States where the population grew more since the last presidential election were also more likely to see the margin between the Democrats and the Republicans shift to the left, research conducted by The Washington Post shows.
This means that Hillary Clinton performed better against Donald Trump than President Barack Obama did against Mitt Romney as the percentage of the population increase went up.
For example, in the five states where the most votes were cast, Clinton's margin over her Republican rival was 400,000 more than Obama's spread over Romney. This despite her national margin coming in 2.6 million votes less than Obama's over Romney.
The Post points out, of course, that Clinton got more votes where she didn't need them, so, for example, her massive popular vote spread in California still only got her the same 55 electoral votes there that Obama won with his narrower victory in the Golden State.
But Clinton even performed better in states she lost to Trump than what Obama did in losing to Romney in those same places. For example, Trump's margin over her in Texas was almost 450,000 votes smaller than Romney's victory over Obama there.
The research showed that the same correlation occurred at the county level, to a certain extent. This means that the less a county grew, the more likely Trump was to increase his margin over Clinton relative to how Romney did against Obama.
The data showed that people who moved to urban areas voted more heavily for the Democrat than in 2012, while those everywhere else voted more for the Republican.
In another study analyzing the results of the election, the Brookings Institution revealed an interesting pattern of its own.
In the counties that Clinton won nationwide, 64 percent of the country's economic activity was generated. Even though Trump won five times as many counties as Clinton did, those areas combined generated only 36 percent of the nation's economic activity.
Related stories:
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.