Did the Weather Help Trump Win the Election?
Trump had a turnout of previously hidden voters in the North-Central US, or what I call the Game of Icy Thrones. We compare the average November temperature range in select cities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota with the actual temperature range on election day, Nov. 8, 2016.
City November Average November 8, 2016
H L H L
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 56 39 56 39
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 51 35 69 36
Cleveland, Ohio 51 37 69 36
Columbus, Ohio 53 36 75 40
Detroit, Michigan 49 34 66 43
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 46 32 66 52
Minneapolis, Minnesota 41 26 65 44
Except for cooler Philadelphia and New England, the high for Nov. 8 for the Great Lake states ranges from 17 degrees to 22 degrees F hotter. Global warming could only account for 1.8 degrees F hotter on a global, year-round basis. Although it could contribute to a fall heat wave. Still, Trump got amazingly lucky. It’s true that I should have used the many-year average on or around Nov. 8, but I haven’t found that data on my first hour of searching. But the extreme warmth on this particular election day will still be outstanding.
I have read many articles on demographics of Trump’s unexpected victory, looked at two exit poll summaries, and heard several political scientists talk on this, but have not encountered the great weather effect.
Since urban voters usually have to wait longer in long lines than rural voters, one might have expected that the good weather would have helped Clinton. I don’t have the data yet on urban turnouts and compared them to past elections and temperatures. It could be that it helped Clinton, but it helped Trump more.
Does it say that Trump should now believe in global warming? Not because of this weather, but because the science is so sound.
