Why did Trump do better among Northern surburban voters, worse among southern?

[uti2]

This is something I noticed in the election results. Trump did far worse in the suburbs in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, and marginally worse in North Carolina, Florida, and even South Carolina. But he did better with suburban voters in Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and performed on performed on par in Pennsylvania. Can anyone explain why this shift occured?

Northeastern regional appeal.

[uti2]

Religion is likely a big issue here when it comes to northern whites vs. southern whites. I don't think it's regional appeal since Clinton and Trump were both New Yorkers and the fact that the Northeast didn't trend towards the GOP in 2012 for the most part (Romney was Governor of Massachusetts after all).

Trump ran a very secular campaign compared to past GOP presidents. When he started talking about God during his inauguration it me about just how little he spoke about God, Jesus, or family values on the campaign trail when compared to Romney, McCain, or Bush. This was likely a pretty big plus to whites in the northeast and upper Midwest who are much more secular than whites in the South; and also helps to explain why he did worse with suburban whites in the south vs. suburban whites in the north.

Romney is technically the former governor of MA, but he shifted further to the right in 2012 vs. 2008. Romney was also simultaneously seen to some extent as a quasi-utah candidate, rather than a proper northeasterner.

Hillary is not really seen as a New Yorker. She is just known for being associated with Bill Clinton.

[uti2]

Religion is likely a big issue here when it comes to northern whites vs. southern whites. I don't think it's regional appeal since Clinton and Trump were both New Yorkers and the fact that the Northeast didn't trend towards the GOP in 2012 for the most part (Romney was Governor of Massachusetts after all).

Trump ran a very secular campaign compared to past GOP presidents. When he started talking about God during his inauguration it me about just how little he spoke about God, Jesus, or family values on the campaign trail when compared to Romney, McCain, or Bush. This was likely a pretty big plus to whites in the northeast and upper Midwest who are much more secular than whites in the South; and also helps to explain why he did worse with suburban whites in the south vs. suburban whites in the north.

Romney is technically the former governor of MA, but he shifted further to the right in 2012 vs. 2008. Romney was also simultaneously seen to some extent as a quasi-utah candidate, rather than a proper northeasterner.

Hillary is not really seen as a New Yorker. She is just known for being associated with Bill Clinton.

She was senator of New York for nearly an entire decade.

She bought a house in NY in 1999, became a senator from NY state in 2000 and lived in DC for 8 years. After that, she took another DC job as SOS. If she had stayed on as senator rather than taking the SOS job, or had become governor, she would have been more of a New Yorker.

Clintonism as an ideology just happens to be popular in the northeast. There are many 'Democrats for social reasons'.

Romney, as I mentioned, was seen as a sort of Utah candidate.

[uti2]

Religion is likely a big issue here when it comes to northern whites vs. southern whites. I don't think it's regional appeal since Clinton and Trump were both New Yorkers and the fact that the Northeast didn't trend towards the GOP in 2012 for the most part (Romney was Governor of Massachusetts after all).

Trump ran a very secular campaign compared to past GOP presidents. When he started talking about God during his inauguration it me about just how little he spoke about God, Jesus, or family values on the campaign trail when compared to Romney, McCain, or Bush. This was likely a pretty big plus to whites in the northeast and upper Midwest who are much more secular than whites in the South; and also helps to explain why he did worse with suburban whites in the south vs. suburban whites in the north.

Romney is technically the former governor of MA, but he shifted further to the right in 2012 vs. 2008. Romney was also simultaneously seen to some extent as a quasi-utah candidate, rather than a proper northeasterner.

Hillary is not really seen as a New Yorker. She is just known for being associated with Bill Clinton.

She was senator of New York for nearly an entire decade.

She bought a house in NY in 1999, became a senator from NY state in 2000 and lived in DC for 8 years. After that, she took another DC job as SOS. If she had stayed on as senator rather than taking the SOS job, or had become governor, she would have been more of a New Yorker.

Clintonism as an ideology just happens to be popular in the northeast. There are many 'Democrats for social reasons'.

Romney, as I mentioned, was seen as a sort of Utah candidate.

A Utah candidate who got a lower percentage of the vote than the non-Mormon George Bush did in 2004 in Utah itself.

It's pretty clear that "regional appeal" wasn't as big of a factor here as you're making it out to be. The Northeast trended Republican from 2000-2016 (two southern candidates in 2000 vs. two northeastern candidates in 2016) while the southwest and parts of the south trended Democrat from 2000-2016. Regional appeal didn't have some big effect.

Actually, Romney got a higher percentage in Utah.

You mentioned religion as an issue, that's part of how northeastern culture operates. Romney wasn't really seen as a part of that culture.