Metropolitan Votes and the 2012 U.S. Election: Population, GDP, Patents and Creative Class

Transcription

1 politan Votes and the 2012 U.S. Election: Population, GDP, Patents and Creative Class Author: Shawn Gilligan, Zara Matheson, Kevin Stolarick, p f Martin Prosperity Institute Joseph L. Rotman School of Management University of Toronto 105 St. George Street, Suite 9000 Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E6 February 2013

2 Table of Contents Introduction to the Project 1 About the Metrics... 1 Part 1: Examining Population 2 Part 2: Examining GDP 5 Part 3: Examining Patents 8 Part 4: Examining Creative Class Occupations 11 i

3 Introduction to the Project As Barack Obama and the Democratic Party won a decisive victory over Republican candidate Mitt Romney, both in the Electoral College and in the popular vote, much effort has been put into analyzing the factors that attributed to this result. The poor voting turnout amongst urban residents and minority groups within the U.S. have been identified and analysed as reasons for the Republican defeat. The voting patterns emerging from the 2012 American election provide greater insight into the makeup and characteristics of American metropolitan areas. How did the most innovative and prosperous regions vote? How did the wealthiest and most productive areas vote? Is there a correlation between Creative Class occupations and voting patterns? These are some of the questions that will be used to further evaluate each candidate s performance in the last election. This paper sets out to explore these questions by combining metro level results from the 2012 election and our previous work on the interactions among population, GDP, patents, the Creative Class and geography. About the Metrics The U.S. election results utilized for this analysis were accessed at the county level from the Guardian s website, and then summarized to the metro level for our analysis. Data for other key variables - population, patents, GDP and Creative Class (all for the year 2010) were initially collected by Jose Lobo and Kevin Stolarick and was the basis for two previous insights. We started our analysis by determining the Obama and Romney shares of the total vote within each metro. Next, we applied the voting shares for the candidate within each metro to the population, GDP, patents and Creative Class data for that metro. We then used these results to determine the relationships between each metro s voting results and their contribution to the national population, GDP, patents, and Creative Class totals for each respective candidate. After this, we calculated the cumulative results for each of the candidates across the four variables. The structure of the whitepaper will first examine the interactions between geographical voting shares and population, and then cumulative population. Then we will look at the same relationships for GDP, patents, and Creative Class occupations within the U.S. The paper will demonstrate that there are many interesting conclusions that can be made when examining the interactions between geographic voting patterns and economic indicators. 1

4 Part 1: Examining Population We begin the analysis by looking at the interactions between the populations of metro areas and voting. Exhibit 1 shows three sets of metro population data. The first column displays the individual population share for each U.S. metro. The second and third columns present which cities contributed most to the respective candidate s total population share (as weighted by voting share). For both Obama and Romney, the combination of all U.S. non-metro areas as a whole contributed the most to each candidate s total population share than any single metro. Between the two, the non-metro share is fairly even. When looking at many of the larger U.S. metros, Obama generally gained a greater amount of the voting share. Cities like New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston and San Francisco, contributed significantly more to Obama s total population share than they did for Romney. Chicago, Riverside, CA and Minneapolis are all cities in which the contribution to each candidate s local population share was closer than one might have thought. When looking at the cities that were the greatest contributors to Romney s total population share, New York and LA come in at the top, despite the large gap between Obama and Romney in these metros. Much has been discussed about how Romney lost the popular vote in many urban metros, but column three displays that in fact, certain large metros such as Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix contributed more to Romney s total population share, than Obama s. Therefore, Romney did in fact gain some voting success in the election within highly populated urban centers. Using the metro population data, we then looked at the cumulative results for both Obama and Romney. The cumulative population results were sorted for Obama and Romney according to their individual population shares within each metro, from largest to smallest. Exhibit 2 shows the cumulative metro population shares that each metro within the U.S. contributed to each of the two candidates total. Exhibit 3 presents the results for the top 25 most populated metros. Displayed on the Y-axis is the cumulative population share, and on the X-axis is each metro ranked by total population from largest to smallest. The pink line shows the U.S. results, while the blue line is for Obama and the red for Romney. The same approach for this exhibit was used for the other metrics also (GDP, patents and Creative Class). In Exhibit 2, we can see that for the most part, the top 10 most populated metros within the U.S. contribute to a small gap between Obama and Romney s respective total population shares. In Exhibit 3 though, at the 11 th most populated metro (Boston), the metros start to contribute to a much larger portion of Obama s total population share, than Romney s, creating a growing gap. It is also quite clear that a smaller number of highly populated metros contribute to a much greater share of Obama s population share than Romney s, as he hits the 10%, 20%, and 30% marks much earlier than Romney does. The voting success within these highly populated metros was definitely a positive factor for Obama s success in the election. The largest gap between the two candidates cumulative population share occurs around the 50 th -60 th most populated metros. After this, 2

5 Top 50 contributors to population share Exhibit 1 Top 50 contributors to population share Population Non Total 16.30% New York, NY 6.12% Los Angeles, CA 4.15% Chicago, IL 3.06% Dallas, TX 2.07% Houston, TX 1.93% Philadelphia, PA 1.93% Washington, DC 1.81% Miami, FL 1.80% Atlanta, GA 1.71% Boston, MA 1.47% San Francisco, CA 1.40% Detroit, MI 1.39% Riverside, CA 1.37% Phoenix, AZ 1.36% Seattle, WA 1.12% Minneapolis, MN 1.06% San Diego, CA 1.00% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.91% Tampa, FL 0.90% Baltimore, MD 0.88% Denver, CO 0.83% Pittsburgh, PA 0.76% Portland, OR 0.72% Sacramento, CA 0.70% San Antonio, TX 0.70% Orlando, FL 0.69% Cincinnati, OH 0.69% Cleveland, OH 0.67% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.66% Las Vegas, NV 0.63% San Jose, CA 0.60% Columbus, OH 0.60% Charlotte, NC 0.57% Indianapolis, IN 0.57% Austin, TX 0.56% Virginia Beach, VA 0.54% Providence, RI 0.52% Nashville, TN 0.52% Milwaukee, WI 0.50% Jacksonville, FL 0.44% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.43% Louisville, KY 0.42% Richmond, VA 0.41% Oklahoma City, OK 0.41% Harbord, CT 0.39% New Orleans, LA 0.38% Raleigh, NC 0.37% Buffalo, NY 0.37% Salt Lake City, UT 0.36% Top 50 contributors to Obama s population share Obama Population Non Total 8.17% New York, NY 3.95% Los Angeles, CA 2.56% Chicago, IL 1.95% Philadelphia, PA 1.23% Washington, DC 1.22% Miami, FL 1.13% Boston, MA 1.11% San Francisco, CA 1.06% Dallas, TX 0.87% Atlanta, GA 0.85% Houston, TX 0.84% Detroit, MI 0.83% Seattle, WA 0.71% Riverside, CA 0.69% Minneapolis, MN 0.58% Phoenix, AZ 0.58% San Diego, CA 0.52% Baltimore, MD 0.50% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.48% Tampa, FL 0.46% Denver, CO 0.46% Portland, OR 0.44% San Jose, CA 0.41% Cleveland, OH 0.41% Pittsburgh, PA 0.37% Orlando, FL 0.37% Sacramento, CA 0.36% Las Vegas, NV 0.36% San Antonio, TX 0.32% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.31% Columbus, OH 0.31% Virginia Beach, VA 0.30% Providence, RI 0.29% Austin, TX 0.29% Charlotte, NC 0.29% Cincinnati, OH 0.28% Milwaukee, WI 0.26% Indianapolis, IN 0.26% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.24% Harbord, CT 0.21% Honolulu, HI 0.21% Nashville, TN 0.21% Richmond, VA 0.21% Buffalo, NY 0.20% Louisville, KY 0.20% Raleigh, NC 0.19% New Orleans, LA 0.19% Rochester, NY 0.19% McAllen, TX 0.18% Top 50 contributors to Romney s population share Romney Population Non Total 8.13% New York, NY 2.11% Los Angeles, CA 1.49% Dallas, TX 1.17% Chicago, IL 1.07% Houston, TX 1.07% Atlanta, GA 0.84% Phoenix, AZ 0.75% Philadelphia, PA 0.68% Miami, FL 0.67% Riverside, CA 0.66% Washington, DC 0.57% Detroit, MI 0.55% San Diego, CA 0.47% Minneapolis, MN 0.46% Tampa, FL 0.43% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.42% Cincinnati, OH 0.40% Seattle, WA 0.38% Pittsburgh, PA 0.38% San Antonio, TX 0.37% Baltimore, MD 0.35% Denver, CO 0.35% Boston, MA 0.34% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.33% Sacramento, CA 0.32% Orlando, FL 0.32% San Francisco, CA 0.31% Indianapolis, IN 0.30% Nashville, TN 0.30% Charlotte, NC 0.28% Columbus, OH 0.27% Portland, OR 0.27% Las Vegas, NV 0.26% Oklahoma City, OK 0.26% Jacksonville, FL 0.26% Cleveland, OH 0.25% Austin, TX 0.25% Milwaukee, WI 0.24% Virginia Beach, VA 0.24% Birmingham, AL 0.22% Providence, RI 0.21% Salt Lake City, UT 0.21% Louisville, KY 0.21% Tulsa, OK 0.20% Richmond, VA 0.19% New Orleans, LA 0.19% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.18% Harbord, CT 0.17% Raleigh, NC 0.17% 3

6 Romney s greater success within medium and smaller size metros is shown, as the gap between him and Obama starts to decline. While the Republican party lost much of the urban vote, the success within medium and small metros in many cases is something worth noting. Cumulative population share Exhibit 2 100% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute Top 25 cumulative population share Exhibit 3 60% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute 4

7 Part 2: Examining GDP As previous MPI Insights have looked at the capacity of metros to generate GDP, in this whitepaper, we decided to examine the relationships between geography, GDP and voting patterns. Exhibit 4 shows three sets of metro GDP data, the first column displaying the individual GDP share that each U.S. metro generates. The second and third columns present which cities voting share contribute most to the respective candidate s total GDP share (as weighted by voting share). The top 50 highest GDP generating metros are within Exhibit 4. What stands out first, is that New York contributes a larger portion to Obama s total GDP share, than the non-metro total. For Romney, the non-metro total contributes to his largest GDP share. Within the top 50 list, some of the metros such as New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia for example, contribute to much larger portions of Obama s total GDP share, than Romney s. Seattle, Boston, San Francisco and Washington for example contribute more than double towards Obama s total GDP than Romney s. Also found within the top GDP generating metros is that only the top 3 metros (Non-metro, New York and LA) that contribute the largest amount to Romney s total share, have a larger share than Obama s top 8. Dallas and Houston are two metros that contribute a larger amount (4 th and 5 th ) to Romney s total GDP share. Atlanta, often a strong democratic voting city surprisingly is a metro in which the increase to total GDP share for Romney and Obama is almost even. Using the metro GDP and voting data, we then looked at the cumulative results for both Obama and Romney. The cumulative GDP results were sorted for Obama and Romney according to their individual GDP shares within each metro, from largest to smallest. Exhibit 5 shows the cumulative metro GDP shares that each metro within the U.S. contributed to each of the two candidates total. Exhibit 6 presents the results for the top 25 most populated metros. From looking at Exhibit 5, what stands out is the small gap between Obama and Romney throughout, unlike within the population graphs. Exhibit 6 shows that within the top 25 highest populated metros, they contribute a larger amount to Obama s total GDP share than Romney s. s such as Boston and San Jose in which they contribute to a decisively larger amount of Obama s GDP, create a small gap. Throughout the medium and small size cities, the two candidates receive almost an even increase to the total share. While there was a decisive gap between the metros contribution to Obama and Romney s population share, Exhibits 5 and 6 display that Mitt Romney s voting share contributes to almost the same amount of GDP generated as Obama. It can then be assumed that despite losing the election, Romney often fared quite well within productive metros. 5

8 Top 50 contributors to GDP share Exhibit 4 Top 50 contributors to GDP share GDP Non Total 9.95% New York, NY 8.76% Los Angeles, CA 5.12% Chicago, IL 3.64% Washington, DC 2.92% Houston, TX 2.70% Dallas, TX 2.65% Philadelphia, PA 2.37% San Francisco, CA 2.26% Boston, MA 2.17% Atlanta, GA 1.89% Miami, FL 1.78% Seattle, WA 1.60% Minneapolis, MN 1.38% Detroit, MI 1.37% Phoenix, AZ 1.32% San Jose, CA 1.28% San Diego, CA 1.19% Denver, CO 1.11% Baltimore, MD 0.99% Portland, OR 0.93% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.88% Charlotte, NC 0.79% Pittsburgh, PA 0.79% Tampa, FL 0.79% Riverside, CA 0.75% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.73% Cleveland, OH 0.72% Orlando, FL 0.72% Indianapolis, IN 0.71% Cincinnati, OH 0.69% Columbus, OH 0.64% Sacramento, CA 0.64% Austin, TX 0.63% Las Vegas, NV 0.61% Harbord, CT 0.60% Milwaukee, WI 0.58% Bridgeport, CT 0.58% San Antonio, TX 0.56% Nashville, TN 0.56% Virginia Beach, VA 0.55% New Orleans, LA 0.49% Salt Lake City, UT 0.46% Providence, RI 0.45% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.44% Richmond, VA 0.44% Jacksonville, FL 0.41% Oklahoma City, OK 0.41% Louisville, KY 0.40% Raleigh, NC 0.39% Top 50 contributors to Obama s GDP share Obama GDP New York, NY 5.65% Non Total 4.99% Los Angeles, CA 3.16% Chicago, IL 2.31% Washington, DC 1.96% San Francisco, CA 1.70% Boston, MA 1.64% Philadelphia, PA 1.51% Houston, TX 1.17% Dallas, TX 1.12% Miami, FL 1.12% Seattle, WA 1.01% Atlanta, GA 0.93% San Jose, CA 0.89% Detroit, MI 0.81% Minneapolis, MN 0.76% Denver, CO 0.61% San Diego, CA 0.61% Baltimore, MD 0.57% Phoenix, AZ 0.57% Portland, OR 0.56% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.46% Cleveland, OH 0.44% Tampa, FL 0.40% Charlotte, NC 0.40% Orlando, FL 0.38% Pittsburgh, PA 0.38% Riverside, CA 0.37% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.35% Las Vegas, NV 0.35% Columbus, OH 0.33% Sacramento, CA 0.33% Harbord, CT 0.33% Austin, TX 0.33% Indianapolis, IN 0.32% Milwaukee, WI 0.30% Virginia Beach, VA 0.30% Bridgeport, CT 0.30% Cincinnati, OH 0.28% Providence, RI 0.26% San Antonio, TX 0.25% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.25% New Orleans, LA 0.24% Honolulu, HI 0.24% Nashville, TN 0.23% Richmond, VA 0.23% Raleigh, NC 0.20% Louisville, KY 0.19% Durham, NC 0.19% Salt Lake City, UT 0.18% Top 50 contributors to Romney s GDP share Romney GDP Non Total 4.96% New York, NY 3.02% Los Angeles, CA 1.84% Dallas, TX 1.50% Houston, TX 1.49% Chicago, IL 1.27% Atlanta, GA 0.93% Washington, DC 0.92% Philadelphia, PA 0.83% Phoenix, AZ 0.73% Miami, FL 0.66% Minneapolis, MN 0.59% Seattle, WA 0.55% San Diego, CA 0.55% Detroit, MI 0.54% San Francisco, CA 0.50% Boston, MA 0.49% Denver, CO 0.47% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.40% Baltimore, MD 0.40% Cincinnati, OH 0.40% Pittsburgh, PA 0.39% Charlotte, NC 0.38% Indianapolis, IN 0.38% Tampa, FL 0.38% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.37% San Jose, CA 0.36% Riverside, CA 0.36% Portland, OR 0.34% Orlando, FL 0.33% Nashville, TN 0.32% San Antonio, TX 0.30% Columbus, OH 0.30% Sacramento, CA 0.29% Austin, TX 0.28% Milwaukee, WI 0.28% Bridgeport, CT 0.28% Cleveland, OH 0.27% Salt Lake City, UT 0.27% Harbord, CT 0.27% Oklahoma City, OK 0.26% Las Vegas, NV 0.26% Jacksonville, FL 0.24% New Orleans, LA 0.24% Virginia Beach, VA 0.24% Birmingham, AL 0.22% Richmond, VA 0.21% Tulsa, OK 0.21% Louisville, KY 0.20% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.19% 6

9 Cumulative GDP share Exhibit 5 100% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute Top 25 cumulative GDP share Exhibit 6 60% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute 7

10 Part 3: Examining Patents When analysing regions and their prosperity, often innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity are examined, as through the interaction of highly skilled individuals, certain cities are thriving in our knowledge-based economy. Technological innovation and the competitiveness that ensues are central to economic development and is why MPI chose to examine innovation (measured through patents). Exhibit 7 shows three sets of metro patent data, the first column displaying the individual patent share of total patents produced that each U.S. metro generates. Patents are counted by the location of the inventor, or evenly divided among all listed inventors per patent. The second and third columns present which metros contribute most to the respective candidate s total patent share (as weighted by voting share). The top 50 cities with the highest number of patents are within Exhibit 7. Other than the non-metro share (the sum of every non-metro area), the tech leader San Jose contributes the greatest amount to both candidates total patent share. When looking at San Jose though, due to strong Democratic voting patterns, the largest gap within the share of total patents awarded between Obama and Romney is found within this metro. A large disparity is also found within San Francisco, Boston, and New York, along with medium size metros such as Boulder, CO and Durham, NC. Technology and innovation centers such as Raleigh, NC and Tucson, AZ which are in strong Republican states still contributed a greater share to Obama s patent total, due to his strength within the tech sector. Exhibit 7 presents the realization that Obama s appeal and subsequent strong voting share within some of the most technologically advanced regions in the world is partially a reason for his success in the past election. Using the metro patent and voting data, we examined the cumulative results for both Obama and Romney. The cumulative patent results were sorted for Obama and Romney according to their individual patent shares within each metro, from largest to smallest. Exhibit 8 shows the cumulative metro patent shares that each metro within the U.S. contributed to each of the two candidates totals. Exhibit 9 presents the results for the top 25 most populated metros. Exhibit 8 and 9 display the greatest amount of movement and variation, of any of the graphs within this whitepaper. As it is clear, the line for Obama at times continues to climb at a steep incline, displaying that he gained a large percent of the voting share within many high tech metros. The gap between the two candidates voting share that attributes to patents awarded continues to grow, with the greatest space being found at the end of the graph. Obama s voting share attributes to a much larger share of the total patents produced in the U.S. than Romney, partially due to the spikes in the graph found at #10 Boston, #11 San Francisco, and then again at #31 San Jose. As seen is Exhibit 9, Obama s voting share within the top 25 most populated metros attributes to almost 25% of the total patents within the U.S., while Romney s share within these same metros accounts for only around 13%. The appeal and subsequent success that Obama gained within tech hubs despite geographical location, provides an illustration that regional clusters of innovation, entrepreneurship, and technology are becoming more influential. 8

11 Top 50 contributors to patent share Exhibit 7 Top 50 contributors to patent share Patents Non Total 32.11% San Jose, CA 6.90% San Francisco, CA 4.15% New York, NY 4.11% Los Angeles, CA 3.37% Seattle, WA 3.08% Boston, MA 2.85% Chicago, IL 1.97% San Diego, CA 1.92% Minneapolis, MN 1.85% Austin, TX 1.74% Detroit, MI 1.47% Dallas, TX 1.46% Houston, TX 1.41% Philadelphia, PA 1.41% Washington, DC 1.21% Portland, OR 1.20% Atlanta, GA 1.10% Phoenix, AZ 0.89% Raleigh, NC 0.83% Rochester, NY 0.82% Miami, FL 0.63% Cincinnati, OH 0.56% Poughkeepsie, NY 0.54% Denver, CO 0.49% Pittsburgh, PA 0.47% Cleveland, OH 0.47% Baltimore, MD 0.47% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.46% Boulder, CO 0.46% Albany, NY 0.46% Bridgeport, CT 0.45% Milwaukee, WI 0.39% Harbord, CT 0.38% Tuscon, AZ 0.37% Burlington, VT 0.36% Durham, NC 0.36% Worcester, MA 0.36% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.36% Indianapolis, IN 0.34% Oxnard, CA 0.34% Sacramento, CA 0.33% Rochester, MN 0.33% Ann Arbor, MI 0.33% Columbus, OH 0.30% Tampa, FL 0.29% Salt Lake City, UT 0.29% Providence, RI 0.29% New Haven, CT 0.27% Trenton, NJ 0.27% Top 50 contributors to Obama s patent share Obama Patents Non Total 16.09% San Jose, CA 4.79% San Francisco, CA 3.12% New York, NY 2.65% Boston, MA 2.16% Los Angeles, CA 2.08% Seattle, WA 1.95% Chicago, IL 1.25% Minneapolis, MN 1.02% San Diego, CA 0.99% Austin, TX 0.90% Philadelphia, PA 0.90% Detroit, MI 0.88% Washington, DC 0.81% Portland, OR 0.72% Dallas, TX 0.61% Houston, TX 0.61% Atlanta, GA 0.54% Rochester, NY 0.45% Raleigh, NC 0.43% Miami, FL 0.40% Phoenix, AZ 0.38% Boulder, CO 0.32% Cleveland, OH 0.28% Poughkeepsie, NY 0.28% Denver, CO 0.27% Baltimore, MD 0.27% Albany, NY 0.26% Durham, NC 0.25% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.24% Burlington, VT 0.24% Pittsburgh, PA 0.23% Bridgeport, CT 0.23% Cincinnati, OH 0.23% Ann Arbor, MI 0.23% Harbord, CT 0.21% Milwaukee, WI 0.20% Tuscon, AZ 0.19% Madison, WI 0.19% Trenton, NJ 0.18% Worcester, MA 0.18% Sacramento, CA 0.17% Oxnard, CA 0.17% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.17% New Haven, CT 0.17% Santa Cruz, CA 0.17% Rochester, MN 0.16% Providence, RI 0.16% Columbus, OH 0.16% Indianapolis, IN 0.16% Top 50 contributors to Romney s patent share Romney Patents Non Total 16.01% San Jose, CA 1.94% New York, NY 1.42% Los Angeles, CA 1.21% Seattle, WA 1.06% San Francisco, CA 0.91% San Diego, CA 0.89% Dallas, TX 0.82% Minneapolis, MN 0.80% Houston, TX 0.78% Austin, TX 0.78% Chicago, IL 0.69% Boston, MA 0.65% Detroit, MI 0.58% Atlanta, GA 0.54% Philadelphia, PA 0.50% Phoenix, AZ 0.49% Portland, OR 0.44% Raleigh, NC 0.39% Washington, DC 0.38% Rochester, NY 0.36% Cincinnati, OH 0.32% Poughkeepsie, NY 0.25% Pittsburgh, PA 0.24% Miami, FL 0.23% Bridgeport, CT 0.21% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.21% Denver, CO 0.21% Albany, NY 0.19% Baltimore, MD 0.19% Milwaukee, WI 0.19% Indianapolis, IN 0.18% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.18% Cleveland, OH 0.18% Provo, UT 0.18% Tuscon, AZ 0.17% Worcester, MA 0.17% Harbord, CT 0.17% Salt Lake City, UT 0.17% Rochester, MN 0.16% Oxnard, CA 0.16% Sacramento, CA 0.15% Tampa, FL 0.14% Columbus, OH 0.14% Boulder, CO 0.13% Riverside, CA 0.13% Manchester, NH 0.12% Orlando, FL 0.12% Providence, RI 0.12% Allentown, PA 0.12% 9

12 Cumulative patent share Exhibit 8 100% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute Top 25 cumulative patent share Exhibit 9 60% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute 10

13 Part 4: Examining Creative Class Occupations At the Martin Prosperity Institute we are constantly examining the Creative Economy within various regions throughout the world, so we decided to look at the interactions between the 2012 voting patterns and Creative Class data. Within Exhibit 10 are three sets of metro data, the first column displaying the individual Creative Class occupational share for each U.S. metro. The second and third columns present which metros contribute most to the respective candidate s total CC share (as weighted by voting share). The top 50 cities with the highest Creative Class shares are within Exhibit 10. Once again, New York, LA, Chicago and Washington contribute fairly larger amounts to Obama s total Creative Class occupational share than Romney s. While Houston, Dallas and Cincinnati all contribute a larger Creative Class share to Romney than Obama. San Francisco also again fairs well for Obama as the metro contributes the 8 th largest Creative Class share for Obama and only the 24 th for Romney. Durham, NC and Boulder, CO are two of the metros with the highest percentages of their local economy being within the Creative Class, and in this instance, both cities contribute a fairly larger share to Obama s CC total, than Romney s. Exhibit 11 shows the cumulative metro Creative Class occupations that each metro within the U.S. contributed to each of the two candidates total. Exhibit 12 presents the results for the top 25 most populated metros. The pink line shows the U.S. results, while the blue line is for Obama and the red for Romney. What is apparent within Exhibit 11 is that the top 50 most populated metros contributed a greater amount to Obama s Creative Class total as the blue line increases at a much steeper incline than the red line. Due to this steep increase, Obama s voting share attributes to 30% of the total Creative Class total earlier than Romney s. This attests to Obama s strength within large and medium size creative metros. The gap between the two candidates shares continues to increase, even across the small metros, as overall Obama gained a greater contribution from members of the Creative Class during this election within the U.S. 11

14 Top 50 contributors to Creative Class share Exhibit 10 Top 50 contributors to Creative Class share Creative Class Non Total 12.51% New York, NY 7.01% Los Angeles, CA 4.26% Chicago, IL 3.52% Washington, DC 3.20% Boston, MA 2.42% Dallas, TX 2.34% Philadelphia, PA 2.18% Houston, TX 1.99% Atlanta, GA 1.93% San Francisco, CA 1.80% Miami, FL 1.57% Minneapolis, MN 1.52% Seattle, WA 1.45% Detroit, MI 1.40% Phoenix, AZ 1.33% Baltimore, MD 1.12% Denver, CO 1.07% San Diego, CA 1.06% St. Louis, MO-IL 1.02% San Jose, CA 0.96% Tampa, FL 0.87% Pittsburgh, PA 0.83% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.80% Portland, OR 0.79% Riverside, CA 0.75% Cleveland, OH 0.75% Cincinnati, OH 0.74% Columbus, OH 0.73% Sacramento, CA 0.72% Orlando, FL 0.69% Indianapolis, IN 0.68% Charlotte, NC 0.66% Milwaukee, WI 0.62% San Antonio, TX 0.62% Austin, TX 0.59% Virginia Beach, VA 0.55% Nashville, TN 0.54% Harbord, CT 0.52% Richmond, VA 0.49% Salt Lake City, UT 0.48% Raleigh, NC 0.44% Las Vegas, NV 0.44% Oklahoma City, OK 0.44% Jacksonville, FL 0.42% Louisville, KY 0.41% Rochester, NY 0.41% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.40% Providence, RI 0.40% Buffalo, NY 0.40% Top 50 contributors to Obama s Creative Class share Obama CC Non Total 6.27% New York, NY 4.52% Los Angeles, CA 2.63% Chicago, IL 2.24% Washington, DC 2.15% Boston, MA 1.83% Philadelphia, PA 1.39% San Francisco, CA 1.36% Dallas, TX 0.99% Miami, FL 0.98% Atlanta, GA 0.95% Seattle, WA 0.92% Houston, TX 0.87% Minneapolis, MN 0.84% Detroit, MI 0.83% San Jose, CA 0.66% Baltimore, MD 0.65% Denver, CO 0.59% Phoenix, AZ 0.57% San Diego, CA 0.55% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.53% Portland, OR 0.48% Cleveland, OH 0.46% Tampa, FL 0.44% Pittsburgh, PA 0.41% Columbus, OH 0.38% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.38% Riverside, CA 0.38% Sacramento, CA 0.38% Orlando, FL 0.37% Charlotte, NC 0.33% Milwaukee, WI 0.32% Austin, TX 0.31% Indianapolis, IN 0.31% Virginia Beach, VA 0.30% Cincinnati, OH 0.30% Harbord, CT 0.29% San Antonio, TX 0.28% Richmond, VA 0.25% Las Vegas, NV 0.25% Raleigh, NC 0.23% Providence, RI 0.23% Honolulu, HI 0.23% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 0.23% Nashville, TN 0.22% Rochester, NY 0.22% Buffalo, NY 0.22% Durham, NC 0.21% Albany, NY 0.21% Madison, WI 0.21% Top 50 contributors to Romney s Creative Class share Romney CC Non Total 6.24% New York, NY 2.42% Los Angeles, CA 1.53% Dallas, TX 1.32% Chicago, IL 1.23% Houston, TX 1.10% Washington, DC 1.01% Atlanta, GA 0.95% Philadelphia, PA 0.77% Phoenix, AZ 0.73% Minneapolis, MN 0.65% Miami, FL 0.58% Detroit, MI 0.55% Boston, MA 0.55% Seattle, WA 0.50% San Diego, CA 0.49% St. Louis, MO-IL 0.47% Denver, CO 0.46% Baltimore, MD 0.45% Cincinnati, OH 0.42% Pittsburgh, PA 0.42% Tampa, FL 0.42% Kansas City, MO-KS 0.40% San Francisco, CA 0.40% Indianapolis, IN 0.36% Riverside, CA 0.36% Columbus, OH 0.34% San Antonio, TX 0.33% Sacramento, CA 0.33% Charlotte, NC 0.32% Orlando, FL 0.31% Nashville, TN 0.31% Milwaukee, WI 0.30% Portland, OR 0.29% Cleveland, OH 0.28% Salt Lake City, UT 0.28% Oklahoma City, OK 0.28% San Jose, CA 0.27% Austin, TX 0.27% Jacksonville, FL 0.25% Virginia Beach, VA 0.24% Harbord, CT 0.23% Richmond, VA 0.23% Birmingham, AL 0.22% Louisville, KY 0.21% Raleigh, NC 0.21% Tulsa, OK 0.20% Omaha, NE 0.19% Las Vegas, NV 0.18% New Orleans, LA 0.18% 12

15 Cumulative Creative Class share Exhibit % Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute Top 25 cumulative Creative Class share Exhibit 12 60% Designed by Michelle Hopgood, Martin Prosperity Institute 13

16 It is important to examine and evaluate the relationships/interactions between numerous indicators and geography. This Whitepaper has furthered the analyses relating to population, GDP, patents and Creative Class occupations within different regions throughout the U.S. With the 2012 American Presidential election behind us, a number of geographical conclusions can been made. We have analysed what interactions could be made among the geography of voting patterns from the 2012 election and indicators such as population and GDP. By looking at these relations, we attempted to better understand why certain creative, innovative and productive regions vote for certain candidates. Despite the 2012 election loss by the Republican Party, this Whitepaper has displayed that when looking at different metrics and voting patterns, that the race was close. There was definitely an urban rural divide between the two candidate s, but when looking at the relationship between voting shares and metrics such as GDP and CC occupations, Romney in many metros received better or similar results to Obama. Where we find the real divide in this election is when examining the most innovative and entrepreneurial regions. The largest gap between the two candidate s voting shares was found when we examined total patens. As these tech centers will be the drivers of regional prosperity in the future, it is imperative for the Republican Party to address their results within innovative regions, that we have addressed within this paper. For more information regarding this topic feel free to read the following: Big Ones Still Punch Above Their Weight Is your Region Creative, Innovative, Productive, or Just Populated? Is Your Region Innovative, Productive, Creative, or Just Populated? What Is It Exactly That Makes Big Cities Vote Democratic? 14