Why have Republicans won more counties than Democrats?

[Calthrina950]

This question has fascinated me recently. I have looked through posts here, and at the Atlas. What I have found is that for most of the past century (going back to 1900), Republicans have usually won more counties than their Democratic opponents. The only exceptions to this rule are 1912, 1916, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1964, and 1976. Four of these were the landslides of Franklin Roosevelt; one (in 1964), was LBJ's landslide. Bill Clinton won a substantial number in the 1990s, but did not carry the majority. And in modern times, Democrats tend to win only about 20% or so of the nation's counties, while Republicans take the remaining 80%. What are the reasons for this? Why are Republicans so dominant, geographically speaking?

[DPKdebator]

Counties are a terrible indicator of demographic trends (even though they look cool on maps), their population distribution is very uneven: many counties in Texas and the Plains states have a few hundred people at most, and many of the very low-population counties are full of farmers that mostly vote Republican and several larger counties lump various groups together (i.e. Plymouth County in Massachusetts is mostly lily-white, Republican towns but is heavily weighted by its largest city Brockton, which is a diverse city with a large black population that gives Democrats a win in an otherwise Republican area with a similar case with Hampden County).

[AGA]

Democrats are packed together in urban areas with few counties while Republicans are spread out in rural areas over many counties. Counties are not based on population, so they are a very poor indicator of who won the election. This geographic trend has progressed over the last couple of decades. In 2016, Clinton won 490 of the nation's over 3,100 counties while winning the popular vote by about 2 points. In 1988, Dukakis lost the popular vote by about 8 points but still won over 800 counties.

[Beet]

The Free Soilers were farmers who wanted independent proprietorship free from the influence of large plantation power. They spread out across the whole rural America outside of the cotton belt and the declining tobacco belt. To fight the Slave Power, they founded the GOP in Wisconsin.

Martin Van Buren was a Dutch immigrant who founded the Albany Regency in New York. He married urban machine power to the western populist appeal of Andrew Jackson. However once slavery became an issue, the GOP seized power in the farms outside the cotton and tobacco belts, as I said above. The Democrats were left only with rural power in the south, plus urban, immigrant machines.

[Calthrina950]

Do the trends suggest then, that for the remainder of this century Democrats will win by scraping together an Obama-like coalition of counties, while Republicans must hold a Trump-like coalition? In other words, can Democrats win in the future with the nation's most populous counties, and Republicans with almost everything else?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

So before 1992, there wasn't as much of a rural/urban polarization. The candidate who won more counties won the election in all but 1916 and 1960, both close elections.

Since 1992, Republicans have won the majority of counties (even if it was close in '92 and '96) in seven straight elections while winning the election only three times and the popular vote only once.

[Calthrina950]

It is interesting to see how the rural-urban divide has developed in recent times. Especially considering that Republicans won their largest number of counties in 2016, since Ronald Reagan, yet Democrats still carried the popular vote, and the election was decided by a little over 100,000 votes in the Midwest.

[Sumner 1868]

1976 was somewhat inflated by Carter winning several southern counties a "normal" Democrat wouldn't have.

[Calthrina950]

Do the trends suggest then, that for the remainder of this century Democrats will win by scraping together an Obama-like coalition of counties, while Republicans must hold a Trump-like coalition? In other words, can Democrats win in the future with the nation's most populous counties, and Republicans with almost everything else?

I am bumping this up because I am still interested about this question.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

There are complex reasons for this.

1. Race. Minorities (other than Native peoples and some Latinos) tend to live in urban areas and vote strongly to overwhelmingly Democrat. The two parties are constantly jockeying for position, and tend to keep a 50/50 power balance. That means, as the nation has become more diverse, more white people fall out of the Democratic coalition into the GOP.

2. Different ground strategies. The Democrats found it very easy to maintain their power through canvassing and community organization in tight, populous areas. It's easier to go door-to-door when the doors are close together. The Republicans filled in the power vacuum left in rural areas. By the same token, at one time there were Republican big city political machines. They have largely vanished.

3. Different relationships with government. Cities need more government. They need water and sewer, zoning, traffic management, waste management. When you live close together, your actions have a much larger impact on those around you, and government is a mediator and guardian of the public interest. In rural areas, you are much less bound by rules. You can burn your yard waste without filling the neighborhood with smoke. You can let your dog s**t in the field. You can set up an outdoor firing range safely. Keep and raise large animals. People who live in rural areas like this. They are attracted to rural areas because of this. They don't like government, regulations, and taxes because these are encroachments upon the freedoms they value. The Democrats are viewed as the party of government intrusion.

4. There is a natural cultural divide, which has now become the party divide. The culture of rural America values individualism, believes that we are largely in control of our own destiny, believes we should look out for our own before helping those outside our borders, and are resistant to social change. The culture of urban America - where people are more often exposed to those who aren't like themselves - believes that no individual can do it alone, believes that we are to some extent a product of our circumstances and privilege, that we have a responsibility not just to those like us but those who are from radically different places, and embrace new ideas and social change. There was always some amount of divide along these lines, but they are now the primary determinant of party lines.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

To add to this:

When rural areas do go Democrat, it is owing to an overwhelming economic interest. Iowa farmers care about the bottom line. Wisconsin dairy farmers care about milk subsidies. Southerners weren't just Democrats because their parents and grandparents were. They benefited hugely from the New Deal, and remained in that New Deal Coalition into the 1970s, and even later than that.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Because rural voters are voting on muh culture war instead of real issues.