no. if there are seeming anomalous patterns, look for plausible explanations, is the next step. The most plausible one here is that there are urban areas who overwhelmingly vote democrat. The responsible thing to do as a data analyst here is to chase that theory down and test it out. He should have chased down the how likely it is that multiple such places reported together which could have produced that pattern. If after doing that all, you can still show any such is very unlikely, then perhaps you have an anomaly worth investigating. But this lazy quack did neither, tested no plausible hypothesis, instead chose to add superflous, and absolutely unnecessary math as if to add scientific legitimacy to his rubbish analysis. None of that log- nonsense he was doing was needed or necessary to point out an anomaly.
That entire drivel is along the line of saying there is an anomalous amount of water on the ground today for December, without checking to see if it rained today. If he worked for me as analyst, I would fire him on the spot for such stupidity.