One of Hillary Clinton’s early warning signs came out of West Philadelphia.

When results started pouring in from the predominately black Democratic stronghold, her numbers were good — her vote share north of 95 percent — but not good enough. She would need to turn out more voters there to counteract the flood of Republican votes coming from other parts of the largely rural state, especially in the face of growing evidence that Donald Trump was seeing a Republican surge.

VOTE SHIFT IN PHILADELPHIA

2016 vs 2012

> 10%

Wards with >75% racial minority population

Better

< 10%

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

How Clinton compares

with Obama

DOWNTOWN

Delaware River

Penn.

DETAIL

Philadelphia

How Trump compares

with Romney

2016 vs 2012

> 10%

Better

< 10%

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

Wards with >75% racial minority population

3 MILE

VOTE SHIFT IN PHILADELPHIA

How Trump compares

with Romney

How Clinton compares

with Obama

2016 vs 2012

DOWNTOWN

> 10%

Better

< 10%

Delaware River

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

Penn.

DETAIL

Philadelphia

Wards with >75% racial minority population

VOTE SHIFT IN PHILADELPHIA

> 10%

Better

< 10%

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

How Trump compares

with Romney

How Clinton compares

with Obama

Wards with >75% racial minority population

Clinton did worse than Obama on the minority-dense west side.

DOWNTOWN

Delaware River

In the same area, Donald Trump far outperformed his Republican predecessor.

Penn.

DETAIL

Philadelphia

3 MILE

Among the city’s wards that are more than 75 percent African American, Trump got about 1,300 — or 31 percent — more votes than Romney. Clinton saw a mild decline, earning 7 percent — about 16,000 — fewer votes than President Obama did in 2012.

These neighborhoods — and Philadelphia as a whole — are without a doubt significant for Democrats. Pennsylvania is a large swing state, holding 20 electoral votes. Philadelphia, alongside a few other Democratic pockets such as central Pittsburgh, needed to deliver the party enough votes to counter the vast conservative population across the state. Since 1992, these areas had been enough for Democrats — until Tuesday.

[ Trump loyalists, inner circle poised to claim top government roles]

However, Clinton’s small losses and Trump’s modest gains in Philadelphia did not decide the election. Had Clinton done as well as Obama there, she still would not have won Pennsylvania, which she lost by about 65,000 votes. And even if Clinton had won Pennsylvania, Trump would have still passed the 270-electoral-vote threshold to win the presidency.

But this pattern of decreased turnout within minority areas and a surge of Trump support across the boards reflects what was happening elsewhere in the country.

VOTE SHIFT NATIONWIDE

Better

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

> 10%

< 10%

How Clinton compares

with Obama

How Trump compares

with Romney

Note: Maps show only areas where

reporting is higher than 98%.

VOTE SHIFT NATIONWIDE

How Clinton compares

with Obama

How Trump compares

with Romney

2016 vs 2012

> 10%

Better

< 10%

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

Note: Maps show only areas where reporting is higher than 98%.

VOTE SHIFT NATIONWIDE

> 10%

How Trump compares

with Romney

How Clinton compares

with Obama

Better

< 10%

Worse

< 10%

> 10%

Note: Maps show only areas where reporting is higher than 98%.

In most of the counties nationwide with a nonwhite majority — such as Philadelphia County — Clinton saw a decline in vote totals of 10 percent or more (what we’ll call “significant”) from Obama’s performance in 2012. In most of these counties, Republican votes stayed steady, so the Democratic vote decline reflected a decline in turnout. In a fifth of these counties, Republicans saw small gains in the  total number of votes, but since these areas are almost entirely Democratic, that translated into significant percentage gains.

[ How voters who heavily supported Obama switched over to Trump]

Unsurprisingly, in whiter (and almost always, more conservative) areas, these changes were even more drastic. In nearly half of these counties, Trump saw a significant increase in votes over 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and in three-quarters of them, Clinton saw a significant decrease. A good number of votes — three times more than in 2012 — also went to third-party candidates.

Putting these effects — declining Democratic turnout and increasing Republican persuasion — together, the pattern is clear: In left-leaning counties, Clinton performed worse than Obama, and in right-leaning counties, Trump performed better than Romney.

Each dot represents a county. Position shows margin

between candidates, in percentage points.

Clinton did

better than

Trump

Trump did

better than

Clinton

Trump did

better than

Romney

Clinton did

better than

Obama

Clinton did

worse than

Obama

Trump did

worse than

Romney

50%

50%

TO THE LEFT, COUNTIES WON BY CLINTON

TO THE RIGHT, COUNTIES WON BY TRUMP

Clinton did

better than

Trump

Trump did

better than

Clinton

Each dot represents

a county. Position shows margin

between candidates,

in percentage points

Elliott County, KY

Clinton did better than obama

Trump did

better than

Romney

D.C.

Clinton did

worse than

Obama

Trump did

worse than

Romney

Utah County, UT

50%

50%

TO THE LEFT, COUNTIES WON BY CLINTON

TO THE RIGHT, COUNTIES WON BY TRUMP

Clinton did

better than

Trump

Trump did

better than

Clinton

Each dot represents

a county. Position shows margin

between candidates,

in percentage points

Elliott County, KY

Clinton did better than obama

Trump did

better than

Romney

D.C.

Clinton did

worse than

Obama

Trump did

worse than

Romney

Utah County, UT

50%

50%

Clinton did

better than

Trump

Trump did

better than

Clinton

Each dot represents

a county. Position shows margin

between candidates,

in percentage points

Elliott County, KY

Clinton did

better than

Obama

Trump did

better than

Romney

D.C.

Clinton did

worse than

Obama

Trump did

worse than

Romney

Utah County, UT

50%

50%

In face of this evidence, it’s hard to pin Clinton’s defeat on a single factor. There was a turnout problem — the declines in Democratic votes in African American neighborhoods reflect her inability to excite that portion of her base, not a swing toward Trump — a fact that’s reinforced by exit polling among that group.

[ Trump health-care agenda evolves toward core Republican thinking]

But it certainly wasn’t only a turnout problem. Exit polls show Clinton losing badly among less-educated, working-class whites — a large swath of the American population with whom Obama did much better. As a result, states in the upper Midwest that Obama carried and were expected to go to Clinton fell to Trump.

Now that the election has left the Democratic Party without the presidency, without the Senate and without the House, the party’s focus will soon shift to its path moving forward — which of these groups they’ll attempt to reenergize and win back.

More stories

These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump

Donald Trump delivered on his promise to flip the Democrats’ electoral hold on the industrial Midwest.

How Trump redrew the electoral map, from sea to shining sea

The coasts are home to urban Democratic havens, while Republicans count on the vast and less densely populated areas that almost always support the ticket.

Where polling underestimated Trump’s chances

Polls in many battleground states underestimated Trump’s support, notably in Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin.

Two swing states show why Clinton lost

Virginia and North Carolina both show the same pattern: Clinton taking major hits in rural areas without making up for it in cities.