Wallace 68 - Clinton 92 - Trump 16 counties

[Yu748Girl83]

How many were there?

[OSR stands with Israel]

There were probably a lot in Arkansas , Louisiana , Georgia

[Adam Griffin]

Here are your Wallace 68 - Clinton 92 - Trump 16 counties. Interestingly, I found one Wallace-Perot county (Loving, TX).

[Schiff for Senate]

Here are your Wallace 68 - Clinton 92 - Trump 16 counties. Interestingly, I found one Wallace-Perot county (Loving, TX).

Interesting how there are relatively few in MS and AL compared to TN, LA, AR and even GA. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that TN, LA and AR have less black-majority and Democratic-leaning counties. Of course, TN and LA have bigger, more urban Democratic counties (Shelby and New Orleans). AR just has very few majority-black counties generally, and TN as well. LA has a few more. That still doesn't completely explain the discrepancy between MS and AL and TN, LA and AR, however. What do you think explains this?

[Adam Griffin]

Here are your Wallace 68 - Clinton 92 - Trump 16 counties. Interestingly, I found one Wallace-Perot county (Loving, TX).

Interesting how there are relatively few in MS and AL compared to TN, LA, AR and even GA. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that TN, LA and AR have less black-majority and Democratic-leaning counties. Of course, TN and LA have bigger, more urban Democratic counties (Shelby and New Orleans). AR just has very few majority-black counties generally, and TN as well. LA has a few more. That still doesn't completely explain the discrepancy between MS and AL and TN, LA and AR, however. What do you think explains this?

MS, SC & AL were (in order) Bill's 3 worst Southern states, so fewer counties won by Clinton = fewer counties that can meet the criteria.

The Democratic vote both then (and now to a smaller degree) in MS & SC is much more rural than in the other states. In fact, Obama did better in the combined rural counties in MS & SC than he did in the metro ones; only 7 states had this distinction in 2012 if I recall correctly. This somewhat minimized the percentage of terrain/counties in MS & SC that Trump could win relative to other Southern states with lots of rural counties.

Even averaging 2016 with 2012, the phenomenon held up:

Averaging the 2012 and 2016 elections, there were only 7 states (including Alaska; no data available) where the rural counties were more Democratic than the metro counties:

AZ (2 points)
MS (2 points)
NH (8 points)
HI (10 points)
SC (12 points)
MA (18 points)

[Schiff for Senate]

Here are your Wallace 68 - Clinton 92 - Trump 16 counties. Interestingly, I found one Wallace-Perot county (Loving, TX).

Interesting how there are relatively few in MS and AL compared to TN, LA, AR and even GA. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that TN, LA and AR have less black-majority and Democratic-leaning counties. Of course, TN and LA have bigger, more urban Democratic counties (Shelby and New Orleans). AR just has very few majority-black counties generally, and TN as well. LA has a few more. That still doesn't completely explain the discrepancy between MS and AL and TN, LA and AR, however. What do you think explains this?

MS, SC & AL were (in order) Bill's 3 worst Southern states, so fewer counties won by Clinton = fewer counties that can meet the criteria.

The Democratic vote both then (and now to a smaller degree) in MS & SC is much more rural than in the other states. In fact, Obama did better in the combined rural counties in MS & SC than he did in the metro ones; only 6 states had this distinction in 2012 if I recall correctly, including MA, VT, AK & HI. This somewhat minimized the percentage of terrain/counties in MS & SC that Trump could win relative to other Southern states with lots of rural counties.

Ah, thanks for explaining. It did strike me that SC, MS and AL were Bush '92 states while the others named backed Clinton in 1992 and most did in 1996 as well.