Analysis of the 2016 presidential election results. I used "voting tabulation district" data to evaluate the election results as a function of two key demographic criteria - population density and racial diversity.

1. 2016 Texas Presidential Race
Demographic Analysis

2. 2016 Texas Presidential Race
Voting Results for Entire State and a Function of Population Density
Democrat Republican Libertarian Green
Entire State Rural vs Urban
Rural Suburban Urban
Democrat
Republican
Other (Lib & Grn)
Total Voting Age Pop
Observations:
Democrats lost by
~790,000 votes. (~9%
of total votes)
Rural areas represent
about 1/3 of the
voting age population
and went strongly for
Trump.
Trump lost support as
population density
increased.
Rural areas voted in
higher numbers.
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC

3. 2016 Texas Presidential
Election Map
Democrat/Republican Voting Ratio
(calculated for each “Voting Tabulation District)
• More Red = higher Republican
Margin (Trump)
• More Blue = higher Democrat
Margin (Clinton)
• White = Close to 50/50
Also shown are the US House District
outlines and their current occupant
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC

4. Population Density 2010
This map shows the population density for
SW Houston as of the 2010 census. Note the
growing suburbs in the eastern portion of
Fort Bend County.
Red = Dense Suburban to Urban (>3000 people/sq mi)
Yellow/Orange = Suburban (1000-3000 people/sq mi)
Green = Rural (< 1000 people/sq mi)
Pete Olson
District 22
Al Green
District 9
Fort Bend Co
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC
59
90
6
8
99
288

5. Population Growth 2010-16
The same SW Houston map
showing the population growth
during the past six years the
suburbs continued to expand
westward, potentially changing the
makeup of District 22.
Pink = Highest growth rate
White = No growth
Pete Olson
District 22
Al Green
District 9
Fort Bend Co
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC
59
90
6
8
99
288

6. SW Houston 2016 Presidential Race
Democrat / Republican Ratio
Note that many of the rapidly growing
suburbs are characterized by close races
at the presidential level. Has this
demographic transition altered the
District 22 race?
Pete Olson
District 22
Al Green
District 9
Fort Bend Co
59
90
6
8
99
288
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC

7. 2016 Presidential Race – Detailed View of the Sugar Land Area
Democrat/Republican Results by Voting Tabulation District (tie=.5)
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC
59
90
6
8
99

8. Analysis Details
2016 Presidential Voting Trends in Texas as they relate to Two Key Demographic factors:
Racial Diversity
&
Population Density (Rural vs Urban)

9. Voting trends by Pop Density (Rural vs Urban) Voting trends by Race (% Anglo)
Red =
cumulative sum
of voters
Rural Suburban Urban
Change in variables with Increasing % Anglo
Black = cumulative sum
of Dem margin
+=winning -=losing
Blue = cumulative sum
of voting age
population
Change in variables with Increasing population density
Selected Demographic Analysis of 2016 Texas Presidential Race
Trump vs Clinton Voting Trends relative to Urban vs Rural and Racial Trends
Observations:
Country vs City
• Rural voters (<1000/sq mi) comprise
about 33% of Texas voters and
voted strongly for Trump.
• Urban voters favored Clinton (but
not as strongly as rural voters
favored Trump).
• Suburbia is the current
battleground, with the more open,
less dense suburbs trending to
Trump and the more densely packed
neighborhoods trending to Clinton.
Anglo vs Minorities
• Minorities voted strongly for
Clinton, but with increasing white
percentages, voting blocks tended
more strongly for Trump. The
breakeven point is ~45% white.
• Minorities also tend to vote in
smaller numbers as evidenced by
the divergence of cumulative voters
from the cumulative population line.
Trump beats
Clinton by
~794,000 votes
VoteMargin
Population
0
0
Dem ahead
Rep ahead
Dem ahead
Rep ahead
VoteMargin
 ~33% of voters
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC

10. Selected Demographic Analysis of 2016 Presidential Race
Presidential Voting Trends for District 22 (Pete Olson) and District 9 (Al Green)
Voting trends by Pop Density (Rural vs Urban) Voting trends by Race (% Anglo)
Dem
Rep
Red = cumulative
sum of voters
Rural Suburban Urban
Increasing % Anglo
Black = cumulative
sum of Dem margin
Blue = cumulative sum
of voting age population
Increasing population density
AlGreenPeteOlson
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC

11. Cumulative Sum of 2016 Texas Dem/Rep Presidential Margin by US District Incumbent
Rural Suburban Urban
Increasing population densityVoteMargin
Dem ahead
Rep ahead
* Data from State websites and ESRI; analysis property of D Tolman Interests LLC