Did Trump set a new trend in the Rust Belt?

[RINO Tom]

They were always swing states, it's just funny how their characterizations have changed.  In 2012, they were too cosmopolitan and enlightened to vote for a barbaric and Southernized GOP; now they're "WWC" wastelands stuck in the 1950s, toiling away complaining about NAFTA.  Same states both times, of course, and Trump kept most of the traditional coalition in tact in all of those states ... he added voters, but he didn't lose them like everyone is claiming:

SUBURBS:
MI: Trump 53%-42%
OH: Trump 57%-37%
WI: Trump 55%-39%

TOP INCOME BRACKET
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 57%-39%
WI: Trump 50%-44%

WHITE COLLEGE GRADS:
MI: Trump 51%-43%
OH: Trump 59%-34%
WI: Clinton 53%-41%

There were obviously some unusual trends in this election, but Trump (largely) dominated traditional GOP demographics in these states, as WELL as adding new voters who hadn't voted Republican in the past ... so maybe, just maybe, this was less of a realignment and more of a case of the Democrats nominating a God-awful nominee who couldn't excite the party's own voters, much less attract enough new ones.

[RINO Tom]

He likely did, but that trend is being offset by a very rapid D-trend in the electoral vote-rich Sunbelt.

And the upper-class white suburbs too.

A lot of these places had never voted Democratic until you threw Trump vs. Clinton at them ... LBJ won a lot of places against Goldwater that Humphrey would go on to lose, so let's not make this huge assumption based off of one election.  LOL, I honestly think you guys just get overly excited about the idea of a realignment because there'd be less to talk about without one.