Polarized: Density and Destiny
/
ep, the 2020 election is now history. It’s been sliced and diced so that we seem to know every angle and trendline. Age, race, gender, geography, religious belief--all calculated in conjunction with each other. But before the analysis is put to bed, I want to underscore one more aspect that I don’t think gets enough attention—population density.
In other words, I believe we overlook the impact of considering how many people—and other kinds of people--voters typically encounter just leading daily lives. So, I’m imagining both population density…and cultural diversity. How might these determine a vote?
Let’s start with three geographical rankings:
The first two columns show the states ranked according to highest and lowest population densities. The third lists America’s most populous metropolitan areas (including both city and surrounding suburbs). I’m pretty sure you figured out the color coding: red are locations that voted for Trump, and blue for Biden.
The point here seems pretty clear. If you live in an area where you cross paths with a lot of other humans, including those of different races or beliefs, you’re more likely to vote like a liberal. Conversely, if you come into contact with fewer people, and mostly just like you, you’re likely to vote as a conservative.
Thus, stereotype is set. Trump voters are white people out in the boonies, likely less educated and less prosperous, and more religious than their urban counterparts. They keep to their own, and are highly susceptible to anyone who GOP strategists identify as the dangerous “other.” That’s why Trump rode down the elevator in 2015 vowing to repel the “murders and rapists” who were streaming across our southern border. It was racist and classist…and it got him elected.
On the other hand, people living in crowded environments have to cross paths with a lot of different people…and in the end, they realize that they aren’t much different than they are.
Unfortunately, this supposed dichotomy between urban multi-culturals and remote white conservatives didn’t quite hold up in the 2020 election because of one baffling exception—the Latino vote. Latino voters began moving toward Trump.
he Latino vote was once considered a stronghold for the Democratic party—those votes would support nearly any Democrat. Latinos would repel racism at the ballot box, right? Well, not so fast.
The 2020 election showed wide variances among Latino voters. I am aware of countless opinion writers who have asserted that there is no such thing as a monolithic “Latino” vote. They say it’s too simplistic to attribute Trump’s gains with Latinos over four years to religion or machismo or opposition to abortion. Plus, “Latino” itself encompasses a lot of nationalities, culture identities and diverse world views. Fair enough—that makes sense.
But numbers are numbers. In the biggest metropolitan areas with large Latino and Asian voters, Biden did increase the number of Democratic votes over 2016 by single digits. However, in exactly the same areas, Trump’s vote jumped by 60%, 70%, 80%--and even 110% in Philadelphia. Yes, Biden still won those cities overall, but Trump’s ballooning support can’t be denied.
The same thing happened in smaller towns alongside Trump’s mythical border wall. Hidalgo County, Texas (which includes McAllen) is 90% Hispanic and suffers from a high rate of poverty. Compared to its vote in 2016, Trump voters this time shot up by 27 points. Those voters heard something they liked from him.
Miami Dade county is home not only to displaced Cubans, but also at least a dozen other Hispanic-based cultures. They all watched as Trump essentially shrugged and walked away from hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico. Their collective response at polling places? Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton by 23 points.
The New York Times put it this way:
Trump did better in 2020…not only in Miami-Dade, Los Angeles and the Bronx, but also in New York's Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and the counties encompassing the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco.
Though urban counties remain overwhelmingly Democratic, Trump’s margin improved by 1.1 percentage points in these counties — an even bigger pickup than Trump achieved in non-metropolitan counties, which are largely rural.
What gives? Democrats accomplished the incursions they hoped for in America’s suburbs—and even the exurbs. But defections from Latino voters in inner cities nibbled at the Democratic party foundation.
Many of those defections came from the same immigrant cultures that Trump had gleefully vilified. What exactly was the appeal? No one seems ready to draw a conclusion.
t is common in wealthy white neighborhoods to see Latinos happily integrating into a wider white culture: the gardeners, the babysitters, the nursing home and restaurant workers. They’ve all found work, so they must be happy, right? It turns out they’re not very happy.
Trump’s increase of just more than a percentage point on average in urban areas may not seem like much. But when you think about that in relation to what he’s said, done and implied, it’s astounding. (Grabbing babies from their mothers was a good idea?)
It’s hard to understand what’s happening—but maybe Republicans do. And what if the GOP distills the formula for this shift…and then injects it into less offensive candidates? Are Latinos a future strength for them?
Clearly, it’s way too soon for media to start speculating on this in terms of 2024, or even 2022. But for the Democratic party, it’s not. Somehow, they need to integrate better with Latino communities, to understand the multiple motivations at work there.
Democrats need to build a bridge. The future gets more troubling if the GOP figures out how to add to their recipe of white bread out on the farm…with the salsa beat of city streets.
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
