureau has defined 4 regions of the United States: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. To divide those further, it has defined, 9 subregions of the United States: New England and Mid-Atlantic; South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central; East North Central and West North Central; and Mountain and Pacific. The exact boundaries are defined here: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf

The issue here is that these regions do not reflect the political realities of many of these states. In the South Atlantic, for instance, Delaware is very demographically and politically different from South Carolina, which is again very demographically and politically different from Florida. In the Mountain States, for instance, Montana is very demographically and politically different from Arizona. The US Census Bureau probably has its own reasons for dividing the US this way, but is there a way to group states in such a way that is more applicable to current political trends?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Since when do regional boundaries have to follow political ones? Since when are regions supposed to be homogenous entities in political terms?
Did Missouri change what region it was in when it voted for TR in 1904?

[WalterWhite]

Since when do regional boundaries have to follow political ones? Since when are regions supposed to be homogenous entities in political terms?
Did Missouri change what region it was in when it voted for TR in 1904?

I do not think every state in a region has to vote the same way. I do think, however, that regional boundaries should indicate common political characteristics between states. In other words, in a given election, most or all of the states in a given region should generally shift by the same amount in the same direction for the same reason.

[CookieDamage]

The only things I would change would maybe be putting Delaware and Maryland in the northeast. They were historically southern and slave states until the Civil War, but I think today, economically and socially they are both tied to the northeast than the south.

Everything else belongs where

[RINO Tom]

Since when do regional boundaries have to follow political ones? Since when are regions supposed to be homogenous entities in political terms?
Did Missouri change what region it was in when it voted for TR in 1904?

I do not think every state in a region has to vote the same way. I do think, however, that regional boundaries should indicate common political characteristics between states. In other words, in a given election, most or all of the states in a given region should generally shift by the same amount in the same direction for the same reason.

This is such a bizarre take.  Absolutely nobody in Chicago would deny being from the Midwest nor would anyone from rural Iowa ... and neither person would see a conflict with both CLEARLY being Midwestern even though they vote differently.  It's fine to include cultural differences - for example, I think Maryland and Delaware have mostly shifted into being Northeastern states at this point, but that took DECADES, not a couple elections of voting differently - but politics alone shouldn't really be considered ... that's a hyper-Atlas take, haha.  You could of course dig deeper if you went beyond state borders (e.g., Richmond, VA is clearly the "Cultural South," but I'd entertain the idea that NOVA is not), but if we are grouping entire states ... I would personally go with this:



THE SOUTH
Darkest: The Deep South.  I entertained grouping the Carolinas together, but the inclusion of Virginia in that category made me want to put SC in the "most Southern" group.
Regular Green: Appalachian/Border South.  Only parts of these states are "Appalachian," but they share a culture that while distinct from the Deep Southern states is still undeniably Southern when compared to the Midwestern and Northeastern states that they border.
Light Green: Southwest (Southern Portion).  These states have areas in the east that are very clearly culturally part of the South, and - most importantly - as a whole they fit into the South better than any one region.
Lightest Green: Coastal/Peripheral South.  All of these states have VERY culturally Southern areas as well as areas that either (A) are filled with non-Southern transplants, (B) developed their own subcultures that are not really Southern or (C) both.  At a STATEWIDE level, all are very clearly part of the South ... but they are unique within the region (especially Florida and Virginia).

THE NORTHEAST
Darkest Red: New England.  Pretty much explains itself and one of the best-defined regions in the US.  At a county level, you could argue that Southwestern Connecticut could belong in the same category as New York.
Regular Red: NYC Orbit and/or Mid-Atlantic (Northern Portion).  You could really just read this as the non-New England part of the Northeast, but I really thought Maryland, Delaware and DC deserved their own category.
Lightest Red: Lower Mid-Atlantic.  Yep, pretty much what used to be considered the South but due to DC being the capital and getting less culturally Southern with the decades has rendered this as a sort of transition zone from the Northeast to the South.  I'm actually perfectly fine with the Census calling it the South for historical reasons and because this is a GEOGRAPHIC designation, but it also fits nicely with the Northeast.

THE MIDWEST
Darkest Blue: Big Ten Country.  This is the true core of the Midwest in nearly every way, and nobody questions if these states are "Midwestern."  I will say, though, that if this were at a county level, I would consider some select counties in Southern Illinois and possibly Southern Indiana as "culturally Southern" for various historic reasons, including having segregated schools well past the rest of their states and intense Confederate sympathies.
Regular Blue: The Great Plains.  On one hand, this is almost as clearly defined as New England ... but on the other, it's a transition zone like MD-DE-DC from the Midwest to the West.  Using KS as an example, people view the KC suburbs as clearly Midwestern, if with a little more "Western" flavor ... but western Kansas is starting to feel like the West.
Lightest Blue: I'm biased as a Midwesterner (i.e., I know more about our region and will thus maybe analyze it with more nuance), but Missouri really is its own beast.  Kansas City feels like part of the Plains, St. Louis feels similar to "Big Ten Country" (if with slight Southern influences) and the southern half of the state has VERY clear cultural and historical ties to the South, including everything from Southern Baptists outnumbering Mainline Protestants to being a slave state.

THE WEST
Darkest Gold: The West Coast.  A lot of variety within these states (especially as you move away from the literal coasts), and you could honestly split it up between the "Pacific Northwest" and just California, lol.  I also considered adding Nevada.
Yellow: Mountain West.  This region would extend into AZ and NM if it were at a county level, but I think these states are pretty easily defined here.
Light Yellow: The Southwest (Western Portion).  Again, I feel like the Southwest kind of strattles the West and the South, and these are the states that are clearly Western as a whole.
Lightest Yellow: Alaska and Hawaii are not really in any regions, haha.

States are very complex, and that is okay.  All of Illinois is in the geographic region of the Midwest.  However, the cultural boundaries fluctuate quite a lot.  Chicago speaks for itself as a unique culture, and that absolutely does not include the suburbs, haha.  While both in the broad region of "Downstate Illinois" and similarly sized industrial cities, Rockford has clear influences from Wisconsin that Peoria does not.  Truly Southern Illinois, which has the Shawnee National Forest and literal swamp land rather than the cornfields you might be imagining, might as well be Dixie.

[muon2]

Since when do regional boundaries have to follow political ones? Since when are regions supposed to be homogenous entities in political terms?
Did Missouri change what region it was in when it voted for TR in 1904?

I do not think every state in a region has to vote the same way. I do think, however, that regional boundaries should indicate common political characteristics between states. In other words, in a given election, most or all of the states in a given region should generally shift by the same amount in the same direction for the same reason.

This is such a bizarre take.  Absolutely nobody in Chicago would deny being from the Midwest nor would anyone from rural Iowa ... and neither person would see a conflict with both CLEARLY being Midwestern even though they vote differently.  It's fine to include cultural differences - for example, I think Maryland and Delaware have mostly shifted into being Northeastern states at this point, but that took DECADES, not a couple elections of voting differently - but politics alone shouldn't really be considered ... that's a hyper-Atlas take, haha.  You could of course dig deeper if you went beyond state borders (e.g., Richmond, VA is clearly the "Cultural South," but I'd entertain the idea that NOVA is not), but if we are grouping entire states ... I would personally go with this:



THE SOUTH
Darkest: The Deep South.  I entertained grouping the Carolinas together, but the inclusion of Virginia in that category made me want to put SC in the "most Southern" group.
Regular Green: Appalachian/Border South.  Only parts of these states are "Appalachian," but they share a culture that while distinct from the Deep Southern states is still undeniably Southern when compared to the Midwestern and Northeastern states that they border.
Light Green: Southwest (Southern Portion).  These states have areas in the east that are very clearly culturally part of the South, and - most importantly - as a whole they fit into the South better than any one region.
Lightest Green: Coastal/Peripheral South.  All of these states have VERY culturally Southern areas as well as areas that either (A) are filled with non-Southern transplants, (B) developed their own subcultures that are not really Southern or (C) both.  At a STATEWIDE level, all are very clearly part of the South ... but they are unique within the region (especially Florida and Virginia).

THE NORTHEAST
Darkest Red: New England.  Pretty much explains itself and one of the best-defined regions in the US.  At a county level, you could argue that Southwestern Connecticut could belong in the same category as New York.
Regular Red: NYC Orbit and/or Mid-Atlantic (Northern Portion).  You could really just read this as the non-New England part of the Northeast, but I really thought Maryland, Delaware and DC deserved their own category.
Lightest Red: Lower Mid-Atlantic.  Yep, pretty much what used to be considered the South but due to DC being the capital and getting less culturally Southern with the decades has rendered this as a sort of transition zone from the Northeast to the South.  I'm actually perfectly fine with the Census calling it the South for historical reasons and because this is a GEOGRAPHIC designation, but it also fits nicely with the Northeast.

THE MIDWEST
Darkest Blue: Big Ten Country.  This is the true core of the Midwest in nearly every way, and nobody questions if these states are "Midwestern."  I will say, though, that if this were at a county level, I would consider some select counties in Southern Illinois and possibly Southern Indiana as "culturally Southern" for various historic reasons, including having segregated schools well past the rest of their states and intense Confederate sympathies.
Regular Blue: The Great Plains.  On one hand, this is almost as clearly defined as New England ... but on the other, it's a transition zone like MD-DE-DC from the Midwest to the West.  Using KS as an example, people view the KC suburbs as clearly Midwestern, if with a little more "Western" flavor ... but western Kansas is starting to feel like the West.
Lightest Blue: I'm biased as a Midwesterner (i.e., I know more about our region and will thus maybe analyze it with more nuance), but Missouri really is its own beast.  Kansas City feels like part of the Plains, St. Louis feels similar to "Big Ten Country" (if with slight Southern influences) and the southern half of the state has VERY clear cultural and historical ties to the South, including everything from Southern Baptists outnumbering Mainline Protestants to being a slave state.

THE WEST
Darkest Gold: The West Coast.  A lot of variety within these states (especially as you move away from the literal coasts), and you could honestly split it up between the "Pacific Northwest" and just California, lol.  I also considered adding Nevada.
Yellow: Mountain West.  This region would extend into AZ and NM if it were at a county level, but I think these states are pretty easily defined here.
Light Yellow: The Southwest (Western Portion).  Again, I feel like the Southwest kind of strattles the West and the South, and these are the states that are clearly Western as a whole.
Lightest Yellow: Alaska and Hawaii are not really in any regions, haha.

States are very complex, and that is okay.  All of Illinois is in the geographic region of the Midwest.  However, the cultural boundaries fluctuate quite a lot.  Chicago speaks for itself as a unique culture, and that absolutely does not include the suburbs, haha.  While both in the broad region of "Downstate Illinois" and similarly sized industrial cities, Rockford has clear influences from Wisconsin that Peoria does not.  Truly Southern Illinois, which has the Shawnee National Forest and literal swamp land rather than the cornfields you might be imagining, might as well be Dixie.

Much as MD and DE have moved away from the cultural south, I think other states are much lass southern now than they were when the Census set up its divisions. I do agree that political leanings are not a good basis for regions, but instead one should look at language and culture. Here are three other states that are misplaced in the south.

WV: I've been to every county in WV and the north half (basically CD 2) is not southern at all. Its best match is western PA. Even in the south half, areas like Huntington fit better with the north than the south. My inclination is to attach it to wherever PA is.

TX: Except for the Piney Woods and the Houston area, none of this state is southern. Parts are a southern extension of the Plains, but more than anything this is a part of the Southwest with AZ and NM.

OK: The hill country in the eastern third is what is left of Southern culture in OK. OKC feels as much Plains Midwestern as KC. However, my most recent visits make me feel that OK is becoming more and more Southwestern like TX and losing its Plains feel like KS.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

These are not meant to be any serious culture signifiers, but merely administrative regions