Simply put, the Midwest was the region that decided the 2016 Presidential election. Had Hillary Clinton held on to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she would be the President. Donald Trump’s ability to win every Midwestern state, except for Illinois and Minnesota, put him over the top. But perhaps most interesting about the region is that it was one of the core bases for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. While the Midwest was more Republican than the nation as a whole in 2016, which allowed Trump to win the electoral college without the popular vote, the same was true with Obama. With the exception of Ohio, every Midwestern state was more Democratic than the nation as a whole in 2012, which would have allowed Obama to win the electoral college without the popular vote, had that circumstance arisen (Obama won the popular vote by 3.9%, however). So what changed in 2016? What about Trump caused this switch? Or perhaps did it have more to do with Hillary Clinton than it did Donald Trump? Let’s take a look
In order to get a sense of what’s going on, let’s break it down state by state, with a quick note about the Midwest. As a Midwesterner myself (Michigander, actually), I break up the Census Midwest into two parts, Great Lakes and Great Plains. The Great Lakes states are (PA, OH, MI, WI, IN, IL, MN) and Great Plains are (ND, SD, KS, NE, IA). Missouri is a border state and not the Midwest (I will fight you about that). I toss Iowa in the study group of the Great Lakes because politically, it behaves like a Great Lakes state. Oh, and Illinois will not get mentioned because it didn’t have any notable swing towards Donald Trump. Anyways, to the states!:
Minnesota
Candidates |
Vote % |
Vote totals |
clinton |
46.44% (-6.21%) |
1.367 M (-179 K) |
trump |
44.92% (-0.04%) |
1.322 M (+2 K) |
third party |
8.64% (+6.25%) |
277K (+200 K) |
Minnesota, a longtime liberal stronghold, came very close to turning red in 2016. So what was it about Trump’s appeal that almost made this blue state red? Actually, nothing. Trump got less of the vote than Mitt Romney did, and in terms of raw votes, got only roughly 2000 more votes (and more people voted in 2016, diminishing that accomplishment). Rather, it was the drastic drop off in Democratic votes that made this state close, with Clinton getting over 6% less of the vote than Obama, while the third party share increased by a lot. The presence of Evan McMullin on the ballot, along with huge increases in Libertarian and Green vote, made this result the case. Now is it fair to say that all of those people who supported Obama but shunned Hillary voted third party? No. I’d say around 2% probably flipped to Trump, but at the same time, many in the Twin City suburbs, particularly in Erik Paulsen’s MN-03, flipped from Romney to Hillary, while others were probably McMullin’s 1.8% of the vote. Regardless, in Minnesota, it’s appropriate to conclude that the decline in Democratic support was more due to Hillary’s unpopularity than Trump’s appeal.
Wisconsin
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
46.45% (-6.38%) |
1.382 M (-238 K) |
trump |
47.22% (+1.33%) |
1.405 M (-2 K) |
third party |
6.33% (+5.05%) |
188 K (+149 K)
|
Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016 and it was a microcosm of the Midwest as a whole. While Trump got a larger share of the vote than Romney, he only improved on Mitt’s share by a small amount (1.33%) and didn’t really come close to winning a majority of the vote. Rather, the bigger story was how Hillary, again, vastly underperformed Obama, receiving 6.38% less, while the third party vote increased by over 5%. Even more striking is the fact that Trump received less raw votes than Romney (though fewer people voted overall). So did Wisconsin really “swing hard” for Trump? Not really. I think the better argument is that it “swung hard” against Hillary.
Iowa
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
41.74% (-10.25%) |
653 K (-169 K) |
trump |
51.15% (+5.03%) |
800 K (+70 K) |
third party |
7.10% (+5.27%) |
111K (+82 K) |
If you want to find a state that swung hard for Trump, Iowa’s your best shot. While Trump did significantly better than Romney (5% better) and captured a majority of the vote, that vote change is not even half as big as the staggering 10.25% less of the vote that Clinton received when compared to Obama. And following a theme, the third party vote increased drastically. So while it did swing hard for Trump, it swung even harder against Hillary.
Michigan
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
47.27% (-6.94%) |
2.268 M (-296 K) |
trump |
47.50% (+2.79%) |
2.279 M (+164 K) |
third party |
5.23% (+4.15%) |
250 K (+199 K) |
By now you should be noticing a trend. Trump improved on Romney’s margins by a decent amount, but again, it was Clinton’s big underperformance of Obama’s vote totals/percentages that was the most important story. A big third party vote proved decisive as neither candidate was close to a majority.
Indiana
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
37.91% (-6.02%) |
1.033 M (-119 K) |
trump |
56.82% (+2.69%) |
1.557 M (+137 K) |
third party |
6.07% (+4.13%) |
167 K (+51 K) |
Indiana is the reddest state on this list, and it’s not really close. But Obama did win it in 2008 and even though he was beaten soundly in 2012 by Romney, there was still an obvious shift even more towards Team Red in 2016 which makes it notable. And guess what? It’s the same pattern. Small shift in percentage and votes to Trump, but an even bigger amount of dropping Democratic votes/increase in third party votes.
Ohio
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
43.56% (-7.11%) |
2.394 M (-433 K) |
trump |
51.69% (+4.00%) |
2.841 M (+180 K) |
third party |
4.75% (+3.11%) |
261 K (+170 K) |
Ohio, along with Iowa are the two states that had a discernible swing towards Trump, but even in this state, the swing against Clinton was larger than the swing towards Trump.
Pennsylvania
candidates |
vote % |
vote totals |
clinton |
47.46% (-4.51%) |
2.926 M (-64 K) |
trump |
48.18% (+1.59%) |
2.970 M (+310 K) |
third party |
4.36% (+2.92%) |
268 K (+185 K) |
Pennsylvania has a very similar story in terms of small swing to Trump, larger swing against Hillary/to third party. The only difference is that it is one of only two states in this data set (Indiana the other) where Trump gained more raw votes than Hillary lost, but that mostly has to do with total turnout than anything special concerning Trump.
Summary of data
What we saw in this data concerning our earlier question is that fairly decisively, the Midwestern states swung against Hillary Clinton far more than they swung towards Donald Trump. And thus, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Hillary lost the Midwest more than Trump won it. Of the 7 states we studied, in every one of them, the share that Clinton lost was greater than the share Trump gained. Also in every state we studied, there was a large increase in the third party vote, which was consistent with a broad national increase. Now these numbers aren’t perfect and we don’t have the data on every specific trend. There were certainly many people in counties across the Midwestern states who flipped directly from Obama to Trump, and there were also people in the suburbs of the big cities (Twin Cities and Detroit in particular) that flipped from Romney to Clinton, or even Romney to say a third party candidate.
What we do know however is that even in the places that Trump got the biggest vote swings, such as Ohio and Iowa and Indiana, he isn’t super loved. In Ohio and Iowa, he only gained a narrow majority of the vote (just over 51% in both). In Indiana, he gained a solid majority, but there are polls from then and now that suggest that Trump isn’t on great footing across the region. Perhaps the most important poll to suggest the “Hillary lost it” theory are ones taken from the fall concerning Obama himself.
The last Marquette Law Poll taken from Wisconsin (October 26-31) had Clinton leading Trump 46-40 with 7% 3rd party and 7% undecided asked Obama’s approval rating in the state and had it at 52% to 44% disapproval. The poll probably has a small Democrat bias, though due to the number of undecideds, you can argue that the poll was correct, as long as all the undecideds voted for Trump. Regardless, the poll had Obama at a +9 approval, with clearly a number of people who were approving of Obama undecided about if they could/would vote for Clinton. Specific details show Clinton was very unpopular in the state (so was Trump).
The last Public Policy Polling poll taken from Michigan (November 3-4) had Clinton leading Trump 46-41 with 8% third party and 6% undecided. Again this poll probably has a slight Democratic bias, but with the big undecided vote, you can argue that this poll was also correct, as long as all the undecideds voted for Trump. Regardless, it asked the question, who would you prefer was President, Donald Trump or Barack Obama? 52% said Obama, 42% said Trump, 6% were not sure. Put simply, Obama was getting at least 6% of the vote that were undecided about Hillary. Oh and he would have beaten Trump in Michigan.
The last Selzer poll taken from Iowa (November 1-4) had Trump leading Clinton 46-39 with 7% third party and 8% undecided, which as usual for Selzer, was a pretty darn good poll. The poll didn’t ask about Obama but in case you were wondering, most Iowan voters really didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, supporting the “Trump didn’t win the Midwest” theory. Given the options “I’m satisfied with my choices for President”, “I’m not satisfied with my choices for President”, “these are the worst choices I’ve ever had as a voter”, and “these are the best choices I’ve ever had as a voter”, 68% of Iowans said they were either dissatisfied (40%) or said these were the worst choices ever (28%). Basically, anyone who wasn’t a base voter for Clinton and Trump really didn’t like either Clinton or Trump. They also weren’t that high on Obama in late 2016, but they sure weren’t a fan of Clinton or Trump. If Obama had faced Trump in this state, I bet it would have been tight, though I’d have put my money on Obama.
The last CNN poll taken from Pennsylvania (October 27-November 1) had Clinton leading Trump 48-44 with 6% 3rd party and 1% undecided had a pretty clear Democratic lean (though not a big one) when compared to the actual results. That said, the poll had Obama’s approval rating at somewhere between +13 and +11 net depending on how you polled it (adults vs. RV vs. LV). So again, a significant number of people in the Midwest both approved of Obama yet were unwilling to vote for Hillary. That’s significant.
The last Quinnipiac poll from Ohio (October 27-November 1) had Trump leading Clinton 46-41 with 8% third party and 5% undecided, a poll that was pretty much spot on given the amount of undecideds (assuming they broke to Trump). In that same poll, they asked for favorability ratings for Clinton and Trump. Clinton was seen favorably by 37% of Ohio voters, but unfavorably by 59%. Meanwhile, Trump was seen favorably by 39% of Ohio voters, but unfavorably by 56%. Basically, Ohioans disliked both candidates, but Trump was the lesser of two evils.
How about Indiana, Trump’s best state? Monmouth’s final poll in Indiana (October 27-30) had Trump leading by 11 points, 50-39, with 6% third party and 5% undecided, a pretty spot on poll. Yet, 35% of of those same Hoosiers saw Trump favorably, while 51% saw him unfavorably. But an even lower 27% of Hoosiers saw Clinton favorably, while 63% saw her unfavorably. Yet again, it was the lesser of two evils thing.
How’s Trump doing in the Midwest now?
Like most states, Trump isn’t too popular in the Midwest at the moment. The Gallup 50 state poll, which I analyzed after it came out, had him underwater in every Midwest state in this group, including Indiana! The numbers were Minnesota (-18), Michigan (-10), Wisconsin (-9), Pennsylvania (-9), Iowa (-4), Indiana (-1), and Ohio (-1). And as I explained in the linked post, there is reason to believe that those numbers could be considerably more unfavorable now than when the poll was taken (due to its broad sample length). As for individual states, I’ll put his numbers from reputable pollsters with the links below, though there isn’t a lot of data unfortunately, being an off election year:
Wisconsin: 41% approve, 51% disapprove (from June)
Michigan: 37% favorable (from May)
Iowa: 43% approve, 52% disapprove (from July)
Pennsylvania: 37% approve, didn’t poll disapproval (from May)
Conclusion
So here we are, concluding part 1 of this investigation into the Midwest. If there’s one thing I could say, it’s that the Midwest really doesn’t love Donald Trump that much. Now and in the fall, people in every Midwestern state didn’t view Donald Trump favorably at all. But they also didn’t like Hillary Clinton at all. Thus, in a choice between two very unpopular candidates, it was a lesser of two evils. In Minnesota, Hillary was the lesser of the two evils. In the other states, Trump was. Regardless, they didn’t like either. And thus, if there was one thing I could recommend for the Democratic 2020 strategy, it’s find someone who is popular. That’s all that matters. Find someone who is vastly different than Donald Trump, a popular politician who has no scandals in his/her past, no baggage clinging on. Someone who makes a night-and-day contrast to Trump. Who that person is, I don’t know. It’s too early. I have my favorites (#JasonKander2020) but the time will come to decide it. But when the time does come, choosing a popular politician should be priority #1.
Next Piece
In the next installment of this series, we’ll take a look at some 2017 special elections from the Midwest, along with a look at down ballot races as a whole.