Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America's economy.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.

[VOX]

This post was updated on February 26, 2021 with new data.
Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy.
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the
White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding
President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s
election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of
the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some
Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election
sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America,
instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented
after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In
2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36%
of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary
Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate
economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends
continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time,
Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s
economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties
represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 28
mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data
is reported.) Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016
and 2020 Year Candidate Counties won Total votes
Aggregate share of US GDP
2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64%
Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36%
2020 Joe Biden 520 81,283,098 71%
Donald Trump 2,564 74,222,958 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 99% of counties.
Figures for 2020 represent results from 100% of counties for which 2018
GDP data are available. Some county equivalents have been consolidated
into counties to match the geography of BEA GDP data.
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times,
and Moody’s Analytics
Fig1
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic
geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the
counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the
largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few
that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural
communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red
tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and
white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-
educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively,
compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the
large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly
exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and
red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital
services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more
dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely
static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained
starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement,
as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and
significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped six of the
nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between
these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically,
Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties
Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort
Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County
in New Jersey; and Tampa- St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP
off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the
nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in
recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the
nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both
continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation
and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock
in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important
issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the
past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats
and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but
that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats
represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse
economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an
improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial
justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national
R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the
nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there
remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider
the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is
not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely
underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement.
Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable
portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the
nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity
into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country,
but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the
challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other
continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant
minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective
governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places.
In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the
economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns
we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly
unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-
counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-

nations

- political-economic-divide/

We know who the real commies are. The Trumplings.