Revealing Map of MO

[Schiff for Senate]

https://districtr.org/plan/126486

I divided MO into 3 sections - 4 counties (Platte, Clay, Cass and Jackson, if I remember correctly) that I consider in the KCMO area, 4 counties + St. Louis that I consider to be in the St Louis area, and then the other 111 MO counties.

The political results honestly kind of shocked me. I wasn't that surprised that the KCMO district backed Clinton and Biden only narrowly (though interestingly, despite being urban/suburban, it trended to the right in 2020), nor with the St Louis area results (voted for Clinton kind of narrowly but trended a lot to the left in 2020, Biden got 56.09% of the two way vote). It was the third district that I honestly found shocking - it's basically rural MO outside of a few cities (that are themselves in red counties) plus Boone County (which is blue, but not massively so), so I did expect it to be very right-wing, but I didn't expect the margin. Shockingly, it gave Trump close to 78% of the two way vote in 2020 (also a big shift to the right from 2016, but can't honestly say I'm that surprised by that - just by the massively overwhelming margin.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://districtr.org/plan/126486

I divided MO into 3 sections - 4 counties (Platte, Clay, Cass and Jackson, if I remember correctly) that I consider in the KCMO area, 4 counties + St. Louis that I consider to be in the St Louis area, and then the other 111 MO counties.

The political results honestly kind of shocked me. I wasn't that surprised that the KCMO district backed Clinton and Biden only narrowly (though interestingly, despite being urban/suburban, it trended to the right in 2020), nor with the St Louis area results (voted for Clinton kind of narrowly but trended a lot to the left in 2020, Biden got 56.09% of the two way vote). It was the third district that I honestly found shocking - it's basically rural MO outside of a few cities (that are themselves in red counties) plus Boone County (which is blue, but not massively so), so I did expect it to be very right-wing, but I didn't expect the margin. Shockingly, it gave Trump close to 78% of the two way vote in 2020 (also a big shift to the right from 2016, but can't honestly say I'm that surprised by that - just by the massively overwhelming margin.

These days, rural MO is (at least on presidential level) almost as R as West Texas.

[Schiff for Senate]

https://districtr.org/plan/126486

I divided MO into 3 sections - 4 counties (Platte, Clay, Cass and Jackson, if I remember correctly) that I consider in the KCMO area, 4 counties + St. Louis that I consider to be in the St Louis area, and then the other 111 MO counties.

The political results honestly kind of shocked me. I wasn't that surprised that the KCMO district backed Clinton and Biden only narrowly (though interestingly, despite being urban/suburban, it trended to the right in 2020), nor with the St Louis area results (voted for Clinton kind of narrowly but trended a lot to the left in 2020, Biden got 56.09% of the two way vote). It was the third district that I honestly found shocking - it's basically rural MO outside of a few cities (that are themselves in red counties) plus Boone County (which is blue, but not massively so), so I did expect it to be very right-wing, but I didn't expect the margin. Shockingly, it gave Trump close to 78% of the two way vote in 2020 (also a big shift to the right from 2016, but can't honestly say I'm that surprised by that - just by the massively overwhelming margin.

These days, rural MO is (at least on presidential level) almost as R as West Texas.

But it's not just rural MO - it's most of the entire state! It includes Democratic Boone County, as well as Cole County (Jefferson City), Jasper County (Joplin), Greene County (Springfield), etcetra. So I'd certainly expect the GOP to garner less than 3/4 of the two-way vote in this megadistrict.

[Sol]

https://districtr.org/plan/126486

I divided MO into 3 sections - 4 counties (Platte, Clay, Cass and Jackson, if I remember correctly) that I consider in the KCMO area, 4 counties + St. Louis that I consider to be in the St Louis area, and then the other 111 MO counties.

The political results honestly kind of shocked me. I wasn't that surprised that the KCMO district backed Clinton and Biden only narrowly (though interestingly, despite being urban/suburban, it trended to the right in 2020), nor with the St Louis area results (voted for Clinton kind of narrowly but trended a lot to the left in 2020, Biden got 56.09% of the two way vote). It was the third district that I honestly found shocking - it's basically rural MO outside of a few cities (that are themselves in red counties) plus Boone County (which is blue, but not massively so), so I did expect it to be very right-wing, but I didn't expect the margin. Shockingly, it gave Trump close to 78% of the two way vote in 2020 (also a big shift to the right from 2016, but can't honestly say I'm that surprised by that - just by the massively overwhelming margin.

These days, rural MO is (at least on presidential level) almost as R as West Texas.

But it's not just rural MO - it's most of the entire state! It includes Democratic Boone County, as well as Cole County (Jefferson City), Jasper County (Joplin), Greene County (Springfield), etcetra. So I'd certainly expect the GOP to garner less than 3/4 of the two-way vote in this megadistrict.

Boone County is the only really sizable Democratic drop in the bucket in Missouri outside of the big cities, as of course you know, but it's not traditionally a particularly Democratic place, voting very narrowly for Bush in 2004. I'm not exactly sure why this is the case but it has relatively little tradition of '60s new left activism and is in one of the more culturally Southern regions of the state (so maybe pre-2010s had some of the "more cosmopolitan Southern areas vote Republican" thing going on, though that's a very weak guess.)

The rest of the state isn't too surprising. Springfield, Joplin, etc. all vote like cities in Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc. which is to say that they are extremely Republican for urban areas. Even ignoring that, the cities in SW MO aren't very big, and similar places in more Dem-leaning parts of the country vote Republican if the whole metro is taken into account.

Everything else is ridiculously rural. Even Jefferson City is one of the least built up capitols in the country. Missouri outside of the two real cities is basically equivalent to Little Egypt combined with the Ozarks--basically a Democratic death zone.

[Gass3268]

To me the bigger question is why is the greater Kansas City area moving to the left (Kansas and Missouri) while the greater St. Louis is doing the opposite?

[bagelman]

Your link is to a map of Georgia for some reason.

[Aurelius]

To me the bigger question is why is the greater Kansas City area moving to the left (Kansas and Missouri) while the greater St. Louis is doing the opposite?

I suspect that this is because metro KC is a growing, sunbelty city whereas St. Louis city proper has lost half its population and the metro is more rust belty. And isn't St. Louis hemorrhaging blacks? I bet that plays a role.

[Schiff for Senate]

Your link is to a map of Georgia for some reason.

My mistake. Here's the right link:
https://districtr.org/plan/126520

To me the bigger question is why is the greater Kansas City area moving to the left (Kansas and Missouri) while the greater St. Louis is doing the opposite?

Really? Unless you have a different defitinition of the two metro areas as I do - possible - it seems the St Louis area is moving fast to the left, while KCMO is more or less stagnant. I mean in the map I drew, my definition of the KCMO area (Cass, Clay, Jackson and Platte), Clinton took 52.07% of the two-way vote in 2016, and Biden only improved upon that a litte, to 52.86% (which means this counties overall actually trended rightward). As to the MO part of the St Louis area (defined by me as the city plus the counties of St Louis, St Charles, Franklin and Jefferson) - it went from giving Clinton 53.34% (not that much to the left of what the KCMO area gave) of the two-way vote, to giving Biden 56.09% (which is a pretty solid leftward trend).

Also note the KS side is in fact zooming leftward - I'm talking about the MO side only.

[jamestroll]

To me the bigger question is why is the greater Kansas City area moving to the left (Kansas and Missouri) while the greater St. Louis is doing the opposite?

I suspect that this is because metro KC is a growing, sunbelty city whereas St. Louis city proper has lost half its population and the metro is more rust belty. And isn't St. Louis hemorrhaging blacks? I bet that plays a role.

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city. However, there is far less stigma to the Kansas City area than St. Louis area. People in the boonies of Missour-uh (lmao) see St. Louis as a crime ridden hell hole with snooty suburbs to the west and crime ridden suburbs to the North.

Kansas City is one of the larger geographical cities in the country, and that helps masks population declines in the inner core. It has no real light rail system in Kansas City, Mo while the light rail system in St. Louis has divided the region further. Also, there is currently and historically less polarized voting patterns in the Kansas City Metro as compared to the St. Louis Metro.

St. Louis City is now plurality white. I lived in the City of St. Louis for three years.  The central west end and south side are very attractive for city loving whiteys like me. When I would go to Ferguson area, I was stunned in how few of people I knew there still lived there. Basically any African American who had opportunity to leave the has. No exaggeration.  I saw people from my high school in Maryland/DC/Virginia and that is hardly the most popular area for the relocation. Usually its either to the Western Suburbs if they have the means, Kansas City (lol), or Atlanta and Texas.

I would say that St. louis is "prettier" than Kansas City and is a better place to visit though.

[jamestroll]

here is how much of the central west end looks in St. Louis





I lived a few streets away from the Mccloskeys.

Just a few more streets north..when you hit delmar.. it looks like a WAR ZONE.

[Schiff for Senate]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

No large enough part of MO really has the growth patterns of a Sunbelt city. If any place in MO qualified, it would be Metro KC, but that's neither here nor there.

[jamestroll]

When  I saw problems in North St. Louis City and North St. Louis County (to a lesser extent) and I googled them and came across John Oliver videos that were meant to a parody/exaggeration and they weren't that much of exaggerations of what I saw.. that tells me all I needed to know.

The black population STL will continue to dip.

[jamestroll]

Iron County, MO political evolution...

from 2010 voting for Roy Blunt by 1.4% while the Republican won by 14% statewide and voting for the Democratic incumbent for auditor by 13 points while losing by 5 statewide to..

2018 voting 63 to 34% for the GOP's Hawley and voting 56% to 39% for an incompetent Republican candidate for Auditor who lost by 6 statewide.

Shows that the GOP has essentially become a rural club. Actually, the Democratic performance in 2018 was not that bad in hindsight relatively speaking.

[Del Tachi]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is

[Schiff for Senate]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is

That's a good point. I guess these'd be the Sun Belt states then:



CA is Undecided because parts of SoCal are in the Sun Belt but much of the state (such as the Bay Area) is not.

ID is Undecided because it's geographically much further to the north than the other Sun Belt states but is similar in that it's growing very rapidly. KS is a more moderate example of this - further south, but also growing less rapidly.

[Sol]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is

That's a good point. I guess these'd be the Sun Belt states then:



CA is Undecided because parts of SoCal are in the Sun Belt but much of the state (such as the Bay Area) is not.

ID is Undecided because it's geographically much further to the north than the other Sun Belt states but is similar in that it's growing very rapidly. KS is a more moderate example of this - further south, but also growing less rapidly.

Growth patterns in Nashville, Northwest Arkansas, both metro areas in Oklahoma, and Hunstville/Mobile are pretty "sunbelt."

Really though the term isn't really best used as a classification in this way--it's imprecise shorthand for "rapidly growing postwar metroes in a nice climate" which has its place but shouldn't be endlessly debated over because it's a fuzzy term, even more so than most American regional divisions.

I don't know Kansas City super well to say, but there absolutely cities which are missing the "nice climate" part of the equation but which bear a strong resemblance to typical "sunbelt" cities otherwise--I'm thinking especially of Columbus here.

[lfromnj]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is

That's a good point. I guess these'd be the Sun Belt states then:



CA is Undecided because parts of SoCal are in the Sun Belt but much of the state (such as the Bay Area) is not.

ID is Undecided because it's geographically much further to the north than the other Sun Belt states but is similar in that it's growing very rapidly. KS is a more moderate example of this - further south, but also growing less rapidly.

Growth patterns in Nashville, Northwest Arkansas, both metro areas in Oklahoma, and Hunstville/Mobile are pretty "sunbelt."

Really though the term isn't really best used as a classification in this way--it's imprecise shorthand for "rapidly growing postwar metroes in a nice climate" which has its place but shouldn't be endlessly debated over because it's a fuzzy term, even more so than most American regional divisions.

I don't know Kansas City super well to say, but there absolutely cities which are missing the "nice climate" part of the equation but which bear a strong resemblance to typical "sunbelt" cities otherwise--I'm thinking especially of Columbus here.

Horrific city lines are also a clear indicator of being a sun belt city so Columbus is definitely one.

[Sol]

I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.

I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.

South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is

That's a good point. I guess these'd be the Sun Belt states then:



CA is Undecided because parts of SoCal are in the Sun Belt but much of the state (such as the Bay Area) is not.

ID is Undecided because it's geographically much further to the north than the other Sun Belt states but is similar in that it's growing very rapidly. KS is a more moderate example of this - further south, but also growing less rapidly.

Growth patterns in Nashville, Northwest Arkansas, both metro areas in Oklahoma, and Hunstville/Mobile are pretty "sunbelt."

Really though the term isn't really best used as a classification in this way--it's imprecise shorthand for "rapidly growing postwar metroes in a nice climate" which has its place but shouldn't be endlessly debated over because it's a fuzzy term, even more so than most American regional divisions.

I don't know Kansas City super well to say, but there absolutely cities which are missing the "nice climate" part of the equation but which bear a strong resemblance to typical "sunbelt" cities otherwise--I'm thinking especially of Columbus here.

Horrific city lines are also a clear indicator of being a sun belt city so Columbus is definitely one.

Haha in that case it suggest KCMO is sunbelt too!