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?

[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.