By Ajay Raju
American politics is characterized by unprecedented polarization, with partisan divisions cutting across nearly every aspect of public life. These divisions have deep roots in some cases and have dramatically transformed our political parties over the past century, with various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups shifting their allegiances based on pivotal historical moments and policy decisions. These realignments often occurred not through gradual change, but through specific events that crystallized which party better represented a group’s interests and values.
As American demographics change—with growing racial diversity, educational polarization, and morphing religious patterns—future realignments are inevitable. The question is not whether political coalitions will shift, but how and when, and which pivotal moments will define the next chapter of American political alignment. The future of American democracy will, in major part, be shaped by the policies that DIVIDE us and how the new generation will evolve and influence the changing political strategies of our two major political parties.
Let’s dive deeper by analyzing the roots of our divisions, our major subgroups who have influence over our elections, and how they will change the political landscape in America:
The African American Realignment
One of the most dramatic party switches in American history occurred among African Americans, who abandoned the Republican Party—the party of Lincoln and emancipation—for the Democratic Party over several decades. This shift happened in stages, with each phase marked by specific events and leadership decisions.
Initially, African Americans were overwhelmingly Republican. As late as 1936, Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon received about 28% of the Black vote. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, which provided economic relief during the Great Depression, began attracting African American voters despite the Democratic Party’s simultaneous embrace of Southern segregationists.
Ajay Raju: Predicting future economic success of cities (June 26, 2025)
The transformation accelerated during the 1960s civil rights era. While Republican President Eisenhower had won approximately 39% of the Black vote in 1956, the Kennedy administration’s response to the civil rights movement proved decisive. When Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in Georgia in 1960, John F. Kennedy’s call to Coretta Scott King expressing concern, while Richard Nixon remained silent, resonated powerfully in Black communities. Kennedy won about 68% of the African American vote in 1960, up from the 61% that Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson had received in 1956.
The realignment solidified under Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson famously predicted that signing the Civil Rights Act would lose the South for Democrats “for a generation”—a prophecy that proved accurate. By 1964, Johnson received roughly 94% of the African American vote, and Democratic presidential candidates have consistently won over 85% of Black votes ever since, often exceeding 90%.
The Southern White Exodus
The flip side of the civil rights realignment was the gradual exodus of white Southern voters from the Democratic Party. For nearly a century following Reconstruction, the South was the “Solid South”—a Democratic stronghold where Republican candidates were barely viable.
The cracks began appearing in 1948 when Southern Democrats bolted from the party over civil rights, forming the States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats) behind Strom Thurmond. However, the real transformation occurred gradually through the 1960s and 1970s. In 1960, Kennedy won most Southern states, but by 1968, Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”—which used coded racial appeals and emphasized states’ rights—began peeling away white Southern voters.
The shift accelerated with cultural issues. The Democratic Party’s embrace of social liberalism, including abortion rights and church-state separation, alienated many socially conservative white Southerners. By the 1990s, the South had become a Republican stronghold. In 1992, Bill Clinton won several Southern states, but this proved to be the last gasp of Democratic competitiveness in the region. Today, Republicans routinely win 60-70% of white Southern votes in presidential elections.
The Hispanic American Evolution
Hispanic Americans present a more complex picture, with voting patterns varying significantly by national origin, generation, and geography. Initially, Mexican Americans in the Southwest leaned Republican, partly due to anti-Communist sentiment and social conservatism. However, several key moments shifted many Hispanic voters toward the Democratic Party.
César Chávez’s farm worker movement in the 1960s and 1970s aligned with Democratic support for labor rights. The 1994 California ballot initiative Proposition 187, which sought to deny services to undocumented immigrants, was strongly supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. This ballot measure, along with strong Republican rhetoric on immigration, alienated many Hispanic voters. In 1992, Republican George H.W. Bush won about 25% of the Hispanic vote nationally, but by 1996, Republican Bob Dole’s share dropped to roughly 21%.
The trend continued through the 2000s. While George W. Bush improved Republican performance among Hispanics—winning about 35% in 2000 and 44% in 2004—subsequent Republican positions on immigration reversed these gains. Barack Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008 and 71% in 2012, while Hillary Clinton won 66% in 2016 and Joe Biden won 65% in 2020.
However, Hispanic voting patterns remain more fluid than African American preferences, with significant variation by subgroup. Cuban Americans, particularly in Florida, have historically leaned Republican due to anti-Communist sentiment, though this is changing among younger generations. Mexican Americans in Texas and California trend Democratic, while those in New Mexico show more variation.
The White Working Class
The white working class—defined as whites without college degrees—represents another significant realignment. These voters formed the backbone of the New Deal coalition, supporting Democratic candidates through the 1960s based on economic populism and union solidarity.
The shift began with cultural issues in the 1960s and 1970s. The Democratic Party’s association with civil rights, feminism, and anti-war protests alienated many working-class whites. Richard Nixon’s appeals to the “silent majority” resonated with these voters. However, economic factors kept many white working-class voters in the Democratic camp through the 1990s.
The transformation accelerated in the 2000s and reached its peak with Donald Trump’s candidacy. In 2012, Barack Obama won about 40% of white working-class voters, but by 2016, Hillary Clinton won only 28% of this group, with Trump capturing 67%. This represented a seismic shift in American politics, as states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—traditional Democratic strongholds—flipped to Trump largely due to white working-class support.
The Diploma Divide
Education has become perhaps the strongest predictor of political preference in modern America. This represents a complete reversal from historical patterns, where higher education correlated with Republican voting.
The transformation has been dramatic. In 1992, college graduates split roughly evenly between parties. By 2020, Biden won college graduates by 17 percentage points (55% to 38%) and voters with postgraduate degrees by 25 points (62% to 37%). Conversely, Trump won voters without college degrees by 4 points (50% to 46%).
This educational divide intersects with geography and race in complex ways. Among white voters specifically, the educational gap is even starker. In 2020, Trump won white voters without college degrees by 35 percentage points (67% to 32%), while Biden won white college graduates by 4 points (51% to 47%). This represents a massive shift from 2012, when Romney won white college graduates by 14 points. This has transformed American electoral geography, with educated suburban areas becoming Democratic strongholds.
The educational divide has profound cultural implications. College-educated voters tend to hold more liberal views on social issues, environmental protection, and international engagement. They’re more likely to live in diverse communities and work in knowledge-based industries. Non-college voters are more likely to work in traditional manufacturing, agriculture, or service industries and hold more conservative views on cultural issues.
Religious Voters
Religious affiliation has become increasingly predictive of political behavior, though the patterns are complex. This represents a significant change from the mid-20th century, when religious affiliation was less politically relevant. White evangelical Protestants have become perhaps the most reliable Republican constituency, with 75-80% supporting Republican presidential candidates since the 1980s.
This alignment wasn’t inevitable. In 1976, born-again Christian Jimmy Carter won about 56% of white evangelical votes. However, the formation of the Moral Majority in 1979 and the Republican Party’s embrace of social conservative issues—particularly abortion and school prayer—created a strong bond between evangelicals and Republicans. By 1984, Ronald Reagan won about 81% of white evangelical votes, a pattern that has persisted.
Conversely, religiously unaffiliated voters—the fastest-growing religious category—have moved strongly Democratic. In 1992, this group split roughly evenly between parties. By 2020, the religiously unaffiliated voters flocked to the Democratic side.
The patterns are stark. In 2020, Trump won white evangelical Protestants by 61 percentage points (76% to 15%), while Biden won religiously unaffiliated voters by 30 points (65% to 35%). Weekly church attendees supported Trump by 18 points, while those who never attend religious services supported Biden by 28 points.
The religious divide intersects with broader cultural changes. America is becoming less religious overall—the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian has declined from 78% in 2007 to 65% in 2019, while the religiously unaffiliated have grown from 16% to 26%. This trend favors Democrats, as secular Americans vote Democratic at rates of 65-70%.
The Gender Gap
The gender gap in American politics emerged in the 1980s and has widened over time. Initially, men and women voted similarly, but several factors drove divergence. Women’s increasing participation in the workforce, the feminist movement, and differing views on social issues created distinct voting patterns.
The gap became apparent in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won men by 20 percentage points but women by only 6 points. It has generally widened since then. In 2020, Joe Biden won women by 15 percentage points while losing men by 8 points—a 23-point gender gap.
The pattern varies by marital status and education. Single women, particularly single mothers, vote Democratic at rates of 60-70%, while married women are more competitive. College-educated women have moved particularly strongly toward Democrats, while non-college women remain more divided.
Urban-Rural Polarization
Perhaps no division is more stark in contemporary American politics than the urban-rural split. This geographic polarization has reached levels not seen since the Civil War era, creating what political scientists call “the big sort”—the clustering of like-minded Americans in politically homogeneous communities.
The data tells a compelling story. In 1976, only 27% of Americans lived in “landslide counties” where the presidential winner received more than 60% of the vote. By 2020, this figure had risen to 58%. Joe Biden won just 16% of counties nationwide in 2020, but these counties generated 71% of America’s GDP and contained 67% of the population. Meanwhile, Donald Trump won 84% of counties, representing 29% of GDP and 33% of the population.
This geographic divide extends beyond economics to cultural and educational differences. Urban areas have become increasingly diverse, educated, and secular, while rural areas remain more homogeneous, less educated, and religious. In 2020, Biden won 87% of counties where more than 50% of adults had college degrees, while Trump won 83% of counties where fewer than 30% had degrees.
The urban-rural divide has profound implications for governance. The Senate’s structure gives rural states disproportionate power—the 25 least populous states, containing 16% of the population, control 50% of Senate seats. This means that increasingly Democratic urban areas have less representation in one chamber of Congress, while increasingly Republican rural areas have more.
The Youth Vote Revolution
Generational change represents perhaps the most significant long-term challenge to current political alignments. Younger Americans hold dramatically different political views than their elders, and these differences appear to be persistent rather than temporary.
The generational gap is unprecedented in its scope. In 2020, Biden won voters under 30 by 24 percentage points (60% to 36%), while Trump won voters over 65 by 5 points (52% to 47%). This represents the largest generational gap in modern American politics.
More importantly, younger voters’ political preferences appear to be “sticky”—meaning they’re likely to persist as these voters age. Research by political scientists shows that voters’ party preferences are largely formed during their first few presidential elections and tend to remain stable throughout their lives. This suggests that Millennials and Generation Z, who came of age during the Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies, may remain Democratic-leaning throughout their lives.
The generational divide extends beyond party preference to fundamental views about government’s role. Younger Americans are more supportive of government intervention in the economy, more concerned about climate change, and more accepting of social change. A 2021 Pew Research survey found that 61% of Americans under 30 believe the government should do more to solve problems, compared to just 39% of those over 65.
The Changing American Electorate
America’s increasing racial and ethnic diversity is reshaping politics in fundamental ways. The non-Hispanic white share of the electorate has declined from 87% in 1976 to 67% in 2020, and it’s projected to fall below 50% by 2044.
This demographic change has significant political implications. In 2020, Biden won 87% of Black votes, 65% of Hispanic votes, and 63% of Asian American votes, while Trump won 58% of white votes. As the electorate becomes more diverse, this creates a mathematical challenge for Republicans, who remain heavily dependent on white voters.
However, the relationship between race and politics is evolving in complex ways. Trump actually improved his performance among some minority groups in 2020, winning 32% of Hispanic votes (up from 28% in 2016) and 18% of Black men (up from 13% in 2016). This suggests that racial voting patterns aren’t fixed and that both parties have opportunities to expand their coalitions.
The Hispanic vote is particularly fluid and represents a key battleground. Hispanic voters are not monolithic—Cuban Americans vote differently than Mexican Americans, and recent immigrants vote differently than third-generation Hispanic Americans. Economic concerns often outweigh cultural issues for many Hispanic voters, creating opportunities for both parties.
Economic Status and Political Preference
One of the most significant changes in American politics has been the “class inversion”—the reversal of traditional relationships between economic status and political preference. Historically, wealthier Americans voted Republican while working-class Americans voted Democratic. This pattern has partially reversed, particularly among white voters.
The data reveals this transformation clearly. In 2020, Biden won voters earning under $50,000 by 11 percentage points, while Trump won voters earning over $100,000 by 10 points. However, this masks significant racial differences. Among white voters, Trump won both high-income and low-income voters, while Biden’s advantage came primarily from minority voters across income levels.
The class inversion reflects broader changes in the American economy. The decline of manufacturing, the rise of the knowledge economy, and increasing income inequality have reshaped class politics. Many working-class whites feel left behind by economic changes and cultural shifts, leading them to embrace populist appeals that prioritize cultural identity over economic interest.
The Digital Divide
The digital age has created new forms of political division, particularly around information consumption and technological adoption. Social media algorithms create “filter bubbles” that reinforce existing beliefs, while the decline of shared news sources has led to divergent information environments.
Research shows that Republicans and Democrats increasingly consume different media and believe different facts about basic issues. A 2020 survey found that 88% of Biden voters believed climate change was a major threat, compared to just 21% of Trump voters. Similarly, 89% of Trump voters believed the 2020 election was fraudulent, compared to just 7% of Biden voters.
The information divide has profound implications for democracy. When citizens can’t agree on basic facts, democratic deliberation becomes nearly impossible. Social media companies’ content moderation decisions have become political flashpoints, with conservatives claiming censorship and liberals demanding more action against misinformation.
Foreign Interference
America now faces an unprecedented assault on our social cohesion from sophisticated information warfare and institutional infiltration campaigns orchestrated by foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran and Qatar. Through social media manipulation, strategic misinformation campaigns, university funding schemes, and the orchestration of civil unrest, external actors have successfully turned Americans against one another while advancing their own geopolitical interests.
Social media platforms have become the perfect weapon for foreign manipulation because their business models depend on engagement, and divisive content generates the highest engagement rates. Foreign interference operations create fake accounts that amplify divisive content, use AI-generated content to inflame existing tensions, promote conspiracy theories that undermine trust in institutions, and coordinate inauthentic engagement to make fringe views appear mainstream.
New Coalitions
Understanding these divisions, both parties are adapting their strategies to build winning coalitions. These adaptations reveal how political leaders are responding to demographic and cultural changes.
The Democratic Party faces the challenge of maintaining its diverse coalition while appealing to persuadable voters. The party’s success depends on maximizing turnout among young voters, minorities, and college-educated suburbanites while not alienating more moderate voters. Recent Democratic victories in states like Georgia and Arizona demonstrate the potential of this strategy, as growing suburban populations and increasing minority turnout have made traditionally Republican states competitive.
However, Democrats face challenges with some key groups. The party’s losses among Hispanic voters in 2020, particularly in South Texas and South Florida, suggest that Democratic appeals based on identity politics may not resonate with all minority communities. Similarly, the party’s struggles with working-class voters of all races highlight the tension between its progressive agenda and more moderate voters’ preferences.
The Republican Party faces different challenges. The party’s dependence on white voters in an increasingly diverse country creates a mathematical problem that becomes more difficult over time. However, Republicans have opportunities to expand their coalition by appealing to socially conservative minority voters, particularly Hispanic Americans and African Americans who hold traditional views on social issues.
Trump’s populist approach demonstrated that Republicans could win working-class voters, including some minorities, by emphasizing cultural identity over economic conservatism. However, this strategy came at the cost of college-educated suburbanites, who fled the party in large numbers during the Trump era.
The Future of American Political Divisions
Looking ahead, several trends are likely to shape the evolution of American political divisions. First, generational replacement will continue to benefit Democrats, as younger, more diverse, and more liberal voters replace older, whiter, and more conservative ones. This demographic tide is particularly pronounced in Sun Belt states like Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina.
Second, the educational divide is likely to persist and potentially deepen. As the economy becomes more knowledge-based, the cultural and economic differences between college-educated and non-college voters may increase. This could lead to further geographic sorting, with educated workers clustering in urban areas and non-college workers remaining in rural areas.
READ: Mirror movements: Democratic socialism vs. MAGA in the battle for America’s future (July 3, 2025)
Third, the urban-rural divide may intensify as economic opportunities continue to concentrate in metropolitan areas. Climate change, automation, and globalization are likely to accelerate these trends, potentially creating even starker geographic divisions.
Of course, these trends aren’t inevitable. Political coalitions can shift based on events, leadership decisions, and strategic choices. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, may have lasting effects on political preferences. Similarly, economic crises, foreign policy challenges, or social movements could reshape political alignments in unexpected ways.
Implications for American Democracy
These deepening divisions have profound implications for American democracy. High levels of polarization make compromise difficult, gridlock more common, and governance less effective. When political identities become central to personal identity, politics becomes a zero-sum game where the other side’s victory represents an existential threat.
The geographic concentration of partisans in different areas creates additional challenges. When Democrats cluster in cities and Republicans in rural areas, representatives have fewer incentives to appeal across party lines. This can lead to the election of more ideologically extreme candidates who prioritize partisan loyalty over bipartisan cooperation.
Moreover, the intersection of geographic, educational, and cultural divisions creates the potential for more serious conflicts. When political differences align with other social cleavages—urban versus rural, educated versus non-educated, religious versus secular—they can become more intense and harder to resolve.
Navigating the Divide
Understanding America’s political divisions requires recognizing their deep historical roots and complex interactions. The current polarization isn’t simply about policy disagreements but reflects fundamental differences in values, worldviews, and life experiences. These differences have been shaped by decades of demographic change, economic transformation, and cultural evolution.
The evolution of these divisions will depend on choices made by political leaders, voters, and institutions. Leaders who prioritize partisan advantage over national unity may deepen divisions, while those who seek common ground may help bridge them. Voters who retreat into ideological bubbles may become more polarized, while those who engage across differences may find shared interests.
Ultimately, the future of American democracy depends on the ability to manage these divisions constructively. This doesn’t require eliminating disagreement—healthy democracies always feature political competition. Rather, it requires maintaining shared commitments to democratic norms, constitutional principles, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
The patterns that created current divisions are powerful and persistent, but they’re not permanent. Just as previous generations navigated their own political crises and realignments, contemporary Americans will find ways to bridge divides and strengthen democratic institutions. The key is understanding these patterns clearly, acknowledging their complexity, and working deliberately to address the underlying causes of division while preserving the benefits of democratic competition.
(Ajay Raju, a venture capitalist and lawyer, is the author of The Review, a new column that attempts to decode the patterns emerging from the unprecedented shifts reshaping our world. In a world where adaptation is survival, The Review offers a compass for the journey ahead).