Dr. Amanda Weinstein
Director of Research at the Center on Rural Innovation. With a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, her work provides insights into local labor markets, workforce development, entrepreneurship, and economic development strategies.
Email: amanda.weinstein@ruralinnovation.us
Dr. Adam Dewbury
Researcher at the Center on Rural Innovation with a Ph.D. in anthropology, specializes in rural economic development, political economy, and food systems, drawing from extensive experience in deeply rural areas like New York’s Adirondack Park.
U.S. Election 2024
25. Seeing past the herd: Polls and the 2024 election (Dr Benjamin Toff)
26. On polls and social media (Dr Dorian Hunter Davis)
27. How did gender matter in 2024? (Prof Regina Lawrence)
28. The keys to the White House: Why Allan Lichtman is wrong this time (Tom Fisher)
29. Beyond the rural vote: Economic anxiety and the 2024 presidential election (Dr Amanda Weinstein, Dr Adam Dewbury)
30. Black and independent voters: Which way forward? (Prof Omar Ali)
31. Latino voters in the 2024 election (Dr Arthur D. Soto-Vásquez)
32. Kamala’s key to the polls: The Asian American connection (Nadya Hayasi)
33. The vulnerability of naturalized immigrants and the hero who “will fix” America (Dr Alina E. Dolea)
34. Did Gen Z shape the election? No, because Gen Z doesn’t exist (Dr Michael Bossetta)
35. Cartographic perspectives of the 2024 U.S. election (Prof Benjamin Hennig)
Rural voters were considered pivotal to Trump’s first presidential victory in 2016 – when he won the electoral college but not the popular vote. Yet, the influence of rural counties on the electoral college is often overstated and oversimplified (for example, one of the most rural states in the nation, Vermont, is a democratic stronghold). In 2020, Trump lost the electoral vote despite increasing the share of rural voters voting Republican. In 2024, Trump continued to increase the share of rural voters supporting Republicans, consistent with previous trends, but less rural (more populous) states saw an even larger increase in the share of support for Trump (Figure 1). Ultimately, smaller shifts in the urban and suburban areas of key swing states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin) secured both the electoral and popular vote for Trump.
Historically, the divide between rural and urban voting preferences was not stark. Trends in the share of Republican votes in rural and nonrural counties were nearly identical between 1970 and 1992. However, starting in the 1990s and accelerating into the early 2000s, rural voters began shifting their support to the Republican Party. From 2000 to 2020, the gap has widened with Republicans gaining a larger share of the rural vote over time (Figure 2).
In The Rural Voter, authors Nicholas Jacobs and Daniel Shea (using the largest national survey of rural voters to date) present a more complex portrayal of rural America. Their analysis underscores how a strong sense of place intersects with economic anxiety to influence political perspectives and voting behavior. This economic anxiety is backed by data. The widening of the rural-nonrural gap in job growth preceded the rural-nonrural voting gap by about a decade with rural areas experiencing stagnant job growth since 2000. What happened? While larger economic trends including automation and globalization have led to higher total employment and GDP for the nation, they have disproportionately negatively affected rural areas that are now more likely to be reliant on manufacturing than agriculture (with manufacturing at about 11% of rural employment compared to 6% for agriculture). Home to many swing states (and former swing states), the Midwest has also been hit hard by declines in manufacturing employment. Recent gains in manufacturing employment have largely benefitted the Sun Belt and Mountain West (not the Midwest). Yet, far less attention has been paid to how the shift toward the service economy and the rise of the knowledge economy has disproportionately benefited large incumbent metropolitan areas (see Eckert et al., 2023 and the Center on Rural Innovation, 2023).
There is no lack of economists and political pundits who seem puzzled by the disconnect between indicators that suggest a strong national economy—such as low unemployment, high GDP, and real wage growth – and historically low levels of economic confidence. Despite positive signs, like lower inflation rates, people have not seen concomitant decreases in the prices they pay for consumer goods and services, a major concern for many. It is difficult, if not impossible, for Americans to recognize our economy’s upward trend when they struggle to afford necessities like food, shelter, and health care. Many concerns for rural residents (such as access to affordable health care) are downstream effects of not having access to economic opportunity – high-paying jobs in growing sectors. Geographic inequality in income has increased by more than 40% since 1980 with richer areas getting richer and poorer places falling further behind. As inequality has grown in the U.S., national economic metrics have become less reflective of conditions for a growing portion of the population.
We have yet to meaningfully address the growing geographic inequality – or inequality in general – in this country. This lack of action doubtless contributes to the growing economic anxiety felt by many Americans – rural, suburban, and urban. Indeed, exit polls show that 80% of voters who identified the economy as the most important issue voted Republican. Economic anxiety may have influenced voters who usually vote Democrat to consider other choices.
Prices tend to be “sticky,” so consumers need time to adjust. But ignoring Americans’ economic anxiety risks deeper discontent unless we address local economic conditions and the root causes of disparities. We need a community-centered approach that fosters resilient local economies by tailoring solutions to each community’s unique assets and needs and ensuring access to essential resources—from broadband and education to venture capital. Venture capital is a critical resource to help new and innovative companies scale and grow, yet it still predominantly goes to just five large metropolitan areas on the coasts. Like rural electrification, these investments are overdue in many rural areas. A long-term, locally-focused strategy is crucial to reducing inequalities and rebuilding trust, but whether the new Trump administration will rise to this challenge remains to be seen.