The Great Realignment
Half the counties in America have moved more Republican in each of the last three elections.
The recent NYT The Daily podcast episode “A 1,400-County Crisis for Democrats,” examined the county-by-county shift over the past four presidential election cycles. Reporter Shane Goldmacher did a thorough analysis, starting with 2012 (the last election without Donald Trump on the ballot) as a baseline and found a shocking development:
Shane Goldmaker: So more than 1,400 counties in the country have trended continuously in the Republican direction since Trump has been on the ballot.
Michael Barbaro: So about half of all of the nation’s counties.
Shane Goldmaker: Nearly half of the counties in the entire country have trended Republican. And less than 2 percent of the nation’s counties have trended Democratic. Only 57 of the counties in the entire country have moved continuously to the left.
Michael Barbaro: Wow, hugely disproportionate.
Shane Goldmaker: Hugely disproportionate. And look, the total number of people living in these Republican-moving counties way outnumber the number of people living in these continuously Democratic-moving counties. It’s something around 42 million to 8 million people.
Michael Barbaro: Basically, that data suggests that Republicans are improving their relationship to more and more voters in more and more places, while Democrats are not.shane goldmacher
And I think that while that top line number is scary enough for the Democratic Party, it’s actually the complexion of those counties that is most concerning.
Michael Barbaro: Well, talk about that complexion for both kinds of counties, those moving further and further toward the Republican side and the pretty small number that are moving farther and farther toward the Democratic side.shane goldmacher
Shane Goldmaker: Well, let’s start with the Democrats because they’re improving in so many fewer places. They’re basically only doing better in the richest corners of the country and the most educated corners of the country. And on the flip side, Trump is doing better in working class parts of the country everywhere. So, yes, we know that Donald Trump has done well in white, rural parts of America. He’s doing even better now than he did when he first came onto the political scene.
That’s part of it. The other part is he is doing better in working class parts of the country that are diverse — inner cities, Black neighborhoods, Latino neighborhoods, big, big cities, smaller towns in the South. All across the country, diverse places, Donald Trump has been doing better, not once, not twice, three times in a row. In 2016, he improved for the party. In 2020, he improved for the party. And then again in 2024.
What these maps showed is that his victory was the culmination of a set of improvements that Trump has been making among working class voters and diverse voters for a decade.
There’s a whole lot more, including considerable analysis as to why this has happened, but the bottom line is that the results don’t seem to be a function of single economic events or the comparative personalities and campaign strategies of the candidates in the four contests. Indeed, even though Trump lost in 2020, he actually gained voters over 2016 at the county level.
Strangely, NBC (“Breaking down 20 years of election data that shows how the two parties have evolved in the Trump era“) has done a similar analysis, going back even further. It’s top-line findings are more conventional:
President Donald Trump’s second election win was different from his first in one big, important way: He won the popular vote, just the second time in the last two decades that Republicans had done so.
And in the time between those two victories, from 2004 to 2024, there have been dramatic shifts in the nation’s politics along geographic, racial, educational and economic lines. Trump is operating in a very different Republican Party than George W. Bush was 20 years earlier. A look at where the vote has shifted most in that time tells an eye-catching story.
Over the last 20 years, the counties where Republicans have improved their presidential vote share by the largest margins are predominately centered in Appalachia and the surrounding areas. The 100 counties that saw the largest shifts include: 11 of West Virginia’s 55 counties, 27 of Tennessee’s 95 counties, 18 of Arkansas’ 75 counties and 17 of Kentucky’s 120 counties.
These counties, on the whole, are much more heavily white than average, according to census data, with white residents making up at least 90% of the total population in about two-thirds of these counties. All but 12 of those counties are at least 75% white. The unemployment rate across these counties is about twice the national average. Residents are more likely to be reliant on food stamps and less likely to have moved in the last year. Residents of these counties, on average, also are significantly less likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
While the national average in the American Community Survey’s most recent five-year estimate is that 35% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree or higher, the average in these counties is just 14%.
In short, the shifts show how Trump has brought more white working-class voters into the GOP, causing spectacular changes in some localities.
But, reading a little further, we get this:
A different look — at the counties with the largest pro-Republican shifts between Trump’s three elections, from 2016 to 2024 — shows some major differences in the types of places that have moved to the right specifically within the Trump era.
On average, the 100 counties that shifted most toward Republicans in the Trump era are significantly more Hispanic than the national average. These counties are also wealthier and more educated compared to the counties that moved most from 2004 to 2024, although they are still below the national average.
While the biggest Republican-shifting counties from 2004 to 2024 are largely concentrated around Appalachia, the counties that shifted the most to the right in the Trump era are more spread out and predominantly in the South and West.
Twenty-nine Texas counties show up in the list of 100 counties that saw the greatest gain in GOP presidential vote margin between 2016 and 2024, and 12 of those are among the 20 that saw the biggest shifts. All of these Texas counties are majority-Hispanic, and some are more than 90% Hispanic, emblematic of Trump’s dramatic improvement among Hispanic voters in 2024 as well as his success in heavily Hispanic areas along the border in 2020.
Another heavily Hispanic county, Miami-Dade County, saw the 15th-largest shift in margin toward Republicans between 2016 and 2024 out of more than 3,000 counties nationwide. Other major population centers in New York City — including the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens — are in the top 100 too. And the 14 counties in Utah are typical of another trend: Many Republicans initially skeptical of Trump in 2016 (including Mormons, who make up a significant part of the electorate in Utah) largely fell in line eight years later.
There’s definitely a resorting happening. What’s hard to know, since Trump has been headlining the Republican ballot for the last three cycles, is how much of this is him and how much is the GOP. The party nominated George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney during the first half of the period in question and Trump the last half. There’s a chasm between those candidates.
I continue to see the rise of the Tea Party in the wake of the Great Recession as the turning point. Starting with the 2010 midterm cycle, the party started nominating “populist” candidates with much rougher edges downballot. There was a rising sense that the Republican elites had failed to live up to their rhetoric, and thus a rejection of the old line.
McCain, of course, chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and flirted with Joe The Plumber, but it was clearly pandering. Romney was the only conventional Republican among those with a realistic shot at the nomination (Jon Huntsman, my personal favorite, seemed to be actively try to alienate the base) and managed to win it. In hindsight, it was the last gasp of the old guard.
Add in the movement of population from Dem leaning states to R leaning ones that will have a major effect on the 2032 and beyond elections…
Adapting to this realignment is where a previous Dem strength, a coalition of interests, becomes a weakness. The interest groups and those who support them, care more about their cause than the Dem party and will be reluctant to tone down their advocacy in order to not alienate the voters that party is trying to reach.
How that’s working out in the Miami-Dade part of Florida:
“Link”
(can’t embed)
And yet, still better than a real catastrophe like a Kamala Harris tyranny.
@charontwo:
(Lost the edit tab in above post)
Who knows, perhaps the increased popularity of the GOP with racial/ethnic minorities may not be all that durable.
If land voted, I’d be concerned, but since it doesn’t the focus on counties just seems like a way for someone to say they think rural people are inherently more valuable than urban people without having to just come out and say it.
@Stormy Dragon: Not in this case:
McCain just up and quit when the financial crisis happened. Perhaps just a misjudgment along the lines of Carter holing up in the White House in 1980.
But Romney, the establishment GOP pick proved that he wouldn’t fight for himself, much less the voters, when he wouldn’t even push back on the partisan “journalist”/moderator.
Trump may be brash and garish, but he will fight, fight, fight, especially when they, whomever “they” are, take shot at him.
Let’s not forget the Tea Party was astroturfed into prominence by the Koch Bros and FOX News. The “Republican elite” created this populist monster. And it’s been very successful for them in getting Republicans elected so that the GOP elites got the tax breaks, light regulation, and contracts that are their only real goal. That the monster will turn on its maker is an obvious prospect. But right now the GOP elite are getting their tax cut.
@Stormy Dragon:
Consider that Trump only lost NY by 1.1 million votes. Only 6% of the population.
That should be worrying since a lot of Republican voters in say NYC probably don’t make an effort to vote since Democrats dominate. But if more did in the future, they could change the Electoral College.
Or flipside, more Democrats sit out an election as they don’t support the extreme policies of other coalition members.
In November of 2012, you wrote a post in which you lamented that America was no longer Center Right, but was moving to the Left. Look on the bright side, you don’t have to worry about that any more. (To the extent that I can recall–I looked up the post but didn’t reread it–running late for Luddites’ party–I said you were nuts. Guess I was right
)
@JKB: Jake actually has a valid point some of us have been trying to make here for some time. Yes, a part of Trump’s appeal is that he fights. Schumer and Jeffries could learn from that example. Trump fights for himself. Dems are the party that actually does something for the generally less well off low information voters who swing elections. How hard can it be to be seen as doing so?
I don’t know if there’s much validity to the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens, but the perception is they do, and that’s what counts in politics. If they are taking jobs, who are they competing with for low pay jobs? The minorities that this post shows are drifting right.
I generally argue that Dems looking to improve their electoral prospects should not look to policy. People don’t vote on policy, especially the low info, low turnout voters who may actually swing vote or choose to show up. But Trump’s most effective issue is immigration and we should be able to undercut that. If GOPs really wanted to cut illegal immigration they’d mandate E-Verify with penalties for employers of undocumented immigrants. Make it clear this shows it’s all theatre. There are very few actual supporters of an open border, none of them prominent Democrats that I can recall. We would lose very few votes by pushing for real, as opposed to Trumpian theatre border security. Call the GOPs bluff. Push for better funding, expansion of courts, etc. Continue to push for DACA and paths to citizenship. Visibly push for tighter border security, but insist on due process and decent treatment. And as fiercely as possible fight against and publicize Trump’s deportation atrocities. Biden and Obama both deported a lot of people without oppression and without losing votes over it.
@gVOR10:
Given that the vast majority of the jobs taken by immigrants, are jobs that native born aren’t interested in, the effect is mostly in depressing wages. R’s have been able to skate regarding e-verify, because Dems aren’t willing to insist that it be implemented, letting Rs off the hook.
@James Joyner:
By your definition, Philadelphia county, which went from 15% Republican in 2016 to 17% Republican in 2020 to 19% Republican in 2024, counts as a “Republican moving county”
Keep in mind this is a city that was 30-40% Republican as recently as the 90s
The entire premise of this analysis is methodologically suspect
This data indicates that the general population is drifting toward Republicanism and not just for Trump at the top of the ticket – as GOP control of both chambers of Congress demonstrates. At the same time, the Republicans, by all signs I can see, are a much more extreme, radical co-hort of politicians than they were when Romney, McCain, and GW Bush were the face of the party. If there are compelling signs that Democratic pols have drifted to a similar degree toward leftist radicalism, someone will have to name influential names and point to specific, prominent messaging to convince me there is such symmetrical extremism.
What are the possible explanations for the significant political shift seen here?
Maybe the Republicans aren’t as bad as I think they are and they deserve to attract the support of a civil and decent populace. Steven’s In Front of Our Noses series would seem to demonstrate otherwise and none of OTB’s resident GOP supporters are willing or able to make that case, so that’s a premise that doesn’t hold up well to my mind.
Maybe the US is no longer a civil and decent populace at a critical mass. Much more plausible, though I struggle to see any societal impetus that might explain the whole country trending toward a historically higher level of depravity.
So, I’m left with the sense that the US is no more morally degraded than it ever was. Sure, Trumpism has allowed the racist, xenophobic elements of America to let their freak flags fly and the low info voter isn’t as repulsed by that as I would hope they’d be – likely because they are easily manipulated by the false promises of a Mythic Past the Republicans are selling them.
So, rather than a policy response, Democrats should take up their own brand of manipulation. We can play the Us vs Them game too and we’d likely be better at it if we let go of some our inhibitions about illiberality.
So, it’s Eat the Rich for me. The oligarchs have too much power and too much money and They are the reason the middle and lower classes are being deprived of the Mythic Past. Our society doesn’t need billionaires. They can share their bounty or we can come at them with pitchforks and guillotines – figuratively of course, unless they don’t get the message.
@Stormy Dragon: That Republican shift in Philadelphia had a huge impact though.
@Scott F.: “Us vs. Them” has been the Democrats’ staple since long before Trump was born.
@Scott F.:
GOPs have become far more extreme, and you’re right, FOX’ opinion to the contrary it’s completely asymmetric. They have to nutpick to claim otherwise. People keep saying Dems must move to the center. WTF. We are the damn center.
Republicans recognize there are votes they can’t get. They’re happy to attack minorities, racial and cultural. Dems seem to think everyone should vote for them (which they should, but). We need to recognize that there are people who will never vote for or support us. You say, “Eat the Rich”. Works for me. Right now Musk is the face of the oligarchic rich, smash that face. I’d pitch it as, “We’re the 99.9%”. Leave room in the tent for the reasonable lesser rich, there seem to be a surprising number of wealthy individuals happy to say they’d accept higher taxes. And go after the worst of the MAGA. Continue to subsidize them, but attack their racism and ignorance.
@gVOR10: You’re never going to work through grief if you stay in denial. The article gives data about the Republicans gaining numbers in the center and among minorities.
@Fortune:
That’s a very bold assertion. Care to back it up with names and citations?
I’ll set the bar relatively low for you. Name one sitting Democratic congressman who has called the 1% percent “enemies of the people.” (I can name a sitting Republican President who has said that about the entirety of our independent media.) Provide a quote from a prominent Democratic strategist, pundit, or spokesperson claiming that shipping all oligarchs to an El Salvadoran gulag without due process is the Will of the People based on Kamala Harris getting a plurality of the 2024 popular vote. (I can name at least current 2 Republican Cabinet members who have made this claim about sending immigrants to CECOT and I won’t even have to Google it.) You allege Democratic “Otherism” pre-dates Trump, so go back further if you want to. I was born nearly twenty years after Trump was, so maybe I missed the period of Democratic fascism you are referring to.
To be clear, me calling you a shallow troll is NOT “Us vs. Them” rhetoric. I’m not claiming you are part of some out-group – everyone of whom is “less than” my in-group – but rather I am dismissing you personally as unserious.
@Scott F.: That’s dumb. Democrats haven’t done the exact same acts but they’ve been playing the same kind of games about race and class for decades. Read a Truman speech.
We would need a breakdown by state to know how much this matters, as we don’t have a federal election for president, we have 50 state elections. If the blueist part of Idaho votes 5% more Republican, that means something different than the blueist part of Wisconsin which is different from New York. And all of those are diffeeent from the reddist parts. And the very tiny number of actually competitive house districts are different once again.
No one gives a shit about Wyoming — if they vote 79% red instead of 65% red or whatever, it has literally no effect outside of Wyoming. Even Republicans don’t give a shit about Wyoming, as someone would have to be fucking a pig on national television* for it to swing (and even there, the disillusioned pig fucker caucus might come out in droves and vote for the first time in 30 years)
That said, Democrats simply do not fight and do not make a case beyond “not Trump.” They also don’t say “motherfucker” nearly enough for my tastes**. We need a leader, but instead we have Chuck Schumer.
*: Black Mirror takes the stupidest ideas and asks “What if we made a really high end show exploring this stupid idea? Would it still be stupid?” and the answer is usually yes.
**: any statement that starts with “motherfucker” is empirically more earnest, believable and authentic than the same statement without the “motherfucker.” Powder this: “Motherfucker, trickle down economics has never worked.”
@JKB:
This is ‘it.’
People know by now that he’s malignant, malevolent, devious, amoral, immoral, and cruel, but he will fight, fight, fight for everything – regardless of norms, rules, regulations and laws – and this is EXACTLY what they slavishly love about him.
Republicans have for five decades been dreaming of an opportunity to tear down and deconstruct the Federal state, so-called liberal Universities, and so-called Mainstream Media organizations. Trump perfectly suits their needs, and Congressional Republicans, whether they love him or fear him, are quite willing to let Trump do as he pleases. And it’s all happening now in real time.
I keep pointing out that Democrats have not been losing support to MAGA Republicans. Looking at trends from the pre-Trump era is misleading. The breakthrough election for MAGA Republicans was the one Trump lost in 2020, when he increased his 2016 vote by an astonishing 18%. He lost because even more first-time voters pulled the lever for Biden. The reason Trump won last year was that he kept those supporters and attracted a few new ones, presumably because they were pissed off by Biden for various reasons, while Biden’s new 2020 supporters abandoned him, presumably for the same reasons (inflation, Biden’s age and frailty, immigration etc).
The big unknown is whether these new voters turned out for Trump, or for Republicans. If it was the latter, Democrats have a problem. If the former, Republicans do.
Here are the figures which make my case:
2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
2016 Clinton 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
2020 Biden 81,283,501 Trump 74, 223,975
2024 Harris 75,017,626 Trump 77,301,997
This sounds bad. Except, we don’t vote by counties, we vote by state.
Yes, Trump gained some ground this election. AND, Joe Biden got more popular votes in the last election than Trump did in this one. Basically some bad luck with Biden’s health/age was the factor.
If all the Biden voters had turned out for Harris, Trump would be in court, not the White House.
I find it really hard to believe that they switched to Trump. Stayed home is more like it.
So yes, sorting. Not Doom for Democrats.
@Fortune:
OMG, you’ve got nothing. C’mon. I’ve given you a chance to defend your assertion and you want me to research Truman speeches?
It took me 3 minutes to find this quote from Truman’s Inaugural Address:
Is that the Democratic “Us vs. Them” you purport?
Surely, with just a little more time and a decent AI supported search engine, you can cite me a specific Truman quote where he pits one group of Americans against another. You know, like Trump, the titular head of the GOP, did just weeks ago when he wished “ HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS.” [All caps his…]
“Lalo”
(Cartoon image)
@Scott F.: I assume you chose an inaugural address because they’re more conciliatory, which shows how you know I’m right.