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

[super6646]

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 compared to Romney. But he did better with suburban voters in Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and performed on par with Romney in Pennsylvania. Can anyone explain why this shift occured?

[super6646]

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?

Wait--- what?

I don't think Trump performed better among Northern suburban voters than among Southern suburban voters overall....

I believe there was a greater swing towards Trump among Upper-Income Southern suburban voters than among Northern suburban voters.

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by "suburban voters" so we can all discuss with a common understanding, as well as better/worse. Are we talking swings or overall Rep vote % / Margins?

Is the definition of suburban based upon Exit Polling or Census based MSA type statistics?

I mean compared to Romney. I couldn't fit it inside the title, so I had to stick with what I said. I'll add it to the OP.

[super6646]

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?

New York-That's true Trump did win the 18th Congressional District in New York in the Hudson Valley area of the state. He performed as well as a generic Republican Presidential Candidate would in Nassau County and he did win Suffolk County.

New Jersey-He did well in Southern Jersey(Jersey Shore/Philly Burb's) for the most part but not so well in the Northern Half of the state especially the Northeastern part of the state. I do wonder if he overperformed a bit in the Southern half of the state because of his business presence in Atlantic City for a number of years.

Michigan-That's true he did do well in Detroit Burb's but didn't do so well in Ann Arbor where "The University of Michigan" is. He did performed as well as a generic Republican Presidential Candidate would in Oakland County. He won Macomb and Saginaw Counties.

Ohio-He did well in counties around Franklin County(but not in) where "Ohio State University" is located. He nearly won Lorain County(a suburb of Cleveland.)

Pennsylvania-He was close to winning Buck County but didn't win it in the Philly Burb's. He didn't win Chester County which has only gone D in Presidential Elections 4 times since 1888. He did good in counties that surrounded Allegheny County(home of Pittsburgh.) I think he didn't do as bad as a Generic Republican Candidate would in Delaware and Montgomery Counties I don't think in the Philly Burb's.

I mean't to say compared to Romney. Added that to the OP.

[super6646]

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?

Wait--- what?

I don't think Trump performed better among Northern suburban voters than among Southern suburban voters overall....

I believe there was a greater swing towards Trump among Upper-Income Southern suburban voters than among Northern suburban voters.

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by "suburban voters" so we can all discuss with a common understanding, as well as better/worse. Are we talking swings or overall Rep vote % / Margins?

Is the definition of suburban based upon Exit Polling or Census based MSA type statistics?

I mean compared to Romney. I couldn't fit it inside the title, so I had to stick with what I said. I'll add it to the OP.

Aaah... ok super6646, I think I get it now, and makes a bit more sense, if one compares it against Romney '12 numbers.

So in Atlas speak we have "swings" (Change in total % margin between the two major party candidates) and "trends" (How the state/county/city... etc) compares to the National/Statewide % margin.

Not trying to be condescending, just want to make sure everyone is discussing based upon the same data points.   

So, if we look at Macomb County Michigan (Famous example of "Reagan Democrats")

2008: (53.3 D- 44.7 R)        + 8.6 D
2012: (51.3 D- 47.3 R)        + 4.0 D      (+ 4.6% R Swing)
2016: (42.1 D- 53.6 R)        +11.5 R     (+15.5% R Swing!)

Oakland County, Michigan

2008: (56.4 D- 41.9 R)        +14.5 D
2012: (53.4 D- 45.4 R)        +  8.0 D     (+ 6.5% R Swing)
2016: (51.3 D- 43.2 R)        +  8.1 D     (+ 0.1% D Swing)

Both are widely considered "suburban counties" of Detroit...

So for the examples of "Southern" suburban states that you use, the suburban counties of the major Cities of Texas, as well as Metro-Atlanta, and Northern Virginia (NoVA) definitely swung towards the Democrats in '16.

Still, the juxtaposition of North/South is a bit off, since the Suburban counties close to Philly swung towards HRC, as did Westchester County NY, and Bergen County NJ.

Maybe the real question is: "Why did suburban counties in Ohio (Delaware Co aside) and Michigan not swing towards HRC, compared to suburban counties elsewhere in the Country?"

In Pennsylvania, Hillary did do better around Philly (except for Bucks), but she did worse around the Pittsburg suburbs. But would counties such as Lancaster and Berks be considered suburban?  Because my numbers could be off otherwise. I should've put NJ as on par with what Romney got (he did better in the south, worse in the north of the state), but Trump did win long island, which hasn't been done since 1988 for a Republican. Overall, I still think he did better in the north than Romney, but worse in the south.